little-ginge

Case 1: Bloke pulled over, given breath test and passed. Given a roadside drug sobriety test (dilated pupils measured on chart, made to try to touch tip of nose with tip of finger, walk in a straight line etc). Copper made him pull up his sleeves where needle marks could be seen.

Was taken back to police station where a Doc confirmed that the man was giving the impression of being under influence of drugs so urine sample was taken. It was found to be positive for almost everything - cocaine, heroin, dope - you name it he had taken it.

Case 2: Man reported as drink driving by member of public who had witnessed him drinking then going off in his car. He had been home 20 minutes by the time the police turned up on his doorstep to arrest him. In this time he had drunk a mug of some alcoholic drink. They took him to the police station and breath tested him - 90mg of alcohol in his sample.

Never realised that when a member of the public reports a drink driver, they can still be arrested even when they had got home, conusmmed further alcohol, and had time for this to get into their system - surely this can't be right? Is it reliable that this guy was over the limit before the police got to him? How can they prove that?


What do you think the punishments were?
Case 2: The man is still awaiting trial.

Case 1: Man was released as prosecution didn't have enough evidence!!!???

Another case of the law is an ***

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

I have no idea why case #1 was dropped, but probably someone scr*wed up somewhere.

Case #2 is rather more complex. Yes, the police can come around to your house up to several hours after an accident and arrest plus breathalyse you. An expert scientist will examine what you say you drank, and when you say you drank it. They will then do a series of calculations that will say whether you are lying or not. It's not infallible, and under certain circumstances cannot be done at all, but at times it works well. This particular defense is the so-called "hip-flask" defense, or at least a variation. Some Scandinavian countries have a more sensible law: it is illegal to drink alcohol within 24 hours of an accident.


M

little-ginge

Are you a policemen perchance?

dpb

.We have soon catching up to do with our neighbours across the waters as far as drug tolerance is concerned im sure. However as far as i can see alcohol is the predominant culprit

Scrappy9

Yes but the home drinker bloke had not had an accident, so I guess he would have been free to drink?

In my opinion I doubt that they will get a conviction on that bloke, which is a real shame.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

This is what Profiles are for...


And are you seriously suggesting that it's OK to drink and drive just as long as you don't have an accident? Or are you suggesting that because one case went pear-shaped all "lesser" cases should therefore be dropped?


M

Rage!

And what was the point of the road side drugs testing?

They stop you for no reason at all, swab your steering wheel and then try and intimidate you because you have traces of drugs on your steering wheel? wtf!?

pwhittle

I must agree that seemed a pointless waste of resources. Unless they found drugs on or in the driver, there's no way of saying who the traces came from.

I was livid that the uninsured bloke who hit the biker got away with it. Maybe is uninsured drivers had their pants well and truely sued off after an accident, they may reconsider. thern again, they'd plead povity and the judge would ask if they wouldn't mind paying 8p a week.

Abdabz

I think its ridiculous that they catch an unisured driver with no license, chat away like best mates and send him off with his mates for a p155 up... Cuff him and get him in the cells FFS...
As for pulling in police from all over the county to stop 500 cars and find less than 10% with any naughtiness was a complete waste of resource. I reckon the usual traffic cops would have routinely found that amount on their normal rounds...
I bet when a burglary was taking place in suburban Portsmouth, the police would have had no-one to send "Too Busy"...
Sometimes these programmes can be a good PR excercise for the police and it makes good entertainment, but sometimes they do come across as total plonkers

J_sca001

You all whinge about what we do or rather how little we do. We enforce the law, not make it! You think your pissed off with it. You want to try working with it!!! It's a bitch to say the least And it's psychology. See, you all think the cop is dumb by being nice to offenders. Be naturally nice to someone and it's hard to continue to be nasty back, granted it does'nt always work. But "****s" or "*******" as we refer to them are often abit thick and suddenly think your their best mate, resulting in them talking and slipping up during conversation. If under caution this can be used in evidence.
I have to admit the swabbing of the steering wheel was a load of bollucks! Just a publicity stunt for the force.
As for the big "ring of steel", agreed it was abit of a waste of time. But if you looked closely and knew any better most of the cops used were traffic, the routine real workers were still out and about doing the real Police work!
Most traffic cops go for the easy target, as i'm sure you know . However, if you were all in your work place and you had the choice of an easy job or a right ball acher, what would you choose? Over to you guys and galls!

Dream Weaver

I've nothing bad to say about any of the coppers in the show, they all seem a laugh.

But the "Case 2" as above was very confusing. According to that, some coppers could come round to my house tonight after i've had 5 cans of lager and pull me fro drink driving cos I was seen driving hours earlier

That seems odd, I always thought once you are out the car and at home you are safe enough?

And I DONT mean in a "condoning drink driving" way either. Drink driving is ridiculous, but it does worry me about having some beers when I get in tonight as essentially you can be pulled in your own home?

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Again: it is easy to show whether the drinks you had at your house had any effect on your blood alcohol level. And the alternative is to say that as soon as a person gets home then they can no longer be prosecuted, like a 3D version of Ludo. I can just imagine how people here would react if a drunk driver rammed their car, drove home, dashed inside and sank a bottle of wine and the victim was then told: "Sorry mate, we can't charge him because he got home".


M

michaelro

I caught some of that programme.

I'm sure at the station the copper said it was up to the man to prove he had consumed alcohol rather than the police having to prove he hadn't.

Not innocent until proven guilty then....

scoobynutta555

I was a bit mystified with the swaps from the steering wheel. What's all that about? Surely there's only evidence to convict if you're under the influence etc, or not according to case 1 above £50,000 machine or something, for what? I note that at the moment they have to ask permission to test the surfaces of the car or not, I'll bet in time that they won't need that permission.

I found the girl, who parked on a crossing about 5 foot from the kerb, and her mates were a proper pain in the @rse and they should have got a more severe talking too. What proper ***** to suggest that there was nothing wrong with what she did and that the cop should be catching more worthy criminals. She should have been given 6 points which would mean her re-taking her test (being a new driver?), if she passed one in the first place with her crap driving. That might take the wind out of her sails along with the rest of her moronic mates.

scoobynutta555

That's what I thought too, whatever happened to them proving he was guilty, thought that was the law in this country, innocent 'til provern guilty!

Dracoro

There is one other rather serious point to make: I really think Dumbledore should be clamping down on all this under-age drinking by his young wizards. Damn nuisances.

Dream Weaver

That's fair enough, but what about some unscrupulous copper who has a grudge coming to my house tonight and saying he'd seen me driving (when I hadn't been) and I was over the limit?

Is that it, game over? Not saying it will happen, I don't really drink anyway and don't have any grudges with cops, but I just found it odd.

Clarebabes

That guy was really funny! He just didn't get it!

Shark Man

Harry Pothead and the Philosopher's stoned

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

First of all he'd need the witness to say in court that you were driving. Next, if you had a coherent story of what you had drunk while in the house, and the evidence to prove it (empty cans etc) and this tallied with your alcohol level then any case against you would collapse. But to take an extreme example: bloke over the DD limit crashes, then drives home. He is caught twenty minutes later and claims that he drank five cans of Special Brew. His blood alcohol thirty minutes after the accident is twice the legal limit. He has no empty cans of SB in the house or the bins. In addition it would take a lot longer than thirty minutes for the alchol needed to get from the legal limit to twice the limit to get into his blood stream, so the story is clearly nonsense, as such stories usually are (they nearly always change radically after the expert submits their report).


M

Wish

iTrader: (2)

So out of all the criminals shown last night the only person that was gone out of all the drink and drug users and uninsured drivers, was the girl parked on the zig zags !!!!

little-ginge

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit

Where did I suggest *that*? I merely asked how they could prove what had happened - and thanks to Michaelro for providing what was said on the programme - I missed that bit.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

I didn't see the program; but as soon as you provide a sample of blood or breath which is over the legal limit on an official machine then the offense is proved as far as the law is concerned. Unless you can show that that you were below the limit at the time of the accident then the you are scr*wed. The evidence from the machine is absolute - you have to find an explanation that will convince the court.


M

SCOsazOBY

Ok then what if i had it in for my neighbour and he is sat at home having a few beers and i rang the cops anonamously saying id seen him driving home looking p1ssed does that mean they come round arrest and breathalise him. It just doesnt make sense, unless you are caught breaking the law or theres substantial evidence to say you have such as cctv witnesses etc, i dont see how the police have a leg to stand on!!

little-ginge

Thats where I was getting a bit confused...

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Is this National Make Up a Paranoid Stupid Scenario Week, and I missed the announcement? If your neighbour had a brain he could simply say: "Go and feel the engine". The feds would use their deductive powers based on a stone-cold engine to realise that someone had been telling porkies.

The owner would have a perfectly valid defence based on no proof that he was driving, even if the engine was a little warm. If the engine had been running within the last hour he might have a problem, but unless you were prepared to testify in court (and risk a conviction for perjury) then the evidence that he had been driving would almost certainly be considered to slim and the case would be dismissed. I doubt anonymous evidence would stand up in court - it usually doesn't.


M