Mr Clowning Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The police can only require a breath test if you are actually driving, or in teh process of doing something completing that journey. For example if I drove home, went in the house, sat down and turned on the TV I can quite legally refuse a request for a breath test. However, if they stopped me in the act of closing the garage door after parking the car, then they can require a breath test as that action is part of the journey. That's how I would have imagined it to be. The officer starts plucking at straws from the off saying 'you've been drinking this morning' then onto say 'you've arrived in your car this morning'. Both statement he makes highlights this arrest was further on in the day. In fact watching it back the officer (who's number I cannot see) never even states he witnessed him in a car, and just goes from asking him if he was in one, to saying it like it is a fact. How does he go from asking a question if he drove to stating he did ? If he did know he was driving then he would most certainly not start off by asking him if he had. He then gets some intel as to where his car is over his ear piece or he just has intel on who all the main actors are from his briefing and just asks where his car is and says its in the most likely place where everyone else has parked. Its plain as day that it was just to get his camera away from the arrests (heavy handed from the sound) of the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EASTWOOD141 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 coppers shouldn't push people too much, look what happened when they pushed john j rambo too far, he blew the town up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The police can only require a breath test if you are actually driving, or in teh process of doing something completing that journey. For example if I drove home, went in the house, sat down and turned on the TV I can quite legally refuse a request for a breath test. However, if they stopped me in the act of closing the garage door after parking the car, then they can require a breath test as that action is part of the journey. That's not quite the case Obelix, they can request a sample if they believe you've been driving and have alcohol in your system. For example cases where they receive reports from people who've witnessed someone drinking in a pub and the police go to their home to administer a test, in such cases the suspect might not be in possession of his car or committed any moving traffic offences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epic Fail Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 That's not quite the case Obelix, they can request a sample if they believe you've been driving and have alcohol in your system. For example cases where they receive reports from people who've witnessed someone drinking in a pub and the police go to their home to administer a test, in such cases the suspect might not be in possession of his car or committed any moving traffic offences. How do they prove that the person was drunk at the time of driving? Or do they just hope the person admits that they were? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The police can only require a breath test if you are actually driving, or in teh process of doing something completing that journey. For example if I drove home, went in the house, sat down and turned on the TV I can quite legally refuse a request for a breath test. However, if they stopped me in the act of closing the garage door after parking the car, then they can require a breath test as that action is part of the journey. Rubbish of course!! If the police believed you had been driving under the influence they will and can require you to take a breath test and refusal will end up with a charge for that instead. That isnt the same as what happened with the guy on the video though,even if he had drove that morning he is entitled to drink as much as he likes afterwards provided he has no intention of driving. There is no intention as ive seen so even if he was 3 times over it wouldnt matter,it wouldnt be proof he drove in that condition which is why its not only a pointless excercise,its obvious what the goal is. The guy seems pretty sober to me,not that it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 How do they prove that the person was drunk at the time of driving? Or do they just hope the person admits that they were? They 'back calculate' the amount of alcohol in a blood sample based on the known rate of how fast alcohol metabolises in the body. If you provide a positive breath/blood sample the onus is actually on the defendant to prove it-it's called the hip flask defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epic Fail Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 They 'back calculate' the amount of alcohol in a blood sample based on the known rate of how fast alcohol metabolises in the body. If you provide a positive breath/blood sample the onus is actually on the defendant to prove it-it's called the hip flask defence. I didn't know that. Seems like a lot to go through for such a potential offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Rubbish of course!! If the police believed you had been driving under the influence they will and can require you to take a breath test and refusal will end up with a charge for that instead. That isnt the same as what happened with the guy on the video though,even if he had drove that morning he is entitled to drink as much as he likes afterwards provided he has no intention of driving. There is no intention as ive seen so even if he was 3 times over it wouldnt matter,it wouldnt be proof he drove in that condition which is why its not only a pointless excercise,its obvious what the goal is. The guy seems pretty sober to me,not that it matters. If he gave a positive breath sample and subsequent positive blood sample and claimed he'd been drinking after he'd parked his car he'd have to prove his alcohol levels didn't place him above the permitted limit at the time he was driving, by providing scientific evidence which supported his defence. ---------- Post added 05-02-2014 at 10:00 ---------- I didn't know that. Seems like a lot to go through for such a potential offence. You can imagine it's an argument all drink drivers would use by keeping a hip flask in their possession and guzzle it if they were stopped by police, if it were an easy defence to use. More info here http://www.forensicresources.co.uk/blood-alcohol-testing.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptowngirl Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 No its not./ police cant ask for a breath specimen just because they dont like you./ they have to have a reason ./ this officer should be sacked who does he think he is god. That is incorrect. The police can require you to give a specimen of breath if they suspect that you may have been driving. And You can still be convicted. The Police have the right to request the specimen based on a suspicion of whether you were driving. It is not critical to the offence that their is suspicion is correct. Your refusal to give a specimen on the basis that you do not believe the request is justified is an offence. So even if it can be proved that you weren't driving the offence is failure to provide and could carry a prison sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 There have been many occasions where people have been convicted for being over the limit because they've done as you suggested, the onus is on them to provide evidence that the alcohol they've consumed post driving is the reason they've given a positive breath test. The prosecution can use their own tests based on the rate alcohol metabolises in the human body to counter such a claim. Yep,there was one such case on "Police Interceptors" the other evening.. a girl left a club and went for a taxi..the taxi stopped but she changed her mind and went to her car,,the taxi driver saw this and reported her to the police 'cos he thought she'd had a couple too many..the police traced her car reg and found her at home..they breathalysed her,she was twice over the limit..the bobby felt the car engine,it was still warm..she was done for DD even though no policeman had seen her drive..she got a ban and fine.. ---------- Post added 05-02-2014 at 10:44 ---------- The police can only require a breath test if you are actually driving, or in teh process of doing something completing that journey. For example if I drove home, went in the house, sat down and turned on the TV I can quite legally refuse a request for a breath test. However, if they stopped me in the act of closing the garage door after parking the car, then they can require a breath test as that action is part of the journey. See my post above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.