1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Good job police

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by BunnyKillBot, 10 Nov 2011.

  1. Camarilla

    Hitman

    Joined: 26 Jul 2010

    Posts: 900

    Location: Hull/Bridlington

    You wouldn't necessarily arrest the person with the gun, but you would investigate the situation. If, in the course of that investigation, the person commited another crime, you'd then arrest them for that.

    That is what happened in this case. The police found a man, drunk, in a car, with the keys in the ignition. While investigating this, they asked for a breath sample (common practice if a person is suspected of being drunk). The man then commited a crime by refusing to give a sample of breath, for which he was arrested and charged.
     
  2. Vespasian777

    Hitman

    Joined: 9 Nov 2011

    Posts: 553

    Location: Bora Bora

    Mmm, it's a knotty one.
     
  3. Vespasian777

    Hitman

    Joined: 9 Nov 2011

    Posts: 553

    Location: Bora Bora

    I think that's about the size of it.
     
  4. mattyfez

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 12 Apr 2007

    Posts: 9,762

    So do people charged with being drunk and disorderly get breath tested, and charged if they are over the drink-drive limit? Even if there is no vehicle involved?
     
  5. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 76,645

    Of course not.
    But a vehicle was involved, he was sat in the drivers seat and the keys were in. That is more than enough grounds to investigate and take a sample.
     
  6. mattyfez

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 12 Apr 2007

    Posts: 9,762

    I'm trying to clarify where the line is drawn. What would actually happen if he did provide a positive test?
     
  7. CrispyOtter

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 6 Oct 2006

    Posts: 1,376

    Just to throw another realistic situation out there so I can understand the law a bit better...

    I drive to a motorway service station with a travel lodge and book a night. I have enough beer in the hotel bar to be over the drink drive limit. I realise I've left my mobile phone in the car. I walk outside and retrieve it from the car. Am I guilty of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle?

    Discuss.
     
  8. Gog

    Hitman

    Joined: 22 Jan 2006

    Posts: 771

    Location: Sarf Landon

    I'd say yes. If you weren't in charge of the vehicle then how would you be able to get the phone? I'd hazard a guess that you'd only get a slap on the wrist once the mitigating factors were known though.

    Furthermore if the police came to investigate a report of someone acting suspiciously in the car park and found you drunkenly groping around in your car, they would be enitled to ask for a sample. If you refused then you have no defence.

    At the end of the day, if you have a drink, don't go near your car. If you do and are stopped, give a sample if requested and get to argue mitigating factors in front of the magistrate (if CPS even bother taking it that far).
     
  9. Limpnoodle

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 19 May 2011

    Posts: 1,617

    Keys in the ignition, thats what gets you imo.
    Also sitting in the drivers seat ddoesnt help
     
  10. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 76,645

    Up to the cps, but in this case I expect it would of gone to court. If he argued his case then I would hope he would of got a lighter sentence.
     
  11. Richie

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,470

    Location: Entering Hell...

    He would have been taken back to the nearest police station and asked to provide another breath test on a more accurate machine and then it would be taken from there (Andy90 has already explained this earlier)

    A positive result on the roadside breath test machine is NOT enough to convict someone for drink driving as they are not accurate enough. The machines in the police stations are regularly maintained and are also calibrated before and after every breath test to ensure accuracy.

    To make it clear - you have not committed a "convictable" offence by providing a positive breath sample at the roadside. It does, however, give the cops the power to arrest you for suspicion of being over the limit so that they can take you to a local station and give a possibly "convictable" sample (dependant on your alcohol level)
     
  12. Scania

    Capodecina

    Joined: 25 Nov 2004

    Posts: 24,645

    Location: On the road....

    Hmm, not surprising.

    A common tactic by some forces is to target drivers who are parked for the night - sleeping in their vehicles - despite the fact we are on our legal rest period which means by law we cannot move and more to the point, should not be disturbed, they love to get the drivers up & breathalise them.

    I know a few who have lost their licences this way, and for this reason, if somebody knocks on my cab at night, I will ignore them - if its not a copper playing this game its usually some dirty old slapper saying "Want any businnes?" !
     
  13. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 12,016

    Location: Vvardenfell



    Just like "going equipped" and "conspiracy to commit" then?


    M
     
  14. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 12,016

    Location: Vvardenfell



    No, because we've established that you're not in charge of the vehicle. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and currently it's essentially "in or near the vehicle with the keys". There are some here who feel it should be "actually driving", but as others have pointed out, all the driver has to do is stop the car and change seats, then claim their mate was driving. Where would you have that line?


    M
     
  15. Kenai

    Capodecina

    Joined: 5 Apr 2009

    Posts: 20,820

    No idea if it has been mentioned or not and i've not got time to read 150 posts before work but if he was at a supermarket, it's highly unlikely he drove there, got hammered in Sainsbury's and then decided he couldn't drive back.

    He more than likely drove there drunk and that was probably a contributing factor to why they chose to punish him.
     
  16. [TW]Fox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 157,139

    The problem here is that he refused to supply a breath sample. Thats it. Nothing else is really that relevant because we don't know whether he'd have got off had he been charged with drink driving. He wasn't charged with drink driving, he was charged with failing to supply a specimen. Something even somebody who is sober can be charged with.

    The situation with his car is a red herring.

    We'll never know if he would have been convicted had he blown over the limit at the station. Perhaps not...?
     
  17. gillywibble

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 28 Jun 2007

    Posts: 52,814

    Location: Tamworth, UK

    Clearly not, as he wouldn't have been asked to provide a sample if he wasn't deemed to be 'in charge' of the vehicle.
     
  18. Robbo

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 2 Jan 2009

    Posts: 55,057

    He had the keys in the ignition and was sitting in the driving seat, it's not hard to see why the police were suspicious.

    He shouldn't have refused to give a sample, then with good legal representation (which he can no doubt afford) they could have got the message across in court, and even suggested tests were done on the car to see when it was last driven for example? They may not have even charged him if he was over the limit, who knows.

    He basically was stupid and shot himself in the foot with this, it isn't the fault of the police unless you think they should ignore everyone drunk in a car with the keys in the ignition just because the engine isn't on and the car isn't moving. I'd rather they didn't.
     
  19. Burnsy2023

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Nov 2003

    Posts: 36,636

    Location: Southampton, UK

    No, he'd need to provide a sample if a constable reasonably suspected he was in charge. The constable doesn't need to be right for the requirement to be in force.
     
  20. Wicksta

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 14 Sep 2005

    Posts: 10,445

    Location: Burnham, Bucks

    Hold on, what time was he intending on driving again? If he was that drunk he refused a breath sample he probably would have had to stay in the car until the next afternoon to even be slightly sure of having slept off enough alcohol.

    I can totally see why this law exists, people go out, get bladdered, sleep in their car and then just drive off in the morning when they think they are sober but are likely not. I can think of a few times I've seen people do it when I've been camping or at festivals etc.

    If he'd just had a few beers then in all likelihood common sense would have prevailed if he had taken a breath test, but he was dumb enough not to give a sample at all.
     
    Last edited: 11 Nov 2011