Is my buddy going to jail???

[Greendubber]

Eclassy said:

@ Cat

I was refering to powers under PACE. Didnt realise it worked differently in Scotland. So basically someone can call the police and claim they saw a driver swerve dangerously 24 hours earlier and the policr can turn up and force entry into the drivers house? That would be open to abuse methinks.

No its not that straight forward. You need to have something else, be it a hot car, fresh damage to it etc.

As for tipping up 24 hours later then no that wont happen. I've been sent to deal with a report of a car being driven by a drunk and turned up at the house a few hour later, the car is parked perfectly on the drive and the cars cold. I didn't go smashing any doors in as I wasn't satisfied with it.

Although a lot get caught on the drive asleep in the drivers seat as they cant make it out of the car!

[Monkeylegend]

Shuvi McTupya said:

Monkeylegend said:

Well you have said she had a skinfull and decided to drive home, and she was subsequently 3 times over the drink drive limit.

On that basis alone she probably deserves a ban.

Yes, but I have given no inflation with which she could be identified!

It's times like this when posting history can come back to haunt you. A search could probably pinpoint the village pretty accurately if plod was inclined to do so.

Just be careful what you let slip

[Derek Smith]

Eclassy said:

Derek Smith said:

Well one positive for the woman: she has a free choice of defence as what really happened hasn't been put on a public forum for the police to check on.

I'm sorry for her problem with regards her domestic situation, but she knew what she was doing and took the risk. I feel that a 12-month ban is what she deserves as a minimum.

But I have been told off several times for posting 'rubbish' like this. No one in authority has ever browsed an online forum to gather evidence to use against a suspect (so said our resident BiBs)

I doubt there are any officers, or civilians, whose job it is to search the internet for clues. However, as you indicated, there are serving officers who use forums and one might know of a colleague who was involved in a similar job. A little bit of investigation and all of a sudden . . .

In less sophisticated times, people used to post on forums giving heads up for raves and such. Not quite the same of course, but every now and again, an operational officer might have a spare few moments.

With sophisticated search engines all sorts of useful results can be revealed if you start looking.

[Landshark]

un1corn said:

Mk3Spitfire said:

Report to police. Police attend home address. Police breathalyse suspect as they believe she has been driving. Suspect blows over. Police arrest suspect.
Would have struggled if they hadn't been let in though.

Sec4 RTA provides power of entry.

Not anymore, that power was repealed by the serious organised crime and police act 2005. Although S17 of PACE can be used if officer has reasonable grounds for believing the person committing the offence is inside the premises.

[anonymous-user]

similar situation a 'friend' except not in bed but asleep in the car.

She will be a habitual offender, a liar to herself and others.

She has a problem and this is the wake up call. the people you meet at three times over brigade will make stories up and convince themselves they are not a fault, when they are.

Similar situation got a two year ban, and one year probation, high risk course. I would suggest she gets a lawyer, pleads guilty and hope for something similar.

[surveyor]

It's not hugely relevant but don't forget 3 times the limit in Scotland is less than twice the limit in England. Obviously not good, but not as stinkingly drunk as we might imagine.

[Cat]

surveyor said:

It's not hugely relevant but don't forget 3 times the limit in Scotland is less than twice the limit in England. Obviously not good, but not as stinkingly drunk as we might imagine.

If they were considering forfeiture of the vehicle and she was kept in custody to appear at court then she would have been over 3 times the previous limit not the new limit.

Although the Drink drive limit in Scotland has been reduced the thresholds for vehicle forfeiture and keeping people in custody to appear at court have not changed. This means she must have blown at least 105.

Cat

[Cooperman]

Landshark said:

Not anymore, that power was repealed by the serious organised crime and police act 2005. Although S17 of PACE can be used if officer has reasonable grounds for believing the person committing the offence is inside the premises.

What offence? Until it has been established that the vehicle had been driven by a person over the DD limit, there is no evidence of an offence, just a phone call to the police from a member of the public.
How is that a reason to force entry? (I do realise that in this case entry was not forced).

[Mk3Spitfire]

Cooperman said:

What offence? Until it has been established that the vehicle had been driven by a person over the DD limit, there is no evidence of an offence, just a phone call to the police from a member of the public.
How is that a reason to force entry? (I do realise that in this case entry was not forced).

Until you breathalyse someone, you're not going to know they are over the limit. There are several enquiries that can be made prior to making any arrest enquiries.

[Landshark]

Cooperman said:

Landshark said:

Not anymore, that power was repealed by the serious organised crime and police act 2005. Although S17 of PACE can be used if officer has reasonable grounds for believing the person committing the offence is inside the premises.

What offence? Until it has been established that the vehicle had been driven by a person over the DD limit, there is no evidence of an offence, just a phone call to the police from a member of the public.
How is that a reason to force entry? (I do realise that in this case entry was not forced).

Apologies for poorly written part of post!

(a)are only exercisable if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whom he is seeking is on the premises;

[Cooperman]

If someone has a grudge against another person, just think of the mayhem they could cause.
Wait until the person gets home one evening and their engine is still warm, then call the Police from a call box giving a false (to you) name and address and say that 'so and so' has just driven home erratically and intoxicated. Leave the rest to the Police who will force entry, take a probably-negative sample of breath, then apologise (maybe) and leave.
Next week borrow or hire a car similar to theirs, fit some false plates and drive through a speed camera at well over and the person will get an S172.
Can all that actually happen and if so, how could it be prevented?

[martinbiz]

All that jazz said:

Or maybe it will go something like this.

"oh, hello officer, can I help you? ...... no, no, I have absolutely no recollection of said incident, in fact I've been at home all day ...... "That's surprising we have a witness that saw you driving earlier, can we come in for chat or perhaps we could do it at the station"

Drama just beginning.

[martinbiz]

Cooperman said:

If someone has a grudge against another person, just think of the mayhem they could cause.
Wait until the person gets home one evening and their engine is still warm, then call the Police from a call box giving a false (to you) name and address and say that 'so and so' has just driven home erratically and intoxicated. Leave the rest to the Police who will force entry, take a probably-negative sample of breath, then apologise (maybe) and leave.
Next week borrow or hire a car similar to theirs, fit some false plates and drive through a speed camera at well over and the person will get an S172.
Can all that actually happen and if so, how could it be prevented?

No but what could actually happen is you go to prison

[Cat]

Cooperman said:

If someone has a grudge against another person, just think of the mayhem they could cause.
Wait until the person gets home one evening and their engine is still warm, then call the Police from a call box giving a false (to you) name and address and say that 'so and so' has just driven home erratically and intoxicated. Leave the rest to the Police who will force entry, take a probably-negative sample of breath, then apologise (maybe) and leave.
Next week borrow or hire a car similar to theirs, fit some false plates and drive through a speed camera at well over and the person will get an S172.
Can all that actually happen and if so, how could it be prevented?

Why do you think this would be any more of a problem or more likely to happen than for instance someone throwing a brick through a window then calling 101 and anonymously giving your name as the person responsible?

Also why do you think the police would turn up and force entry to your house? They would turn up knock on the door and speak to you.

Making false statements to the Police is a criminal offence that could well see you in jail.

Cat

[eldar]

Cat said:

Why do you think this would be any more of a problem or more likely to happen than for instance someone throwing a brick through a window then calling 101 and anonymously giving your name as the person responsible?

Also why do you think the police would turn up and force entry to your house? They would turn up knock on the door and speak to you.

Making false statements to the Police is a criminal offence that could well see you in jail.

Cat

Making no statement to the police (going by several recent fly-of-the-wall documentaries on TV) appears to have no likelihood of prosecution. The Police need evidence, properly obtained. to progress any case to the cps. That simple.Hopefully the police get it right here.

[aw51 121565]

martinbiz said:

Cooperman said:

If someone has a grudge against another person, just think of the mayhem they could cause.
Wait until the person gets home one evening and their engine is still warm, then call the Police from a call box giving a false (to you) name and address and say that 'so and so' has just driven home erratically and intoxicated. Leave the rest to the Police who will force entry, take a probably-negative sample of breath, then apologise (maybe) and leave.
Next week borrow or hire a car similar to theirs, fit some false plates and drive through a speed camera at well over and the person will get an S172.
Can all that actually happen and if so, how could it be prevented?

No but what could actually happen is you go to prison

The "hire car with false plates" bit is quite feasible (in the short term, at least ). Long term abuse will hopefully lead to a stripy tan on the back of a PCOJ conviction !

But while speshul feckless eejits are fairly devious, they are generally "a bit short" in the brain cell stakes in terms of retribution for percieved "wrongs" by others (or working anything involving "consequences" out, in all honesty - ie they haven't worked this plan of action out yet, they just drive around and bilk in an illegal [uninsured and MoTed] vehicle with cloned plates instead...) .

High-band speshul people with a perceived grudge would just used the cloned plates and drive through as many speed cameras as they could, for that added frisson of S172s going through their assailant's postbox (on top of the visits from les gendarmes chasing up the alleged bilking) - as per the quoted post, oddly enough ... But I am thinking of the lowest common denominator here !

Not that I have atempted to think this through to any sort of logical conclusion, you understand ...

[wc98]

baldy1926 said:

There must be more to this than the op has said.
There is no way a police cell would be clogged from Friday to Monday with a straight forward D/D.
You would need some real good reasons to justify to keep her in. Previous offences, several fail to appears etc.
There is more than we are being told.

i cannot see how this coud have progressed to this position with only one witness either,but who knows. we have corroboration up here for a reason,the difference in overturned convictions and miscarriage of justice cases speak for themselves compared to south of the border.

[anonymous-user]

Whilst I don't in any way condone drink driving, the person who reported her is a and obviously doesn't get laid enough. fking low life pathetic behaviour.

[anonymous-user]

Landshark said:

Not anymore, that power was repealed by the serious organised crime and police act 2005. Although S17 of PACE can be used if officer has reasonable grounds for believing the person committing the offence is inside the premises.

Was it repealed? I thought SOCPA merely amended / replaced "arrestable" with "indictable" under S.17 of PACE, and the preserved powers of entry for specific summary only offences remained nearly all the same as they were.

bulldong said:

Whilst I don't in any way condone drink driving, the person who reported her is a and obviously doesn't get laid enough. fking low life pathetic behaviour.

You don't condone drink-driving, but do condone those who wish to have action taken against a very high risk group of drivers.

[Greendubber]

bulldong said:

Whilst I don't in any way condone drink driving, the person who reported her is a and obviously doesn't get laid enough. fking low life pathetic behaviour.

Why? She was pissed!

I'd say the lowlife is the stupid cow who decided to drive home after a skin full.