arrested for DD last night, refused to give sample
Discussion
SV8Predator said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
However, these are the cards she has dealt herself & is obviously extremely worried about the charges.
Struggling with this slightly.She's so worried about the charges that she's begged her "friend" to ask her questions on an internet forum?
Putting on my 'benefit of the doubt hat'.
She had a couple of glasses, wasn't over the limit. Dodges a black cat on the way home.
Then had a few drinks.
Then the police came knocking.
She panicked, acted a bit silly.
Can anything be done?
Taking off that hat.
She got drunk, drove home bouncing off kerbs.
Then the police came knocking.
Continues as above.
The answer to both.
A bloody good lawyer might be able to do something.
But, as I understand it, failing to provide is go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 pounds.
You're up the unpleasant water course without means of propulsion.
She can expect a hefty ban.
To be quite blunt I don't know anyone who drinks and drives just once.
During my time I've known or known of a few drunk drivers and they were all repeat offenders.
The only possible exception being the stupid drunk teenager who does it once then ever after leaves his car at home so he's not tempted.
So, I'm actually quite glad she's been caught.
She had a couple of glasses, wasn't over the limit. Dodges a black cat on the way home.
Then had a few drinks.
Then the police came knocking.
She panicked, acted a bit silly.
Can anything be done?
Taking off that hat.
She got drunk, drove home bouncing off kerbs.
Then the police came knocking.
Continues as above.
The answer to both.
A bloody good lawyer might be able to do something.
But, as I understand it, failing to provide is go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 pounds.
You're up the unpleasant water course without means of propulsion.
She can expect a hefty ban.
To be quite blunt I don't know anyone who drinks and drives just once.
During my time I've known or known of a few drunk drivers and they were all repeat offenders.
The only possible exception being the stupid drunk teenager who does it once then ever after leaves his car at home so he's not tempted.
So, I'm actually quite glad she's been caught.
SV8Predator said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
What makes you think she's begged me to ask questions on here? If you look at my post count, I'm quite capable of posting at leisure on PH
Oh, she doesn't know that you are leading a debate on her future on an open internet forum?Should we tell her?
LaurasOtherHalf said:
I do however, feel for the family of the woman in question & given that she neither caused injury nor damage (possibly through no more than luck) I'm completely comfortable in feeling sorry for them, if not her.
Had things turned out differently, that compassion would certainly not have been so forthcoming. But it didn't. End of story.
That phase statement is a piss boiler for me. It is socially unacceptable to drink and drive. Had things turned out differently, that compassion would certainly not have been so forthcoming. But it didn't. End of story.
She was lucky that THIS time she didn't cause injury or death to herself, her passenger(s), a pedestrian, a cyclist, another driver etc. next time she may end up killing someones parent, child, wife, husband, partner.. it is just a matter of time.
The fact she has been reported for her driving indicates she was pissed. She deserves no sympathy whatsoever.
My sympathies go out to her family for having such a moron in the family.
sugerbear said:
That phase statement is a piss boiler for me. It is socially unacceptable to drink and drive.
She was lucky that THIS time she didn't cause injury or death to herself, her passenger(s), a pedestrian, a cyclist, another driver etc. next time she may end up killing someones parent, child, wife, husband, partner.. it is just a matter of time.
The fact she has been reported for her driving indicates she was pissed. She deserves no sympathy whatsoever.
My sympathies go out to her family for having such a moron in the family.
You could write most of that about someone doing 31MPH in a 30.She was lucky that THIS time she didn't cause injury or death to herself, her passenger(s), a pedestrian, a cyclist, another driver etc. next time she may end up killing someones parent, child, wife, husband, partner.. it is just a matter of time.
The fact she has been reported for her driving indicates she was pissed. She deserves no sympathy whatsoever.
My sympathies go out to her family for having such a moron in the family.
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
I believe drink driving is a summary offense and the coppers would have had no option but to leave had they been refused entry. Even though they have been permitted entry, my question still remains. Can the request to provide a sample in your own home be deemed lawful when police are acting off unverified 3rd party information? It would be completely different if the police witnessed OP's friend driving erratically and pursued her home.
Unless this happened in a small town,where the police have absolutely nothing to do, there is no way the police have taken a report and managed to view the footage in the 2 hours before turning up at her house. My local plod are still trying to get their ''techies'' to burn footage I gave them on a flash drive over 3 weeks ago to CD for the investigating officer to view
Zoobeef said:
People that fail to provide get on my tits. You see them on the cop programs and they are pathetic. Its not hard to do, breathe out ffs.
odd thing is in my time in the police i have seen more people get themselves baned through failing to provide than you would imagine, a good proportion of them would have been released no further action if they had blew because it couldn't be proved they were actually driving.To find someone guilty of drink driving you must prove beyond reasonable doubt they were driving or in control. To prosecute someone for failing to provide you only have to prove you had reasonable grounds to ask for a sample.
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.
TheBear said:
So what was the result of the evidential test at the station?
The one at home is irrelevant, it just led to her arrest and cannot be used.
Listen to this man... He knows what he is talking about. The evidential test at the station is what matters. If only she had read more John Grisham books and just went no comment to all the questions, she would have absolutely nothing to worry about.The one at home is irrelevant, it just led to her arrest and cannot be used.
I even with whatever she may have told BiB, a half decent lawyer should be able to get her off. The things she should mention to her solicitor are
1. Summary offences grant BiB no power of entry under sec 17 PACE
2. No evidential test
3. Request for her to breathalyser at home was unlawful as she only invited police in for a chat.
Eclassy said:
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
I believe drink driving is a summary offense and the coppers would have had no option but to leave had they been refused entry. Even though they have been permitted entry, my question still remains. Can the request to provide a sample in your own home be deemed lawful when police are acting off unverified 3rd party information? It would be completely different if the police witnessed OP's friend driving erratically and pursued her home.
Unless this happened in a small town,where the police have absolutely nothing to do, there is no way the police have taken a report and managed to view the footage in the 2 hours before turning up at her house. My local plod are still trying to get their ''techies'' to burn footage I gave them on a flash drive over 3 weeks ago to CD for the investigating officer to view
S.4(7) of the road traffic act gives a power of entry:Section 6(5) deals with the power to administer preliminary tests and 6D deals with arrest after tests
I believe drink driving is a summary offense and the coppers would have had no option but to leave had they been refused entry. Even though they have been permitted entry, my question still remains. Can the request to provide a sample in your own home be deemed lawful when police are acting off unverified 3rd party information? It would be completely different if the police witnessed OP's friend driving erratically and pursued her home.
Unless this happened in a small town,where the police have absolutely nothing to do, there is no way the police have taken a report and managed to view the footage in the 2 hours before turning up at her house. My local plod are still trying to get their ''techies'' to burn footage I gave them on a flash drive over 3 weeks ago to CD for the investigating officer to view
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...
Edited by SteveScooby on Saturday 19th April 23:04
Eclassy said:
Listen to this man... He knows what he is talking about. The evidential test at the station is what matters. If only she had read more John Grisham books and just went no comment to all the questions, she would have absolutely nothing to worry about.
I even with whatever she may have told BiB, a half decent lawyer should be able to get her off. The things she should mention to her solicitor are
1. Summary offences grant BiB no power of entry under sec 17 PACE
2. No evidential test
3. Request for her to breathalyser at home was unlawful as she only invited police in for a chat.
Not sure what you're smoking but I'd like some of it.I even with whatever she may have told BiB, a half decent lawyer should be able to get her off. The things she should mention to her solicitor are
1. Summary offences grant BiB no power of entry under sec 17 PACE
2. No evidential test
3. Request for her to breathalyser at home was unlawful as she only invited police in for a chat.
The OP's friend handed the Police a "win" on a plate by failing to provide. While nothing in law is 100% black & white, failing to provide is about as close as you can get. It leaves the Police with nothing to prove.
Snowboy said:
I am often reminded on here that my grasp of the law is quite sketchy in some areas.
But compared to some of the wibble I'm reading on this thread I'm starting to think I might have a future as a lawyer.
The thing that bothers me most is the wibble is being stated as fact.
You new here?But compared to some of the wibble I'm reading on this thread I'm starting to think I might have a future as a lawyer.
The thing that bothers me most is the wibble is being stated as fact.
Eclassy said:
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
RTA 1988 s.6E does though and it provides powers of entry in relation to the 2 above sections.Section 6(5) deals with the power to administer preliminary tests and 6D deals with arrest after tests
Eclassy said:
I even with whatever she may have told BiB, a half decent lawyer should be able to get her off. The things she should mention to her solicitor are
1. Summary offences grant BiB no power of entry under sec 17 PACE
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 drugs1. Summary offences grant BiB no power of entry under sec 17 PACE
Eclassy said:
2. No evidential test
No evidential test is required if she is being charged with failing to provide a preliminary test. Eclassy said:
3. Request for her to breathalyser at home was unlawful as she only invited police in for a chat.
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.Hopefully a half decent lawyer will give better advice than that which is being posted here.
Cat
Edited by Cat on Saturday 19th April 23:39
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff