24 Hours in Police Custody: Ch4
Discussion
IanMorewood said:
It's a case of having the appropriately qualified person there to take the blood for use as evidence, they don't tend to have one sat about twiddling thumbs.
I've got to be honest, I've never seen that happen before on any of these shows. Normally, they blow over & that's it - done & dusted.What I didn't understand with this girl was that she admitted she'd been out drinking, come home, got in her car & then parked it in a ditch. She then phones a relative who picks her up & at that point she gets arrested. At 5 in the morning (quite some time after she'd finished drinking) she finally gets blow tested, blows over & then gets offered a blood tested. Presumably not immediately, she then gives a blood sample and is later found to be under the limit. This is despite the Police knowing (because she admitted it) she had been drinking that evening prior to getting in the car.
On an episode of Traffic Cops a few months ago, they went round to a girls house, went in & then breathalysed her as she had been seen driving her car earlier that evening. She wasn't in the car when they breathalysed her - it was parked on the drive & she was in the house. She claimed she hadn't been drinking earlier in the evening, but only started drinking when she got home. She blew over & ended up getting banned (don't know for how long).
What's the difference?
The difference is in the possible inaccuracies in the breath tester - limit is 40, she blew 41. Though the machines are accurate, there is a small range at which a blood test eliminates things such as diabetes. Doesn't always work in the drink drivers favour, though.
Same reasons speed cameras don't prosecute at .1 mph over the limit.
Same reasons speed cameras don't prosecute at .1 mph over the limit.
dazwalsh said:
I think I have cracked the entry requirements for the police. You have to be able to say "at the end of the day" a lot. Does my Fecken head in.
http://youtu.be/48HUdzoKiPAeldar said:
The difference is in the possible inaccuracies in the breath tester - limit is 40, she blew 41. Though the machines are accurate, there is a small range at which a blood test eliminates things such as diabetes. Doesn't always work in the drink drivers favour, though.
Same reasons speed cameras don't prosecute at .1 mph over the limit.
Given that the limit is 35 (I think!) they are already giving a 5 buffer - not sure they should give an additional layer of chance/protection by offering blood tests at 41.Same reasons speed cameras don't prosecute at .1 mph over the limit.
I think we can reasonably assume if you blow 41 on the machine you are over 35.
Even if the blood test comes back at 39 they should still prosecute. I think you need to draw the line somewhere. There is extra cost and hassle to do the blood test. Plus there is the time element. You may as well just say if you blow 43 we will assume in the 2 hours it takes to get someone to do the test and with the accuracy of the blood test you will come to 39 and we won't prosecute - why not just set the magic number at 43 9for exmaple) and not bother with blood unless necessary.
baldy1926 said:
Shaw Tarse said:
I thought that, did the wait for her "injection" influence the result?
Yep called playing the system, more than likely a serial drink driverMojooo said:
2 possibilities
1 - they took sympathy on her and gave her a chance to get off by giving a blood sample
2 - they have a policy of not prosecuting at 41 unless confirmed by blood
having watched it back he said they do people over 40 and gave her the chance to give blood.
I think you can even refuse to blow and ask for a blood test , I guess if you are boarder line its the smart move1 - they took sympathy on her and gave her a chance to get off by giving a blood sample
2 - they have a policy of not prosecuting at 41 unless confirmed by blood
having watched it back he said they do people over 40 and gave her the chance to give blood.
Mojooo said:
Given that the limit is 35 (I think!) they are already giving a 5 buffer - not sure they should give an additional layer of chance/protection by offering blood tests at 41.
I think we can reasonably assume if you blow 41 on the machine you are over 35.
Even if the blood test comes back at 39 they should still prosecute..
The thing with the blood test is you buy yourself time if you are marginalI think we can reasonably assume if you blow 41 on the machine you are over 35.
Even if the blood test comes back at 39 they should still prosecute..
TheBear said:
Brett comes across as a massive cock who has a massively over inflated opinion of himself. Both of them looked so smug in interview and I can't quite believe how cocky and unprofessional he was when telling his client "It's getting boring isn't it".
He looks a complete idiot now that the CCTV stills look like they have potted his client. Oops Brett!
I'd be interested to know if he left the police 'under a cloud'. He does appear to He looks a complete idiot now that the CCTV stills look like they have potted his client. Oops Brett!
thismonkeyhere said:
TheBear said:
Brett comes across as a massive cock who has a massively over inflated opinion of himself. Both of them looked so smug in interview and I can't quite believe how cocky and unprofessional he was when telling his client "It's getting boring isn't it".
He looks a complete idiot now that the CCTV stills look like they have potted his client. Oops Brett!
I'd be interested to know if he left the police 'under a cloud'. He does appear to He looks a complete idiot now that the CCTV stills look like they have potted his client. Oops Brett!
What the solicitor did was stand up for a client. Probable a regular client. Asking someone the same questions repeatedly when they say no comment is not on - I can't be bothered now but look it up in pace. Asking if they know the stuff is stolen is a reasonable question.
Outside that interview room the brief probably gets on with most of the coppers. It's his job to help the client now. Some people need to stop being naive and thinking that the solicitor should sit their meekly and not argue a case. It's all a game and everyone in that room new what it was about.
photosnob said:
Brett didn't say that. The client did, unless I'm really thick and got it wrong.
What the solicitor did was stand up for a client. Probable a regular client. Asking someone the same questions repeatedly when they say no comment is not on - I can't be bothered now but look it up in pace. Asking if they know the stuff is stolen is a reasonable question.
Outside that interview room the brief probably gets on with most of the coppers. It's his job to help the client now. Some people need to stop being naive and thinking that the solicitor should sit their meekly and not argue a case. It's all a game and everyone in that room new what it was about.
My point was mostly due to Brett's solo interview to camera, where he appeared to be a bit smug and 'anti' the police. I may have got it wrong.What the solicitor did was stand up for a client. Probable a regular client. Asking someone the same questions repeatedly when they say no comment is not on - I can't be bothered now but look it up in pace. Asking if they know the stuff is stolen is a reasonable question.
Outside that interview room the brief probably gets on with most of the coppers. It's his job to help the client now. Some people need to stop being naive and thinking that the solicitor should sit their meekly and not argue a case. It's all a game and everyone in that room new what it was about.
Regarding the evidential breath test:
Between 40 and 50ug/100ml there is a statutory option to replace the breath sample with a sample of blood or urine. However, if the defendant choses to provide a sample of blood or urine, the decision of which one lies with the officer doing the procedure.
An interview with MGDD/D procedure is then conducted to ascertain details such as height, weight, drinks consumed (volume, ABV, type of drink). This is all cobbled together and sent with the sample to a lab where the alcohol content in the blood or urine is calculated against the factors ascertained in the MGDD/D. This is to determine how intoxicated the defendantt was at the time of the alleged offence.
Between 40 and 50ug/100ml there is a statutory option to replace the breath sample with a sample of blood or urine. However, if the defendant choses to provide a sample of blood or urine, the decision of which one lies with the officer doing the procedure.
An interview with MGDD/D procedure is then conducted to ascertain details such as height, weight, drinks consumed (volume, ABV, type of drink). This is all cobbled together and sent with the sample to a lab where the alcohol content in the blood or urine is calculated against the factors ascertained in the MGDD/D. This is to determine how intoxicated the defendantt was at the time of the alleged offence.
Jimbo666 said:
Regarding the evidential breath test:
Between 40 and 50ug/100ml there is a statutory option to replace the breath sample with a sample of blood or urine. However, if the defendant choses to provide a sample of blood or urine, the decision of which one lies with the officer doing the procedure.
An interview with MGDD/D procedure is then conducted to ascertain details such as height, weight, drinks consumed (volume, ABV, type of drink). This is all cobbled together and sent with the sample to a lab where the alcohol content in the blood or urine is calculated against the factors ascertained in the MGDD/D. This is to determine how intoxicated the defendant was at the time of the alleged offence.
Thanks for thatBetween 40 and 50ug/100ml there is a statutory option to replace the breath sample with a sample of blood or urine. However, if the defendant choses to provide a sample of blood or urine, the decision of which one lies with the officer doing the procedure.
An interview with MGDD/D procedure is then conducted to ascertain details such as height, weight, drinks consumed (volume, ABV, type of drink). This is all cobbled together and sent with the sample to a lab where the alcohol content in the blood or urine is calculated against the factors ascertained in the MGDD/D. This is to determine how intoxicated the defendant was at the time of the alleged offence.
Presumably that's what happened in this case then? (the one on TV the other night)
The only thing I don't understand (and it is late!), is that the Police knew she'd been driving her car several hours before they actually got her on the machine (and then a blood test), so how come they didn't calculate what her level would have been at the time she parked her car in a ditch? If she blew 41 at 5.30 am, and presumably blood tested under 35 at whatever time she gave blood, then surely she would have been way over several hours earlier?
I know it's TV & there is probably loads we haven't seen regarding this girl, but I wish they'd explained it a bit better.
I mentioned it earlier, but there was a similar programme (Traffic Cops?) where they went round to a girls house & arrested her for DD even though she was inside the house & her car was parked on the drive - she'd been out drinking all night then driven home - CCTV saw her in the pub & then driving through the town. They got her back to the station and I'm pretty sure took 2 readings then calculated what she would have been at the time she was driving & then charged her. She got a ban although I can't remember how long.
te on ITV at the same time.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff