Mark Miwurdz

...and no drama because I was 'Des' for the evening.

It's the first time in 27 years of driving that I've had to do a breath test (in the UK) and I was quite surprised by the manner in which it happened. A load of us had been at a local pub in rural Wiltshire and as I pulled out of the car park at around 11:15, I saw a marked police car over the road. Another car followed us out of the car park and we headed off in the same direction in a 30 zone about 100M apart. I checked the rear view mirror to see the police car overtaking the car behind us at which point he put all his lights on. I pulled over with the police behind me and the other car behind him.

He was at my window as it was winding down and here came the surprising bit (for me, at least). I forget the exact words but the thread of it was:

"Good evening sir. My colleague and I have just seen you leaving the pub and I have reasonable grounds to think you may have been drinking alcohol. I'm going to ask you to take a breath test." His colleague was doing a similar drill with the car behind us. The test proved zero and we went on our way.

He didn't infer that I had committed a moving traffic offence or that I had a tail light out or similar so has there been a change in the law?

BTW, I fully support this approach. Anybody who drinks and drives gets absolutely everything they deserve.

Cheers
Kav

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

I was designated driver last night,first time in ages. Its amazing how annoying drunk people are when you are sober

Mark Miwurdz

Too right and not in the least bit funny

Flaps

iTrader: (1)

I'm all for that me! Similar thing happened to myself a while back.

Poor Guy

good to see that. I think thats the best way to catch offenders who really do cause havoc, not turning usually honest people into offenders by scameraing them for doing 0.5mph over the limit.

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

I was breathalyzed during the Christmas period, never had a problem with it as I never touch a drop when I'm driving.
My ex girlfriends sister was run over by a pissed up ******** with no license,insurance etc about 5 years ago so I'm more than happy to be stopped as long as it gets these scum of the roads.

turboman786

[QUOTE=Mark Miwurdz;6546858

He didn't infer that I had committed a moving traffic offence or that I had a tail light out or similar so has there been a change in the law?

Cheers
Kav[/QUOTE]

They dont have to infer any 'moving' road traffic offence or a light out etc. They dont even need to give a reason as to why they have stopped you, as caselaw has endorsed the vieew that police can stop ANY driver on a public road, provided they (the police) are acting in good faith, ie not maliciously.

I guess the fact that youve just driven out of a pub car park, would more than justify the stop, if justification was required.

Stephb1986

ive never drunk and drove its stupid and im the only one out of all my mates who can drive anyway but i dont drink so its no big deal
they are a bit annoying when they are drunk though
but fair enough for checking to see if you have been drink driving i wish they would do it more round here as quite a few people have been ran over

talizman

iTrader: (1)

In layman's terms....

The police can stop ANY vehicle driving on a road to check the driver's documentation etc. At that time it may become apparent that he has been drinking due to the tell-tale signs - eyes glazed, speech slurred, minging of Sambuca

Obviously it goes without saying that under the above circumstances the police have power to require a breath test. Failure to provide is classed the same as being over the limit.

If the police stop a driver and they do NOT suspect alcohol, they can only REQUIRE a breath test if the driver has committed a moving traffic offence, or if he/she has been involved in an accident. If the above criteria cannot be satisfied, then they can still request (not require). If the driver refuses, no offence is committed.

In short, you are REQUIRED to provide a breath test if -:
a) alcohol is supected
b) moving traffic offence been committed
c) involved in RTA

The thread starter would come under a) as it is not unreasonable to suspect that the driver "may" have had a drink prior to leaving the pub.

HTH

Diesel

Must have been a quiet night on the 'domestics' front - Trafpol able to do their job properly and its great to see.

Think I was last breathalysed about 20 years ago but last fined for 36 in a 30 20 mins ago

D

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Indeed, other tell-tale signs include

a) Wearing burberry, especially a cap
b) Driving a 1.3 Orion
c) Being a scouser!
d) Displaying a sign in the back of the car window saying "A.A. is for quitters!"

Daryl

Whilst not disagreeing with the sentiments of this thread (that the police should be able to stop anyone who they think may be driving under the influence), I cannot agree with your assertion that a person leaving a pub and driving off in a car gives the police reasonable grounds to suspect that they are unfit to drive, or that they have even been drinking alcohol. This would have the implication that all drivers who park in pub car parks are liable to be challenged by the police on departure, on suspicion of drink driving.

There is a very narrow legal definition of 'reasonable grounds', because justice is such an important part of our democratic society and needs to be seen to be fair. In the case described by the OP, I would be concerned that the police officers were acting illegally. Had they been told that he had been drinking, or had seen him drinking, then that's a different matter.

Perhaps one of the resident boys in blue has a different opinion.

J_sca001

Talizman Perfectly put. How refreshing to here the law being read so accurately!
You a cop to??

talizman

iTrader: (1)

Perhaps I didn't explain to too well....

A car seen leaving a pub carpark, doesn't necessarily give "reasonable grounds" to suspect that the driver has consumed alcohol, however it does give reasonable grounds to suspect that they MAY have consumed alcohol, hence you may decide to pull this car over for a routine check (as empowered by the Road Traffic Act).
Once pulled over, the matter can then be dealt with under drink drive procedure IF the stop subsequently gives grounds to suspect that the driver has consumed alcohol.

If I saw a car pulling out of a pub car park, I'd certainly afford it more attention that the other cars on the road, at least until I satisfy myself that their driving appears "normal". Even then, I may still pull them for a chat and document check, just to be double sure. If they haven't had a drink then no harm done.

Spoon

That would have been more refreshing.

Diesel

Who'd be a copper? Scoobynet regulars woulkd be up in arms and castigating them if that car had knocked over a child [or maybe a Rotweiller!] and it transpired that police were nearby and had sat back watching it exiting a PUB [where drinking alcohol is the prime reason to visit I hear]. You cant win boys!!!

D

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Indeed. Perfectly logical and fair to do this. A pub is a venue that exists -first and foremost- for the consumption of alcohol. Not everyone who leaves in a car will have consumed alcohol, but by their very presence at the pub, there is good reason for the police to infer there is a chance they MAY have. If they haven't and the stop was conducted politely, there is no harm done. In fact, quite the opposite, as seeing the police taking a pro-active approach to drink driving (even if it means stopping some people who're innocent) may deter on-lookers who might have otherwise got behinf the wheel after drinking.

Ns04

J_sca001

Back now, been out on the ****! There's two words that we live by in this godforsaken violent oppressive depressing world we excist in! On a serious not they are reasonable and justifiable. If we as cops think this at all times there would less whinging ****ers. Unfortunately as i've said before there are dicks in all jobs. As a matter of fact over the years you get used to certain quotes from members of the public and you have similar answers. I have to say this is a minority of dicks. "DICK" says, "All you coppers are the ****ing same, *******". Cop, "What do you do for a living", (usually unemployed) For arguments sake, "Bricklayer" Cop, "I know a brick layer, he's a right ******, by definition that makes you one" In 11 years iv'e yet to have a reasonable answer to this, just a dumb look.
Going to bed now.
Take it easy and stay safe. Jamie

Daryl

Who is suggesting this? Certainly not me. I agree that drink driving is unacceptable, but I was questioning the legality of the grounds for pulling the vehicle over in the circumstances described.

If you decide to pull over the car for a routine check, then surely you can't suspect the driver of any offence, otherwise you would stop him under a different power. However you've already said that in these circumstances you think he 'may' have consumed alcohol, so why aren't you stopping him on suspicion of drink driving?

Sorry if I appear to be argumentative, but I would just like to get to the bottom of an apparent contradiction in the reason for initially stopping the vehicle. Surely it must be a legal stop for a prosecution to be successful - if I was a defence lawyer, I would say to you "Did you stop my client because you saw him leave the pub and thought he may have been drinking, or did you stop him for a documentation check?". I would be interested to know what you would reply and what interpretations different police officers have on this.

Diesel

Jamie, dont think you should get drawn in mate, let alone swear back. I also think it unwise that all the cops on telly seem to call the cons 'mate'. What happened to keeping a professional distance? D

talizman

iTrader: (1)

I think your over analysing the reason for the stop.

Regardless of any suspicions you may have about the driver, or any other legislative powers you have, you can stop them just for the sheer hell of it.

A "routine check" stop, CANNOT be challenged as you need NO reason whatsoever for pulling the driver.

If you decide to stop him as you saw him driving out of a pub car park, and that the circumstances gave reasonable cause for you to suspect that the driver MAY have consumed alcohol. then if you wanted, you could use this as your reason for the stop, but it wouldn't mean you had used different powers.

If the driver is subsequently over the limit, the conviction will always be upheld. the "legality" of the stop cannot be challenged as the grounds would be accepted by the court as reasonable to suspect that the driver had had a beer.
There is loads of stated case law on the matter if you want to read up further.

Personally, I could ALWAYS (and have always) justified to a court why I stopped a driver leaving a pub car park or any other place for that matter, always using "routine stop" powers.


Every stop is a "legal stop".... the Road Traffic Act 1988 says so

Whether you stop him as you suspect that he's had a drink, or, merely for a routine check, all stops are "legal"

In response to your defence lawyer question, I'd answer "both"

Leslie

I think it is time that the law was changed so that the driver may not drink at all. It is too easy to accidentally find yourself over the limit and it is just not worth it. KOT has got the right idea.

Les

talizman

iTrader: (1)

Daryl,

I've re-read this thread, and think that some issues could do with clarification.....

Firstly, when making the decision to stop a car, your power comes from Section 163 Road Traffic Act 1988 ("routine stop").

If you see a car on the road and you suspect that the driver has consumed alcohol, you use the above legislation to stop the car and you would then subsequently deal with the drink driving suspicion using the apropriate legislation. (Section 6 RTA 1988)

The drink driving legislation only comes in to play with regards to REQUIRING A BREATH TEST, not the actual stopping of the car.

I think your getting the two matters confused. The stop is legal (Section 163 RTA 1988) whether you stopped them for

a) a routine check
or
b) in order that you may deal with the driver in terms of Section 6 RTA 1988

talizman

iTrader: (1)

This is the power you use to stop cars, even those suspected of drink driving.

Once stopped, you revert to other powers to require a breath test.

mark engers

This is foolish nonsense and the ramblings of a deranged old man.

How will making the limit zero help with accidentally being over the limit unless you are practically tea total? How will determining whether you are over 0 mg be any easier than determining whether you are over 80 mg unless you haven't drunk for days in advance?

Or are you proposing that people don't drink alcohol for days before driving?

Or drink alcohol at all perhaps?

The fact is that the majority of people with 80mg or less alcohol in their blood drive safely, hence the limit was set there in the first place. I would also venture to suggest that they drive more competently than your average blue rinse or immigrant pootling around on his bombay driving licence.

Now, I know I can have 3 pints and drive home safely and legally so long may I continue to exercise my right to do so.

Leslie

As usual Engers, you are unable to make a post about someone who says different to your beliefs without rude and inaccurate insults. It is a certain sign of your innate immaturity.

It is quite reasonable to suggest that people should not drive when they have been drinking. Whatever you say, alcohol will impair your driving ability and your reaction time. It can also give you a false sense of your own ability to control machinery.

People are already advised not to drive if they have had a really heavy night before on the booze. It takes a finite amount of time to clear the alcohol and that will also vary from one person to another. If you are in that situation then it would only be responsible not to drive of course.

It is down to you to make a personal assessment in such a case and to err on the safe side. That is only being fair to other road users. Or is that too difficult a concept for you to take on board?

I you do drive when you should not have been at the wheel and write off your car or yourself, that is down to you, but I am thinking of the innocent person whom you may kill or injure in the process.

I sincerely hope that when you have had your three pints which is a fair bit of alcohol after all, however macho or manly you consider yourself to be, that you continue not to have an accident, especially involving someone else who is an innocent bystander. Maybe you should try a breathalyser test after you have given that amount of booze time to get into your system and see if you really are legal to drive!

Les

Brit_in_Japan

I think sir you are an **** !

Research shows that the effects of alcohol on the body can be measured at levels of 20mg/100ml and higher, so saying people are perfectly safe up to 80mg is not accurate. One's driving is affected, reactions slowed, judgment impaired.

The decision of the legislators is then at what level of alcohol concentration it becomes an unacceptable danger. In the UK, Ireland and maybe a handful of other countries, the limit in 80 mg/100 ml. In the majority of European countries the limit is 50 mg/100ml. In Sweden, Norway and Poland the level has been set at 20mg/100ml. And in Estonia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary the limit has been set at zero.

A zero limit, when up to 20mg has been shown to have negligible effect, would be an extreme position to take. But a limit of 20mg would undoubtedly stop accidentally being over the limit as you could not afford to have even one drink if you were driving. I favour a reduction to the main European limit of 50mg above which a ban is earned, and a fine if between 20-50mg.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Indeed. Furthermore, IIRC you can still be arrested for drink driving even if you are under the prescribed limit if, in the arresting officer's opinion, your driving has been adversely affected by the consumption of alcohol.

At the end of the day, one of the first things to be impaired by alcohol is judgement, so one may perceive their driving to be completely unimpaired when, in point of fact, it IS impaired.

If you drink, don't drive. If you were to have an accident after dinking (even if you were under the limit) you'd never know if alcohol was a factor and god forbid if anyone were killed or seriously injured, you'd never forgive yourself.

Ns04

King RA

Be thankfull the limit is 80mg and not 50mg. Had we brought breathalysers in a few years later, rather than be early adopters we would have had a 50mg limit.

2000TLondon

I think the limit should be zero....... It would be much easier for everyone and a lot clearer...... And somedays, depending on stress / diet / sleep patterns the effects of even a small amount of alcohol can be different.