arrested for DD last night, refused to give sample

[10 Pence Short]

Eclassy said:

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.

It reads as if you're making it up as you go along.

[Eclassy]

Mike_Mac said:

Already been done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

LMFAO

"Get a white friend"

[Cat]

Eclassy said:

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.

The exact conditions where the powers of entry can be used are irrelevant in this case as the Police were invited in however your claim that arrests can't be made on the basis of witness evidence is wrong. The quotes above were in response to your incorrect statements that there are no powers of entry for drink drive offences/summary offences.

Eclassy said:

Cat said:

No evidential test is required if she is being charged with failing to provide a preliminary test.

This is correct, thanks

So why did you say the evidential test is the one that matters?

Eclassy said:

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.

It can be. You keep comparing it to searches it's not the same.

Eclassy said:

IANAL or BiB but remember Miss Maple had no formal training

You do know she wasn't real don't you? Using a fictional character to support your flawed claims is a bit strange

Cat

[Greendubber]

Cat, you're wasting your time.

[Engineer1]

Greendubber said:

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.

It has to be that simple or drunk tosser tries three times deliberately messing up the blow to avoid giving a sample but only getting punished for tried but failed.

[Greendubber]

Engineer1 said:

It has to be that simple or drunk tosser tries three times deliberately messing up the blow to avoid giving a sample but only getting punished for tried but failed.

Yep.

[Cat]

Greendubber said:

Cat, you're wasting your time.

Quite probably but if people don't correct the rubbish posted on here someone will end up believing it and end up getting themselves in to far worse bother because they try and rely on it in a similar situation.

Cat

[Greendubber]

Cat said:

Quite probably but if people don't correct the rubbish posted on here someone will end up believing it and end up getting themselves in to far worse bother because they try and rely on it in a similar situation.

Cat

And that would be their problem.

If you quote fact you'll have someone toddle off to Google to tell you that they understand it differently and argue to toss with you...pointless.

If anyone ever takes legal advice from here I'd suggest they need to go and see their GP on the way home from being found guilty at court.

[Eclassy]

Cat said:

The exact conditions where the powers of entry can be used are irrelevant in this case as the Police were invited in however your claim that arrests can't be made on the basis of witness evidence is wrong. The quotes above were in response to your incorrect statements that there are no powers of entry for drink drive offences/summary offences.

IANAL so maybe I havent made myself clear enough. IMHO even though it doesnt apply here, there will be no power of entry under section 17 if the circumstances as described by the OP if the lady had simply refused to let plod in. Police cant go breaking down peoples doors based on unverified about information about the driving ability of people. there will be situations where the police can act e.g. get a call from the pub landlord where the lady has been drinking, get sevral calls from people within a short space of time of bad driving by the same person.

Cat said:

So why did you say the evidential test is the one that matters?

I got this information from several solicitors websites specializing in drink driving cases. Google evidential test.

Cat said:

It can be. You keep comparing it to searches it's not the same.

It cant be. Just because I have invited a policeman on my property and he is legally there doesn't mean every request after that becomes lawful. I guess this would be for a judge to determine.

Cat said:

You do know she wasn't real don't you? Using a fictional character to support your flawed claims is a bit strange

Loosen up

Them being flawed are only in your opinion. People claiming to be plod have quoted sections that have either been repealed or have absolutely no correlation to the debate as fact.

[Greendubber]

......sigh

[dacouch]

I was stopped by the police once when I was two sheets to the wind, I failed the breathaliser test and was taken to the station. They tried to test be on the big breathaliser but this was not working so they took a urine test instead.

Just after taking the test they brought in two drunks who proceeded to fight with the officers, the alarm went off and all officers rushed to assist the custody sergeant. Being quite drunk I decided I could make a break for it as they had not locked my cell door. I slowly walked out and had to pass the room with the breathliser in that also had my urine sample in. I decided if I took this they would have no evidence and the case would get dropped.

I made it home having thrown the urine sample away on the way home, I was awoken in the morning (With a big hangover) by police at the door who proceeded to arrest me for taking the pi$$.

[Chrisgr31]

So where are we on all of this? Part of me asks as in reality this could happen to any one of us. You go to a pub and have lunch, you may have a glass of wine or beer and be perfectly legal to drive. On the way home you have brainfade (like many drivers do occasionally) and don't pay attention to your driving and swerve or whatever. Two drivers contact police (although to be fair it must be fairly major for 2 drivers to contact Police), who then pitch up on your doorstep an hour or more later by which time you have had several drinks, so you'll be over the limit.

Now in all reality aren't we all going to panic at that point because we know that we are now over the limit, and therefore know that we are going to have a problem?

So are we saying we refuse to answer questions, and only provide a breath test? That way at least we are not incriminating ourselves!

Or do we say hold on whilst I call my lawyer (mind you guess most of us don't have on e to call!).

And as many have asked how long after you have allegedly driven can the Police ask you to take a breath test?

[Cat]

Eclassy said:

Cat said:

So why did you say the evidential test is the one that matters?

I got this information from several solicitors websites specializing in drink driving cases. Google evidential test.

Why do I need to google it? From what the OP has said it appears the lady has been charged with failing to provide a preliminary breath test. Therefore the outcome of the evidential test, or even if one was carried out, is irrelevant. You said the evidential test is what matters, it is if she was charged with drink driving but she hasn't been to it isn't.

Eclassy said:

Cat said:

It can be. You keep comparing it to searches it's not the same.

It cant be. Just because I have invited a policeman on my property and he is legally there doesn't mean every request after that becomes lawful. I guess this would be for a judge to determine.

You are arguing against a point that no one has made. No one has stated that every request made by a police officer after you invite them into your house is lawful. What we are talking about is whether a requirement to provide a specimen of breath is lawful. IT IS. A constable can make the requirement to provide a preliminary breath test in any place he is legally entitled to be. In this case that includes the driver's living room.

Eclassy said:

Them being flawed are only in your opinion. People claiming to be plod have quoted sections that have either been repealed or have absolutely no correlation to the debate as fact.

It is not only my opinion I have provided evidence to support what I've said, unlike you. Plenty of others have quoted the current legislation which contradicts your position but you choose to ignore that.

Cat

[vonhosen]

Eclassy said:

Cat said:

The exact conditions where the powers of entry can be used are irrelevant in this case as the Police were invited in however your claim that arrests can't be made on the basis of witness evidence is wrong. The quotes above were in response to your incorrect statements that there are no powers of entry for drink drive offences/summary offences.

IANAL so maybe I havent made myself clear enough. IMHO even though it doesnt apply here, there will be no power of entry under section 17 if the circumstances as described by the OP if the lady had simply refused to let plod in. Police cant go breaking down peoples doors based on unverified about information about the driving ability of people. there will be situations where the police can act e.g. get a call from the pub landlord where the lady has been drinking, get sevral calls from people within a short space of time of bad driving by the same person.

But it isn't alleged they kicked the door down, if they do you've been told the circumstances they legally can.

Eclassy said:

Cat said:

So why did you say the evidential test is the one that matters?

I got this information from several solicitors websites specializing in drink driving cases. Google evidential test.

For the offence of failing to provide?

Eclassy said:

Cat said:

It can be. You keep comparing it to searches it's not the same.

It cant be. Just because I have invited a policeman on my property and he is legally there doesn't mean every request after that becomes lawful. I guess this would be for a judge to determine.

Instead of asserting why it would be unlawful in this case show us why in law it would be.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 20th April 11:41

[anonymous-user]

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.

Can you stop talking about things you have no / very little idea about? It's obvious to those of us who have experience with such things, but not to those who don't.

One of the reasons I post here is I like to think people can dip in and get real world, practical advice and insight from a policing point of view they wouldn't ordinarily have access to.

You are just creating a misleading mess.

[340600]

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.

If anything the penalty for fail to provide should be more severe. A guaranteed 18 or 24 month disqual might just stop some of the idiots who mess about at the roadside or in custody.

[TheBear]

Apologies as I think I've contributed to the confusion. Where I work there is no fail/refuse to provide charge for a roadside/home breath test. It only gives you grounds to arrest. The person then must be offered an evidential test for there to be a charge if they refuse/fail to provide.

A bit different.

[MGZTV8]

Eclassy is the new "cut and paste" law and Policing expert.

As is the way now on S,P&L treat it as pure entertainment and a few minutes browsing before moving in to more interesting areas of Pistonheads.

As ever, pure comedy gold.

[mph1977]

MGZTV8 said:

Eclassy is the new "cut and paste" law and Policing expert.

As is the way now on S,P&L treat it as pure entertainment and a few minutes browsing before moving in to more interesting areas of Pistonheads.

As ever, pure comedy gold.

it seems Mr E of the Family Classy is cutting and pasting from the the freewibbler version of the legislation as well.

[MGZTV8]

^^^^

He/she however is a community spirited soul and may offer to "act" on behalf of the op's friend on the terrible act of wrongdoing and call for compensation and the arresting Officer to be re-trained.

Everyone needs a barrack room lawyer.