arrested for DD last night, refused to give sample

[catso]

dacouch said:

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$$.

[Eclassy]

Chrisgr31 said:

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?

Very good questions you have posed but the herd of internet policing experts will ignore your valid questions and resort to ad-hominem attacks on people who wish to debate and not just listen to their ''expert'' statements.

[vonhosen]

Eclassy said:

Very good questions you have posed but the herd of internet policing experts will ignore your valid questions and resort to ad-hominem attacks on people who wish to debate and not just listen to their ''expert'' statements.

But you aren't debating, you're passing off your statements as fact will little/no understanding of the subject matter.

[MGZTV8]

Brilliant, just brilliant!!

The clown has just entered the circus ring!!

Cue the spinning bow tie and the squirt of water.

[anonymous-user]

Eclassy said:

Very good questions you have posed but the herd of internet policing experts will ignore your valid questions and resort to ad-hominem attacks on people who wish to debate and not just listen to their ''expert'' statements.

There's no debate when you are making clear false statements which do nothing other than to mislead people seeking advice. There are no personal attacks when people point these things out to you and then conclude you don't know what you're talking about, which is what people have done. Because it's true.

[Cat]

Chrisgr31 said:

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?

I would suggest that in the situation you describe you should comply with requirement to provide and when interviewed provide as much information as possible about what you drank and when. As someone (Artenap?) posted earlier the law is clear if you want to rely on a hip flask defence it is for you to prove you weren't over the limit when you were driving.

Refusing to provide when required to do so is unlikely to improve your situation.

Likewise the law is clear that refusing to provide a specimen until you have spoken to a solicitor is not considered a reasonable excuse for failing to provide.

The legislation doesn't specify a time limit; it states the requirement to provide can be made if there is reasonable suspicion the person has been driving and still has alcohol in their system.

Cat

[Snowboy]

Eclassy said:

Chrisgr31 said:

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?

Very good questions you have posed but the herd of internet policing experts will ignore your valid questions and resort to ad-hominem attacks on people who wish to debate and not just listen to their ''expert'' statements.

You forgot to answer the question there BTW.

I can only answer for myself.
I would hope I would be sensible enough to tell the truth.
I know there are processes to check how long ago a person was drunk.

So, if you tell the truth it's a lot more likely you'll be just fine than if you try and dodge the breath test or make up silly lies.

[elanfan]

[quote=Eclassy]


IANAL or BiB but remember Miss Maple had no formal training


/quote]


Is she Silver Birch's sister?

[Meoricin]

I swear, all debates in SP&L can be split into the following groups:

Lawyers/Law students who know how the law is supposed to work (or think they do, in the case of some).
Police officers who know how it works in practice, in their particular area.
Confused but well meaning people, asking the wrong questions and listening to the wrong people.
Absolute morons spouting gibberish which stems from 'free man on the land' wibble.
"Victims" who believe all forms of authority are corrupt and out to get them, and use this as justification to misbehave and complete the circle.

[NPI]

Cat said:

Chrisgr31 said:

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?

I would suggest that in the situation you describe you should comply with requirement to provide and when interviewed provide as much information as possible about what you drank and when. As someone (Artenap?) posted earlier the law is clear if you want to rely on a hip flask defence it is for you to prove you weren't over the limit when you were driving.

A "person we know" who happens to Magistrate got done like this. The case turned (and it went to appeal with a big name QC defending and they still lost) on whether they said IMMEDIATELY when the Police arrived that they'd had a drink since arriving home. They said they told the Police, the Police said they didn't.

Cat said:

Refusing to provide when required to do so is unlikely to improve your situation.

As I mentioned earlier, you hand victory to Police as (barring very exceptional circumstances) failing to provide when asked is an offence in itself so the Police don't need to prove anything, not even that you were driving.

[Nickyboy]

longshot said:

How can they charge her with driving a motor vehicle dangerously if the Police didn't witness it.
Wouldn't it take a Policeman to decide what is dangerous, unless ofcourse she's driven into something.

They don't need to witness it, someone can report it, they go to house. It easy to see if car had been driven or not, she may have admitted driving the car or not and is over the limit. If they decide to proceed with DUI then witnesses to her drinking at home would be called if they are available plus it is possible to see how many units had been consumed and what reading it would give over the set time from arriving home etc etc.

[Red 4]

vonhosen said:

Eclassy said:

vonhosen said:

Are you asking or telling what they can or can't do?

Asking.

If I refuse to let the police in my house after they have received a third party report of me driving under the influence. What power of entry can the police use to break down my door?

A requirement under sec 6(5) or arrest under 6D (personal injury accidents).

There is no power of entry under section 6(5).

There is only a power of entry under section 6 following an injury RTC or following a positive breath test/ fail to provide at the roadside.

[Chrisgr31]

Cat said:

I would suggest that in the situation you describe you should comply with requirement to provide and when interviewed provide as much information as possible about what you drank and when. As someone (Artenap?) posted earlier the law is clear if you want to rely on a hip flask defence it is for you to prove you weren't over the limit when you were driving.

Refusing to provide when required to do so is unlikely to improve your situation.

Likewise the law is clear that refusing to provide a specimen until you have spoken to a solicitor is not considered a reasonable excuse for failing to provide.

The legislation doesn't specify a time limit; it states the requirement to provide can be made if there is reasonable suspicion the person has been driving and still has alcohol in their system.

Cat

Thanks

[Greendubber]

Eclassy said:

Very good questions you have posed but the herd of internet policing experts will ignore your valid questions and resort to ad-hominem attacks on people who wish to debate and not just listen to their ''expert'' statements.

You're not debating anything, you're posting misleading incorrect rubbish. It seems you dont like it when people pull you up on it and you then continue with it.

You're not being attacked, you are being told you are wrong which you clearly dont like.

Do everyone a favour and cease with the google based arm chair expert legal advice because its getting tiresome.

[vonhosen]

Red 4 said:

vonhosen said:

Eclassy said:

vonhosen said:

Are you asking or telling what they can or can't do?

Asking.

If I refuse to let the police in my house after they have received a third party report of me driving under the influence. What power of entry can the police use to break down my door?

A requirement under sec 6(5) or arrest under 6D (personal injury accidents).

There is no power of entry under section 6(5).

There is only a power of entry under section 6 following an injury RTC or following a positive breath test/ fail to provide at the roadside.

Under 6E actually (as I've already said in the thread)
I was pointing out the circumstances, PI accidents exercising a power under 6(5) or arrest under 6D which that power of entry can be used.

[omegac]

vonhosen said:

Under 6E actually (as I've already said in the thread)
I was pointing out the circumstances, PI accidents exercising a power under 6(5) or arrest under 6D which that power of entry can be used.

Have you left driving school now? Surely it was judge's rules when you last had a drink drive

[Red 4]

vonhosen said:

Red 4 said:

vonhosen said:

Eclassy said:

vonhosen said:

Are you asking or telling what they can or can't do?

Asking.

If I refuse to let the police in my house after they have received a third party report of me driving under the influence. What power of entry can the police use to break down my door?

A requirement under sec 6(5) or arrest under 6D (personal injury accidents).

There is no power of entry under section 6(5).

There is only a power of entry under section 6 following an injury RTC or following a positive breath test/ fail to provide at the roadside.

Under 6E actually (as I've already said in the thread)
I was pointing out the circumstances, PI accidents exercising a power under 6(5) or arrest under 6D which that power of entry can be used.

Without splitting hairs Eclassy asked what the powers of entry are;

There is only a power of entry to breathalyse following an injury RTC or when a person has provided a positive breath test or failed to provide

If there is no injury RTC and no positive test/ fail to provide there is no power of entry to administer a breath test

A power of entry is provided by Section 4 (Drunk in charge) but that power is to arrest - not to administer a breath test

Your reply was inaccurate. Eclassy did not mention injury RTCs. He asked about police powers following a third party report of poor driving. In these circumstances the power of entry is under Section 4 (but there is no power to breathalyse - only to arrest under section 4).

HTH.

Edited by Red 4 on Monday 21st April 12:15

[vonhosen]

Red 4 said:

vonhosen said:

Red 4 said:

vonhosen said:

Eclassy said:

vonhosen said:

Are you asking or telling what they can or can't do?

Asking.

If I refuse to let the police in my house after they have received a third party report of me driving under the influence. What power of entry can the police use to break down my door?

A requirement under sec 6(5) or arrest under 6D (personal injury accidents).

There is no power of entry under section 6(5).

There is only a power of entry under section 6 following an injury RTC or following a positive breath test/ fail to provide at the roadside.

Under 6E actually (as I've already said in the thread)
I was pointing out the circumstances, PI accidents exercising a power under 6(5) or arrest under 6D which that power of entry can be used.

Without splitting hairs Eclassy asked what the powers of entry are;

There is only a power of entry to breathalyse following an injury RTC or when a person has provided a positive breath test or failed to provide

If there is no injury RTC and no positive test/ fail to provide there is no power of entry to administer a breath test

A power of entry is provided by Section 4 (Drunk in charge) but that power is to arrest - not to administer a breath test

Your reply was inaccurate. Eclassy did not mention injury RTCs. He asked about police powers following a third party report of poor driving.

HTH.

To be accurate the power of entry under Section 4 has been repealed (it's in Sec 17 PACE).

In relation to breath sample cases, which is what was being talked about, 6E gives the power of entry for the purposes (only in PI accident cases), to administer under 6(5) or arrest under 6D, which I posted before you made your post.

Besides which this thread hasn't been about an alleged PI accident or a forced entry. Those limited circumstances were for the info of Eclassy in relation to when an entry could be forced into a house under drink/drive legislation.

HTH

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 21st April 20:07

[wjb]

Great thread, are they all like this?

[StuntmanMike]

wjb said:

Great thread, are they all like this?

No some get really nuts, to be honest I only come here to see the lunatics.