arrested for DD last night, refused to give sample

arrested for DD last night, refused to give sample

Author
Discussion

Dibble

12,925 posts

239 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
La Liga said:
Eclassy is going for the most amount of wrong information in a topic
I know. I CBA replying to it there's so much wrongness. It's a while since I did any drink drive so I'm rusty on the legislation, but a lot of what he's posted is utter sloblock (anag, 8 letters). I wonder how his complaint for the "wrongful arrest" of his friend is going?

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Eclassy said:
LoonR1 said:
Don't be such a drama queen. They had received complaints from two members of the public, with video evidence. One of the BIB on here has already stated that the RTA allows for entry under circumstances.
Only that the sections quoted have nothing to do with the power of entry.

Section 6(5) deals with the power to administer preliminary tests and 6D deals with arrest after tests
rolleyes
The power of entry is 6E(1) for the above purposes.
That's immaterial if she invited them in.



Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 20th April 01:38

Tango13

8,398 posts

175 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Helicopter123 said:
LoonR1 said:
I, for one, will shed no tears that another drink driver has been taken off the roads. One off, or whatever other excuse is irrelevant.
This is all.

Drink driving is not acceptable under any circumstances and must be punished.
I hate having an almost but not quite Eidetic memory at times...

There is a legal exemption for drink driving if the accused is saving a life by driving a person to a Hospital, it was posted here a while back, can't remember quite where though irked

Oh and LoonR1, your bullst thread on bike insurance was 15 months ago, not two years and it lasted from about 2:00PM on a Friday until the following Sunday evening, about 18:00 IIRC not the 'couple of hours' as you claimed a while back.


Eclassy

1,201 posts

121 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
SteveScooby said:
S.4(7) of the road traffic act gives a power of entry:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...




Edited by SteveScooby on Saturday 19th April 23:04
Cheers.

I believe this section is now repealed and power of entry now comes under section 17 PACE



Edited by Eclassy on Sunday 20th April 08:23

Engineer1

10,486 posts

208 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Dibble said:
I know. I CBA replying to it there's so much wrongness. It's a while since I did any drink drive so I'm rusty on the legislation, but a lot of what he's posted is utter sloblock (anag, 8 letters). I wonder how his complaint for the "wrongful arrest" of his friend is going?
Eclassy seems to inhabit a world where the pigs are out to get him and everyone he knows, which means their every interaction ends up forcing the police into arrests. Maybe a film crew should follow him and his friends to produce a documentary showing how not to interact with the police.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Tango13 said:
There is a legal exemption for drink driving if the accused is saving a life by driving a person to a Hospital, it was posted here a while back, can't remember quite where though irked

Oh and LoonR1, your bullst thread on bike insurance was 15 months ago, not two years and it lasted from about 2:00PM on a Friday until the following Sunday evening, about 18:00 IIRC not the 'couple of hours' as you claimed a while back.
So the old dear was saving a life was she? FFS.

As for the last bit. Whoop de fking doo.

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

216 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
If the person in the OP really has been charged with Dangerous Driving in conjunction with failure to provide, the one piece of advice worth giving is to go see a lawyer.

Depending on the circumstances prison can be a real possibility and this should be avoided at all costs.

Snowboy

8,028 posts

150 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Tango13 said:
I hate having an almost but not quite Eidetic memory at times...

There is a legal exemption for drink driving if the accused is saving a life by driving a person to a Hospital, it was posted here a while back, can't remember quite where though irked

Oh and LoonR1, your bullst thread on bike insurance was 15 months ago, not two years and it lasted from about 2:00PM on a Friday until the following Sunday evening, about 18:00 IIRC not the 'couple of hours' as you claimed a while back.
... you're holding a grudge still?

Eclassy

1,201 posts

121 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Cat said:
RTA 1988 s.6E does though and it provides powers of entry in relation to the 2 above sections.
Section 6E deals with entering to obtain preliminary test/arresting after an accident where there was injury

Cat said:
Some summary offences do. For instance see PACE 1984 s. 17(1)(c)(iiia) which provides a power of entry in relation to s.4 RTA - driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs
Section 17(1)(c)(iiia) deals with entry to make an arrest for Offences committed under section 4 RTA. I believe if entry is made under this section, it would be to make an arrest and not ask for a sample. Unless the constable witnessed the incident himself or had watched the video already and seen extremely bad driving, he can not claim to have reasonable suspicion to go and make an arrest based of third party information.

In an old job, I got several calls on a daily basis where disgruntled passengers were calling up to report bus drivers who were ''drunk''. Once I told them it was a quite serious offence and to call the police, many of them just hung up. This brings me back to what I posted earlier about someone reporting me to the police for drink driving because they know I drive home every Friday night sober but then end up getting really pissed in the comfort of my home. Are you saying plod can just roll up and break into my house to breathalyze/arrest me based of my neighbour's report?

Cat said:
No evidential test is required if she is being charged with failing to provide a preliminary test.
This is correct, thanks

Cat said:
Wrong. She allowed the officers into her home so they were there lawfully. A preliminary breath test can be required in any place where the officer is legally entitled to be.
There is no argument that they were there lawfully. My argument is whether a sample can be said to have been lawfully requested in my own home after police arrive based on 3rd party information. Imagine a situation where the police are in the neighborhood going from door to door making inquiries about a spate of burglaries in the street. I invite them in and as we chat, they spot a Sony laptop under my sofa and an ipod behind the TV, both items similar to the goods stolen during the reported burglaries. They are on my property legally but do they now have a power to search my house? I think NOT.

IANAL or BiB but remember Miss Maple had no formal training cop






Edited by Eclassy on Sunday 20th April 09:08

Greendubber

13,129 posts

202 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Brilliant.

I reckon arrested Sec 4
Failed to provide in custody


SteveScooby

797 posts

176 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Eclassy said:
. Unless the constable witnessed the incident himself or had watched the video already and seen extremely bad driving, he can not claim to have reasonable suspicion to go and make an arrest based of third party information.


Edited by Eclassy on Sunday 20th April 09:08
Of course he can.

If you ring 999 and say "I've just seen a man in a distinctive black and white hooped top, carrying a bag with swag written on it, he's burgled my neighbours house, by the way I filmed it on my phone."

Police attend and find person matching description on the next street. Can they not arrest him on suspicion of burglary until they have watched yiur footage?

Snowboy

8,028 posts

150 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
I guess it's one way to learn.
State something as fact, and then read all the comments where people correct you.

But it certainly isn't much fun for people to read.

If you're not 100% confident that what you're posting is correct have the decency to say that at the head of your post.
Discussing interpretation and opinions of laws is part if what this forum is about.
Correcting people who are giving wrong and dangerous advice isn't fun.

Hackney

6,811 posts

207 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
DBRacingGod said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
.... a bit "tired & emotional" & couldn't provide a breath sample-after a lot of goes it would seem."
Fail to provide (FTP) = absolute offence = day in court.

The officers involved can go for back calculation with regard to her DD, but may just run with FTP as the ban is mandatory.
Regardless of the reason, am I alone in thinking this is a bit harsh in certain circumstances?
Could there be a halfway offence of "tried but failed"?

It seems to me you'd have to be at death's door before you could reasonably not provide a sample.

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Hackney said:
x
It seems to me you'd have to be at death's door before you could reasonably not provide a sample.
That is why failure to provide is treated in the way it is .... it's not as though it's ome try and you are out to get charged with failure to provide you are going to have been given at least 3 and probably more like 10 opportunities if you includexboth roadside and evidential tests.

Greendubber

13,129 posts

202 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Hackney said:
Regardless of the reason, am I alone in thinking this is a bit harsh in certain circumstances?
Could there be a halfway offence of "tried but failed"?

It seems to me you'd have to be at death's door before you could reasonably not provide a sample.
Tried but failed?

You either provide a sample or you dont. It really is that simple.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Exactly, so there's no reason not to provide one other than trying to be clever.

Snowboy

8,028 posts

150 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
I'm pretty sure that those who fail but are trying can be offered blood tests or other options.

Eclassy

1,201 posts

121 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
SteveScooby said:
Of course he can.

If you ring 999 and say "I've just seen a man in a distinctive black and white hooped top, carrying a bag with swag written on it, he's burgled my neighbours house, by the way I filmed it on my phone."

Police attend and find person matching description on the next street. Can they not arrest him on suspicion of burglary until they have watched yiur footage?
Definitely, On the street. The person doesnt even have to match the description. The police just need reasonable suspicion. Remember, the person could have even disposed of the distinctive SWAG bag and clothing so they can arrest anyone in the vicinity who they have reasonable suspicion of. If the police arrive 30 mins after the burglary and see a crowd of people gathered outside a house and they all say the burglar ran in there. The police are empowered by section 17 to go in and effect an arrest without warrant even if the burglar resides there. It cant be said to be reasonable if the police arrive 2 days later and forcefully enter without a warrant.


My argument again is 'in your castle'. Section 17 clearly states scenarios where an officer can forcefully enter a property. To obtain a sample isnt one of those reasons. (A person who fails to stop under sec 163 can be chased into a dwelling and then be lawfully required to provide a specimen)

Caveat:IANAL.

Eclassy

1,201 posts

121 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Greendubber said:
Brilliant.

I reckon arrested Sec 4
Failed to provide in custody
Quite possibly only that according to OP she wasnt asked to give a sample at the station.

Arrest under section 4 will be deemed reasonable if plod can prove they watched the video and witnessed really bad driving before going to her house or got reports from SEVERAL members of the public of her driving badly.

Mike_Mac

664 posts

199 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Engineer1 said:
Eclassy seems to inhabit a world where the pigs are out to get him and everyone he knows, which means their every interaction ends up forcing the police into arrests. Maybe a film crew should follow him and his friends to produce a documentary showing how not to interact with the police.
Already been done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8