Lying cop caught on camera.

[Qualtrough]

I'm failing how they would require a breath test if he only saw him driving earlier in the morning ?

 

There had obviously been some time between his arrest and having been seen leaving the vehicle from what the officer was saying.

 

Police Powers

 

For the police to be able to require a breath test, a driver must have either:

 

(a) committed a moving traffic offence, e.g. speeding, failing to observe a stop sign, having a defective light etc.,

(b) have been involved in an accident to which the police were called, or

© have given the police grounds to suspect they had consumed alcohol above the legal limit, e.g. by draving erratically or walking unsteadily before getting into the car. It is questionable whether the mere fact of having driven out of a pub car park constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion

 

Although there have often been calls for the police to be given "unfettered discretion" to administer breath tests, this has never been implemented. However, in practice the police interpret the powers above very liberally - and who never exceeds the speed limit by at least a few mph? It is difficult to conceive of circumstances under which the current law prevents police from carrying out a breath test where they believe there is any chance of obtaining a positive result.

 

http://www.80mg.org.uk/ddlaw.html

 

As we don't know how much time has passed and the copper does perhaps we should leave it to him? I know its good sport to criticise soft targets but its cliched.

[kidneystone]

More people should film the police to make them more accountable when they go beyond their power of authority. They tried to stop

filming in his own garden

[Robbie Loving]

The police officer says he saw him getting out of the car that morning, he could have got blind drunk after that and not had to produce a breath test. If they wanted to get him for drink driving they should have waited until he got back in the car.

 

If I was that bloke I would have said yes I just drunk a bottle of vodka when I got out of the vehicle, at which point they would have had no grounds to challenge him further.

 

Precisely.

If he had only been drinking tea, then it is safe to assume he had been drinking prior to that and then drove, if alcohol was on his breath.

 

Simple solution, take the breathalyser.

[charmer]

I'm failing how they would require a breath test if he only saw him driving earlier in the morning ?

 

There had obviously been some time between his arrest and having been seen leaving the vehicle from what the officer was saying.

 

Police Powers

 

For the police to be able to require a breath test, a driver must have either:

 

(a) committed a moving traffic offence, e.g. speeding, failing to observe a stop sign, having a defective light etc.,

(b) have been involved in an accident to which the police were called, or

© have given the police grounds to suspect they had consumed alcohol above the legal limit, e.g. by draving erratically or walking unsteadily before getting into the car. It is questionable whether the mere fact of having driven out of a pub car park constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion

 

Although there have often been calls for the police to be given "unfettered discretion" to administer breath tests, this has never been implemented. However, in practice the police interpret the powers above very liberally - and who never exceeds the speed limit by at least a few mph? It is difficult to conceive of circumstances under which the current law prevents police from carrying out a breath test where they believe there is any chance of obtaining a positive result.

 

http://www.80mg.org.uk/ddlaw.html

 

 

 

Would you not say then that this situation fits c)? He smelt alcohol on the mans breath and had reason to believe that the guy was going to drive home. You can't be drunk in charge of a motor vehicle.

 

I am assuming that none of you have ever been impacted by drink driving and I am glad for this. The copper was right to investigate if he felt that a member of the public was about to commit a crime, especially one that endangers the life of others.

 

I like to bash coppers more than most of you, the made my life difficult when I was growing up because I had the temerity to grow up in a deprived area. Countless stop and searches (I would estimate at in the region of 800, 1000), beatings, lies about traffic infractions etc, but I applaud this copper.

 

Let me ask all you band waggoners this. If this copper thought there was even a 5% chance that this man planned to drive while drunk, do you not feel he should do everything in his power to prevent him?

[Epic Fail]

At which point you think the copper should have dropped the idea having been told only tea had been drunk?

 

No of course not. But there's no denying that the policeman knows full well he was saying tea.

[Qualtrough]

No of course not. But there's no denying that the policeman knows full well he was saying tea.

 

If you're a mind reader perhaps.

 

As he doesn't need to extract a worded 'confession' tea or two is all irrelevant. My years of reading body language and voices, as opposed to minds tells me the cop believes what he says. He also has no motive to lie, he only needs a breathylyser.

[RootsBooster]

Because the cop thought he backtracked and was now saying tea to cover himself. Because people lie and the cop wanted to see what he would say.

At which point does it seem like the guy was backtracking about "having two"?...

 

Cop: (Agitated and shoving the observer) I could arrest you, but I'm not going to arrest you, so.. it's in your benefit - are you drunk? Have you been drinking this morning? You've been drinking this morning

 

Observer: No I have not

 

Cop: You were drinking this morning

 

Observer: No I've not

 

Cop: You've been drinkin'

 

Observer: I've had tea

 

Cop: You've arrived in a car

 

Observer: No I've not

 

Cop: You arrived in a car this morning, you've had a drink, haven't you, you've had a drink this morning

 

 

No debate was required anyway, just a test. The backbone of the lying angle is about words which were irrelevant. All that mattered was the smell.

Last I heard, it isn't an offense to consume alcohol, not that I think the cop could smell it anyway.

 

Precisely.

If he had only been drinking tea, then it is safe to assume he had been drinking prior to that and then drove, if alcohol was on his breath.

 

Simple solution, take the breathalyser.

Crikey, you think that's a safe assumption to make?

[Epic Fail]

If you're a mind reader perhaps.

 

As he doesn't need to extract a worded 'confession' tea or two is all irrelevant. My years of reading body language and voices, as opposed to minds tells me the cop believes what he says. He also has no motive to lie, he only needs a breathylyser.

 

As a mind reader, I can confirm the policeman knew the guy meant tea.

[RootsBooster]

If you're a mind reader perhaps.

 

As he doesn't need to extract a worded 'confession' tea or two is all irrelevant. My years of reading body language and voices, as opposed to minds tells me the cop believes what he says. He also has no motive to lie, he only needs a breathylyser.

 

I would say you are a poor judge of body language and voice, any first year psychology student would be able to tell you that the cop is agitated and using body language and verbal tone in an intimidating way to get what he wants, most likely regardless of what he really believes about the observer

[shanes teeth]

As a mind reader, I can confirm the policeman knew the guy meant tea.

 

Does anybody know a good clarevoyant?