Drink Driving Question
Discussion
An employee has told me that she was stopped last week and given a roadside breath test and found to be over the limit (idiot). But there's something about her version of events that doesn't fit with how I understood the process to work.
1. Stopped and breathalised - over the limit, she can't remember exactly but recalls being told she was 2 times over and recalls some figures vaguely, 60 or something.
2. Taken to station to give second breath sample but unable to raise the puff to record a reading (smoker). She says trying her best but can't manage it can she have another go. After however many failed attempts the officers give up. She apologies and asks if she can have another go later, but again she is unable to record a reading. She offers to give a blood test but one is not taken.
3. She is taken to the cells and after 3 or 4 hours is driven home, apparently handcuffed, fair do's she's an estate agent.
4. She's shown me the paperwork she was given which states that she was incababale of providing a specimen of breath.
5. She's in court next week for the offence of drink driving.
Now I've never seen the paperwork or experienced the procedure first hand but have heard many a tale of how it goes. So should she have been given a blood or urine test? and should she have some paperwork stating her blood alcohol level?
I was under the impression that the analiser used in the station was to provide a more accurate measure of the alcohol level in order to prosecute and as such essential but again I'm not sure.
So is her version of events possible? and what is she likely to receive?
Thanks
David
1. Stopped and breathalised - over the limit, she can't remember exactly but recalls being told she was 2 times over and recalls some figures vaguely, 60 or something.
2. Taken to station to give second breath sample but unable to raise the puff to record a reading (smoker). She says trying her best but can't manage it can she have another go. After however many failed attempts the officers give up. She apologies and asks if she can have another go later, but again she is unable to record a reading. She offers to give a blood test but one is not taken.
3. She is taken to the cells and after 3 or 4 hours is driven home, apparently handcuffed, fair do's she's an estate agent.
4. She's shown me the paperwork she was given which states that she was incababale of providing a specimen of breath.
5. She's in court next week for the offence of drink driving.
Now I've never seen the paperwork or experienced the procedure first hand but have heard many a tale of how it goes. So should she have been given a blood or urine test? and should she have some paperwork stating her blood alcohol level?
I was under the impression that the analiser used in the station was to provide a more accurate measure of the alcohol level in order to prosecute and as such essential but again I'm not sure.
So is her version of events possible? and what is she likely to receive?
Thanks
David
I would imagine she would've have been charged with failure to provide a specimen of breath, smoking will be no excuse.
I am not sure of the penalty but a ban is very likely.
Don't see why see would have been taken home in cuffs as presumably she had been charged and was no longer under arrest.
I am not sure of the penalty but a ban is very likely.
Don't see why see would have been taken home in cuffs as presumably she had been charged and was no longer under arrest.
Edited by NCC1701 on Saturday 28th April 23:01
Her version of events sounds correct to me. The modern roadside devices do give a reading, and 60 would indicate she was nearly twice the legal limit, but that reading isn't an evidential one - it just gives the Officer sufficient suspicion to arrest them.
Once they're at the Police station, they are required to provide two samples of breath into an evidential machine which is much more accurate and finely calibrated. If they fail to provide a sample, then that's an offence in itself.
The only reason the Police would require a further sample of blood or urine would be if there was a medical reason for them being unable to provide breath samples. Just being a smoker isn't sufficient reason for her not to have provided a sample - I've known serious asthmatics provide evidential samples, and if she'd managed to provide a roadside sample, she should be able to blow into the evidential machine.
If someone is charged with failing to provide, then there won't be a reading on their charge sheet, because they've failed to provide!
The courts treat failing to provide more seriously than low-level drink-driving, because they can't assess how drunk the defendent was at the time. She'll be looking at a fine (£300 - £600 depending on her circumstances) and a 12 - 18 month disqualification.
Once they're at the Police station, they are required to provide two samples of breath into an evidential machine which is much more accurate and finely calibrated. If they fail to provide a sample, then that's an offence in itself.
The only reason the Police would require a further sample of blood or urine would be if there was a medical reason for them being unable to provide breath samples. Just being a smoker isn't sufficient reason for her not to have provided a sample - I've known serious asthmatics provide evidential samples, and if she'd managed to provide a roadside sample, she should be able to blow into the evidential machine.
If someone is charged with failing to provide, then there won't be a reading on their charge sheet, because they've failed to provide!
The courts treat failing to provide more seriously than low-level drink-driving, because they can't assess how drunk the defendent was at the time. She'll be looking at a fine (£300 - £600 depending on her circumstances) and a 12 - 18 month disqualification.
davidn said:
An employee has told me that she was stopped last week and given a roadside breath test and found to be over the limit (idiot). But there's something about her version of events that doesn't fit with how I understood the process to work.
1. Stopped and breathalised - over the limit, she can't remember exactly but recalls being told she was 2 times over and recalls some figures vaguely, 60 or something.
2. Taken to station to give second breath sample but unable to raise the puff to record a reading (smoker). She says trying her best but can't manage it can she have another go. After however many failed attempts the officers give up. She apologies and asks if she can have another go later, but again she is unable to record a reading. She offers to give a blood test but one is not taken.
3. She is taken to the cells and after 3 or 4 hours is driven home, apparently handcuffed, fair do's she's an estate agent.
4. She's shown me the paperwork she was given which states that she was incababale of providing a specimen of breath.
5. She's in court next week for the offence of drink driving.
Now I've never seen the paperwork or experienced the procedure first hand but have heard many a tale of how it goes. So should she have been given a blood or urine test? and should she have some paperwork stating her blood alcohol level?
I was under the impression that the analiser used in the station was to provide a more accurate measure of the alcohol level in order to prosecute and as such essential but again I'm not sure.
So is her version of events possible? and what is she likely to receive?
Thanks
David
1. Stopped and breathalised - over the limit, she can't remember exactly but recalls being told she was 2 times over and recalls some figures vaguely, 60 or something.
2. Taken to station to give second breath sample but unable to raise the puff to record a reading (smoker). She says trying her best but can't manage it can she have another go. After however many failed attempts the officers give up. She apologies and asks if she can have another go later, but again she is unable to record a reading. She offers to give a blood test but one is not taken.
3. She is taken to the cells and after 3 or 4 hours is driven home, apparently handcuffed, fair do's she's an estate agent.
4. She's shown me the paperwork she was given which states that she was incababale of providing a specimen of breath.
5. She's in court next week for the offence of drink driving.
Now I've never seen the paperwork or experienced the procedure first hand but have heard many a tale of how it goes. So should she have been given a blood or urine test? and should she have some paperwork stating her blood alcohol level?
I was under the impression that the analiser used in the station was to provide a more accurate measure of the alcohol level in order to prosecute and as such essential but again I'm not sure.
So is her version of events possible? and what is she likely to receive?
Thanks
David
:lol: for the bold phrase
If I remember it correctly, failure to provide a breath specimen carries the same penalty as driving under the influence, to stop people refusing to blow into the machine. Cant see why they wouldnt take a blood sample unless the doc was busy elsewhere though. If the roadside machine was showing double the limit, damage limitation might suggest a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity...
chrispy porker said:
A blood or urine sample is only requested if there is a medical reason why a subject cannot provide a breath specimen. Failure or refusal equals charge.
If a "suspect" offers to take a blood test though, but that option isn't given to them...wouldn't that be a big positive when it comes to court for them?
That said - given that she blew twice the limit at the roadside, it seems likely she was over, and nothing short of summary execution is good enough.
tigger1 said:
chrispy porker said:
A blood or urine sample is only requested if there is a medical reason why a subject cannot provide a breath specimen. Failure or refusal equals charge.
If a "suspect" offers to take a blood test though, but that option isn't given to them...wouldn't that be a big positive when it comes to court for them?
That said - given that she blew twice the limit at the roadside, it seems likely she was over, and nothing short of summary execution is good enough.
An offer to go to a blood test might be admissable by her defence in mitigation, but it wouldn't get her off the charge.
In my experience, the roadside machines are pretty accurate, and a reading of 60 would make her wholly unfit to drive.
She deserves everything she gets.
The amount she has had to drink is irrelevant.
The charge is that she failed or refused to provide a specimen,when it was required.
It is good practice to mention whether she was drunk when booked in, and how long she was detained under s.10 until released, as that gives an indication of how drunk she was, but the charge is the same however much she had drunk.
The charge is that she failed or refused to provide a specimen,when it was required.
It is good practice to mention whether she was drunk when booked in, and how long she was detained under s.10 until released, as that gives an indication of how drunk she was, but the charge is the same however much she had drunk.
R_U_LOCAL said:
tigger1 said:
chrispy porker said:
A blood or urine sample is only requested if there is a medical reason why a subject cannot provide a breath specimen. Failure or refusal equals charge.
If a "suspect" offers to take a blood test though, but that option isn't given to them...wouldn't that be a big positive when it comes to court for them?
That said - given that she blew twice the limit at the roadside, it seems likely she was over, and nothing short of summary execution is good enough.
An offer to go to a blood test might be admissable by her defence in mitigation, but it wouldn't get her off the charge.
In my experience, the roadside machines are pretty accurate, and a reading of 60 would make her wholly unfit to drive.
She deserves everything she gets.
I'm not disagreeing- but it just seems a bit odd.
What if there were a slightly "dodgy" BiB (and I'm not suggesting this is ***EVER*** the case, but just imagine, hypothetically...) who decided that they were going to have somebody for this offence. Bring the person back with an alleged positive at the roadside- and then say that the person refused to give a sample (when in fact the Occifer had tickled them to stop them blowing). Just seems that allowing a blood test would be a sensible idea, and puts things beyond reasonable doubt.
tigger1 said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
tigger1 said:
chrispy porker said:
A blood or urine sample is only requested if there is a medical reason why a subject cannot provide a breath specimen. Failure or refusal equals charge.
If a "suspect" offers to take a blood test though, but that option isn't given to them...wouldn't that be a big positive when it comes to court for them?
That said - given that she blew twice the limit at the roadside, it seems likely she was over, and nothing short of summary execution is good enough.
An offer to go to a blood test might be admissable by her defence in mitigation, but it wouldn't get her off the charge.
In my experience, the roadside machines are pretty accurate, and a reading of 60 would make her wholly unfit to drive.
She deserves everything she gets.
I'm not disagreeing- but it just seems a bit odd.
What if there were a slightly "dodgy" BiB (and I'm not suggesting this is ***EVER*** the case, but just imagine, hypothetically...) who decided that they were going to have somebody for this offence. Bring the person back with an alleged positive at the roadside- and then say that the person refused to give a sample (when in fact the Occifer had tickled them to stop them blowing). Just seems that allowing a blood test would be a sensible idea, and puts things beyond reasonable doubt.
"Tickling them to stop them blowing".
Most custody offices are covered by extensive CCTV systems these days, so PC Tickle is unlikely to get away with this one!
The station machines give readouts even when someone blows an insufficient amount into the machine. IIRC you are required to blow something like 1.5 litres of air (possibly more)into the machine sustaining a minimum amount of pressure before the reading is accepted. If the amount blown is less then the attempt will fail, but an alcohol reading will still be shown on the printout. This is usually a lower value than the reading from an acceptable sample because the machine hasn't yet received the deep lung air it requires. Each of the two samples required have to be taken in a three minute window, and you can generally get up to four attempts to provide each sample. If you fail to provide a sample within that three-minute window, even if the other sample was ok, you will be charged with fail to provide.
One of the primary reasons that the legislation is so prescriptive and rigid is that drink drivers try to use whatever delaying tactics they can think of. If a 'fail to provide' precipitated a further delay in proceedings while the FME was called to take a blood sample, then the delay could mean that the blood alcohol had reduced to below a prosecutable level.
The lady in the OP should have been offered a printed record of her failed attempts, which would show the volume of air impelled into the machine on each attempt, and the (non-evidential) reading obtained from each failed attempt.
It's her choice whether to take or leave the printout.
One of the primary reasons that the legislation is so prescriptive and rigid is that drink drivers try to use whatever delaying tactics they can think of. If a 'fail to provide' precipitated a further delay in proceedings while the FME was called to take a blood sample, then the delay could mean that the blood alcohol had reduced to below a prosecutable level.
The lady in the OP should have been offered a printed record of her failed attempts, which would show the volume of air impelled into the machine on each attempt, and the (non-evidential) reading obtained from each failed attempt.
It's her choice whether to take or leave the printout.
Thanks all for the replies so far, I feel much better informed. Basically she's screwed then as she failed to provide an evidential sample for whatever reason but I still don't get why her paperwork reads "incapable" in the box for providing an evidential sample or why no other method of proving her blood alcohol level was used.
To me that says you were so pissed you didn't know the difference between blowing and sucking which obviously if she was on a date instead of in custody could have beneficial results for the recipient of her incapability and certainly beats a good night kiss.
Whilst I don't condone her decision to risk driving when she knew she shouldn't, she's just made a dumb mistake apparently the only one in 30 years of driving so I'm still wonderng what the outcome will be in court on Thursday.
BTW that's now my second employee had for D&D, estate agents piss'eds the lot of 'em
.
Thanks for the info everyone
David
To me that says you were so pissed you didn't know the difference between blowing and sucking which obviously if she was on a date instead of in custody could have beneficial results for the recipient of her incapability and certainly beats a good night kiss.
Whilst I don't condone her decision to risk driving when she knew she shouldn't, she's just made a dumb mistake apparently the only one in 30 years of driving so I'm still wonderng what the outcome will be in court on Thursday.
BTW that's now my second employee had for D&D, estate agents piss'eds the lot of 'em
. Thanks for the info everyone
David
So is the "failure to provide" charge the easy option with a guaranteed conviction, rather than risking a (more accurate?) blood or urine sample for analysis, which may lead to a DD conviction? How difficult / time consuming is it for a urine sample to be obtained- surely a doc. doesn't need to be present?
7.
7.
Edited by number 7 on Sunday 29th April 13:06
number 7 said:
So is the failure to provide charge the easy option with a guaranteed conviction, rather than risking a (more accurate) blood or urine sample for analysis, which may lead to a DD conviction? How difficult / time consuming is it for a urine sample to be obtained- surely a doc. doesn't need to be present?
7.
7.
Interesting.... so would the penalty for failing to provide a sample not result in D&D charge with the associated ban? As it stands apart from the roadside test there is no record of alcohol level which doesn't sound right to me unless failure to provide automatically assumes you've hit the jackpot on the "how pissed am I" scale. Which I believe goes:
1. Fairly - George Best
2. Very - Dennis Thatcher
3. Don't let me near the nukes - Boris Yeltsin.
Scoring a Boris requiring automatic imprisonment of course.
Sorry for being a pain chaps but still not 100% on this yet.
David
davidn said:
number 7 said:
So is the failure to provide charge the easy option with a guaranteed conviction, rather than risking a (more accurate) blood or urine sample for analysis, which may lead to a DD conviction? How difficult / time consuming is it for a urine sample to be obtained- surely a doc. doesn't need to be present?
7.
7.
Interesting.... so would the penalty for failing to provide a sample not result in D&D charge with the associated ban? As it stands apart from the roadside test there is no record of alcohol level which doesn't sound right to me unless failure to provide automatically assumes you've hit the jackpot on the "how pissed am I" scale. Which I believe goes:
1. Fairly - George Best
2. Very - Dennis Thatcher
3. Don't let me near the nukes - Boris Yeltsin.
Scoring a Boris requiring automatic imprisonment of course.
Sorry for being a pain chaps but still not 100% on this yet.
David
There's no automatic assumption as to how drunk a person is - you could actually be charged with failing to provide if your alcohol level was below the limit.
In cases such as this though, the court will be more interested in other evidence, such as the manner of driving, whether the person appeared drunk, their demeanor etc. The fact that she was in a cell for 4 hour speaks volumes, as a Custody Officer isn't allowed to charge someone who's still drunk. It appears in this case that they've had to wait 4 hours until she was sober enough to be charged.
R_U_LOCAL said:
There's no automatic assumption as to how drunk a person is - you could actually be charged with failing to provide if your alcohol level was below the limit.
In cases such as this though, the court will be more interested in other evidence, such as the manner of driving, whether the person appeared drunk, their demeanor etc. The fact that she was in a cell for 4 hour speaks volumes, as a Custody Officer isn't allowed to charge someone who's still drunk. It appears in this case that they've had to wait 4 hours until she was sober enough to be charged.
Surely if you've failed to provide a sample, you'll be convicted. Are you suggesting that behaviour may influence sentencing?
I also don't quite understand the process by which someone can be deemed too drunk to charge or sober enough to release without evidential samples. Unless those that appear to be drunk are deemed to have consumed alcohol.
7.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff