Driver/person behind the steering wheel and ID
Discussion
This popped up on facebook (yes I know) a while ago and I was quite surprised. Its a tedious watch and I even fast forwarded it to the end but the jist was someone was sat behind the wheel of a car in what appears to be a car park, don't know if it was council or private etc and the police "stopped him" and demanded his details.
Now I know generally if you aren't suspected of a crime you don't have to give any info to the police but if you are driving then you are obliged to even if its only for a spot check. This bloke though was adamant that law only applied to driving and not sat in a vehicle with the engine off somewhere. He says the police have to catch you driving or its obvious you have just been driving, because they approached him already sat in a car in a car park they have no proof he drove anywhere.
The coppers asked how did the car get there then but he's obviously not obliged to answer that, he wasn't the registered keeper so it could have been the owner that drove it there or it may have got delivered there on a tow truck etc. Is this correct, does the right to demand details only apply to driving a vehicle and not in a stationary vehicle with no proof its been driven by the driver.
PS I was hoping he was going to say "I'm just waiting for a mate".
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2094263661483637
Now I know generally if you aren't suspected of a crime you don't have to give any info to the police but if you are driving then you are obliged to even if its only for a spot check. This bloke though was adamant that law only applied to driving and not sat in a vehicle with the engine off somewhere. He says the police have to catch you driving or its obvious you have just been driving, because they approached him already sat in a car in a car park they have no proof he drove anywhere.
The coppers asked how did the car get there then but he's obviously not obliged to answer that, he wasn't the registered keeper so it could have been the owner that drove it there or it may have got delivered there on a tow truck etc. Is this correct, does the right to demand details only apply to driving a vehicle and not in a stationary vehicle with no proof its been driven by the driver.
PS I was hoping he was going to say "I'm just waiting for a mate".
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2094263661483637
A car park is classed as a public road so the car can be checked. Sitting in the driver seat makes the person “in charge” as far as the cops are concerned. They do not need a reason for a vehicle check for tax, not, insurance and if the driver is licences and insured. If the documents are not in order then the person “in charge” is going to to be on the back foot and need to prove they were not actually doing anything wrong.
This is what one of the comments said
163 is a demand to stop, and 164/ 5 does not apply here because he was not driving (he was stationary on the phone) and he wasn't SEEN driving. There's no law against sitting in the driver's seat of a parked car, -- if there was they'd nick my 6 year old son he frequently sat there to "pretend drive".
A snippet of the legislation I saw said something like ....driving or is suspected of recently driving a motor vehicle.
163 is a demand to stop, and 164/ 5 does not apply here because he was not driving (he was stationary on the phone) and he wasn't SEEN driving. There's no law against sitting in the driver's seat of a parked car, -- if there was they'd nick my 6 year old son he frequently sat there to "pretend drive".
A snippet of the legislation I saw said something like ....driving or is suspected of recently driving a motor vehicle.
Super Sonic said:
Your looking for advice on a total strangers alleged police 'stop' when the only details you have are what they put on Facebook.
I was just wondering about the situation, lets say I was a passenger in a friends car and we stopped for him to go shopping whilst I waited in the car, If I climbed over into the drivers seat to see what it felt like, (maybe I was thinking of buying it) would I be required to give my details if a copper approached the car.Frane Selak said:
I was just wondering about the situation, lets say I was a passenger in a friends car and we stopped for him to go shopping whilst I waited in the car, If I climbed over into the drivers seat to see what it felt like, (maybe I was thinking of buying it) would I be required to give my details if a copper approached the car.
Frane Selak also said:
A snippet of the legislation I saw said something like ....driving or is suspected of recently driving a motor vehicle.
Frane Selak said:
I was just wondering about the situation, lets say I was a passenger in a friends car and we stopped for him to go shopping whilst I waited in the car, If I climbed over into the drivers seat to see what it felt like, (maybe I was thinking of buying it) would I be required to give my details if a copper approached the car.
If I was in this situation, I'd give my details. Why be awkward, you could wait for your mate to return to confirm your story if the police didn't believe you. I think you'd be really unlucky to get done for being in that situation. The police are generally decent and like in every walk of life, there's a bad one amongst the larger group.When I was young, my Dad told me about the 'in charge' rule... I'm sure that the key had to be in the ignition for it to apply.
The thing was, if the handbrake was released & the car rolled into something... one turn so that the steering lock won't go on.
(Obviously... a lot has changed since then.)
NB: As a kid, I used to do a lot of car cleaning for pocket money, so I must have been taking a big risk... as I wasn't insured.
(ID would probably been my library card).
The thing was, if the handbrake was released & the car rolled into something... one turn so that the steering lock won't go on.
(Obviously... a lot has changed since then.)
NB: As a kid, I used to do a lot of car cleaning for pocket money, so I must have been taking a big risk... as I wasn't insured.
(ID would probably been my library card).
Edited by Milkyway on Thursday 11th June 10:28
gshughes said:
Is this definitely the case in law? Kids have sat in the drivers seat and pretended to drive forever. Does this make them 'in charge' in the eyes of the law?
It does not work like that. The children (or anyone) would only be 'in charge' of the vehicle if there was a law that existed (there is no law without law) that related to being 'in charge' of motor vehicles AND it was proved in a court that they were 'in charge' of that vehicle in accordance with the applicable law.What happens in reality is that a policeman may form a reasonable belief that a person is 'in charge' of vehicle and is committing an offence accordance with an existing law, he can then request details and documents from that person, if they do not give them the commit an offence under the RTA 1988 section 165 (1) (c) at least.
In the case in the video, the officer would have been well within the law to form a reasonable belief and suspect that the person sat in the car was under the influence and request a breath test for alcohol and or a saliva sample for controlled drugs for being 'in charge'.
The suspect neither has to be driving or have driven the vehicle for in charge offence.
This should be good.
kestral said:
It does not work like that. The children (or anyone) would only be 'in charge' of the vehicle if there was a law that existed (there is no law without law) that related to being 'in charge' of motor vehicles AND it was proved in a court that they were 'in charge' of that vehicle in accordance with the applicable law.
What happens in reality is that a policeman may form a reasonable belief that a person is 'in charge' of vehicle and is committing an offence accordance with an existing law, he can then request details and documents from that person, if they do not give them the commit an offence under the RTA 1988 section 165 (1) (c) at least.
In the case in the video, the officer would have been well within the law to form a reasonable belief and suspect that the person sat in the car was under the influence and request a breath test for alcohol and or a saliva sample for controlled drugs for being 'in charge'.
The suspect neither has to be driving or have driven the vehicle for in charge offence.
This should be good.
DIC: Drunk / Druggie In Charge.What happens in reality is that a policeman may form a reasonable belief that a person is 'in charge' of vehicle and is committing an offence accordance with an existing law, he can then request details and documents from that person, if they do not give them the commit an offence under the RTA 1988 section 165 (1) (c) at least.
In the case in the video, the officer would have been well within the law to form a reasonable belief and suspect that the person sat in the car was under the influence and request a breath test for alcohol and or a saliva sample for controlled drugs for being 'in charge'.
The suspect neither has to be driving or have driven the vehicle for in charge offence.
This should be good.
kestral said:
gshughes said:
Is this definitely the case in law? Kids have sat in the drivers seat and pretended to drive forever. Does this make them 'in charge' in the eyes of the law?
It does not work like that. The children (or anyone) would only be 'in charge' of the vehicle if there was a law that existed (there is no law without law) that related to being 'in charge' of motor vehicles AND it was proved in a court that they were 'in charge' of that vehicle in accordance with the applicable law.What happens in reality is that a policeman may form a reasonable belief that a person is 'in charge' of vehicle and is committing an offence accordance with an existing law, he can then request details and documents from that person, if they do not give them the commit an offence under the RTA 1988 section 165 (1) (c) at least.
In the case in the video, the officer would have been well within the law to form a reasonable belief and suspect that the person sat in the car was under the influence and request a breath test for alcohol and or a saliva sample for controlled drugs for being 'in charge'.
The suspect neither has to be driving or have driven the vehicle for in charge offence.
This should be good.
Take the sleeping in a car thing, if you are drunk then there is a possibility of an offence so the law comes into play, if you are asleep but sober on the back seat I wouldn't think you have any need to ID yourself in those circumstances.
Frane Selak said:
Take the sleeping in a car thing, if you are drunk then there is a possibility of an offence so the law comes into play, if you are asleep but sober on the back seat I wouldn't think you have any need to ID yourself in those circumstances.
I wouldn't be so sure - the one time I have ever been stopped by British police whilst driving, they ID'd me and breathalysed me in that order. It's probably quite rare for a sober person to decide to sleep in their car Vs a drunk person too, so they'd have their reasons to be suspicious.(I was pulling up outside my house, the chap had misunderstood my motives for turning after he had pulled out behind me. Quite funny as he explained his reason for stopping, then asked for my name and address... My address being "here"
)Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff