Drink Driving Results

[curr2633]

Hi guy's,

Reading through previous threads on this forum I have come to the conclusion that if you are done for drink driving and blow under 40 you will get away with a caution and slap on the wrist. However if you are between 40 and 50 you will be given the option of a blood test or urine test to be decided by the police at the time. If you are over 80 on your blood test then you will be prosecuted for DD. Does anyone have any idea how the breathalizer results generally relate to blood test results or what kind of blood test results come from breathalizer results of between 40 and 50 ?

[Chrisgr31]

curr2633 said:

Hi guy's,

Reading through previous threads on this forum I have come to the conclusion that if you are done for drink driving and blow under 40 you will get away with a caution and slap on the wrist. However if you are between 40 and 50 you will be given the option of a blood test or urine test to be decided by the police at the time. If you are over 80 on your blood test then you will be prosecuted for DD. Does anyone have any idea how the breathalizer results generally relate to blood test results or what kind of blood test results come from breathalizer results of between 40 and 50 ?

I think there is a flaw in your understanding.

My understanding is that you are breathylsed at the side of the road and either get the all-clear or don't. If you don't then you are taken to the police station where you are again breathylsed this time with a more accurate machine that gives details of the exact amount od alcohol in the breath.

I thought that nowdays the Police Station machice is considered so accurate that no other tests are required unless there are medical reasons?

Never got as far as the police station so dont know by experience! Have never been drinking when breathlysed!

[R_U_LOCAL]

curr2633 said:

Hi guy's,

Reading through previous threads on this forum I have come to the conclusion that if you are done for drink driving and blow under 40 you will get away with a caution and slap on the wrist. However if you are between 40 and 50 you will be given the option of a blood test or urine test to be decided by the police at the time. If you are over 80 on your blood test then you will be prosecuted for DD. Does anyone have any idea how the breathalizer results generally relate to blood test results or what kind of blood test results come from breathalizer results of between 40 and 50 ?

You're correct. The limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, but you'd be released with a caution if you blew between 35 and 40. Between 40 and 50, as you say, you'd be given the option of having the breath sample replaced with a sample of blood or urine, but it's your choice - you can go along with the breath reading if you so wish.

In my experience, the blood results correlate quite accurately with the breath readings in cases like this. For example, if someone blows 45 on the intoxyliser and takes the option for blood, then providing the sample is taken within an hour, the blood reading would normally be between 85 and 95, depending on whether the subject's alcohol level is still rising, or has started to fall.

[jith]

R_U_LOCAL said:

You're correct. The limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, but you'd be released with a caution if you blew between 35 and 40. Between 40 and 50, as you say, you'd be given the option of having the breath sample replaced with a sample of blood or urine, but it's your choice - you can go along with the breath reading if you so wish.

In my experience, the blood results correlate quite accurately with the breath readings in cases like this. For example, if someone blows 45 on the intoxyliser and takes the option for blood, then providing the sample is taken within an hour, the blood reading would normally be between 85 and 95, depending on whether the subject's alcohol level is still rising, or has started to fall.

This is incorrect.
The choice of whether or not the accused is allowed a blood test as evidence is that of the arresting officer, NOT the accused; one of the worst aspects of this law.
The only exception to this is on medical grounds, and even then the accused has to prove to the arresting officer that these grounds exist.
Your experience is indeed that of the fortunate. There are numerous cases where the blood test when given has proven the breath test to be wildly inaccurate.
The problem with this is that blood is now very seldom taken, so you are at the mercy of the machines accuracy.
NOT good law.

[jith]

The Tuscan Rat said:

jith said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

You're correct. The limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, but you'd be released with a caution if you blew between 35 and 40. Between 40 and 50, as you say, you'd be given the option of having the breath sample replaced with a sample of blood or urine, but it's your choice - you can go along with the breath reading if you so wish.

In my experience, the blood results correlate quite accurately with the breath readings in cases like this. For example, if someone blows 45 on the intoxyliser and takes the option for blood, then providing the sample is taken within an hour, the blood reading would normally be between 85 and 95, depending on whether the subject's alcohol level is still rising, or has started to fall.

This is incorrect.
The choice of whether or not the accused is allowed a blood test as evidence is that of the arresting officer, NOT the accused; one of the worst aspects of this law.
The only exception to this is on medical grounds, and even then the accused has to prove to the arresting officer that these grounds exist.
Your experience is indeed that of the fortunate. There are numerous cases where the blood test when given has proven the breath test to be wildly inaccurate.
The problem with this is that blood is now very seldom taken, so you are at the mercy of the machines accuracy.
NOT good law.

Sorry but I'm with Local, Jith you are wrong. If you blow between 40 - 50 the choice is up to the accused, you can either have Blood / Urine taken or be charged. This is 100% the choice of the accused. I had a guy blow 49 the other day, and although my advice would always be give some blood, he choose charge and so was charged and sent to court.

Then you're both wrong.
If you are a police officer and you give an accused this choice it is either out of the goodness of your heart or because you THINK you have to.
Don't have the statutes in front of me now because I'm in my studio, but I'll post them later from home.
By the way, the guy was crazy to refuse the blood test, it might have proven his innocence.

[Terzo123]

I have no idea where Jith is getting his information, but he is wrong!

[jith]

Terzo123 said:

I have no idea where Jith is getting his information, but he is wrong!

Another one!

This is what is used to convict you of DD.
RTA '88 CH52, P 4-11.

These are the appropriate extracts:-

7.—(1) In the course of an investigation into whether a person has committed an offence under section 4 or 5 of this Act a constable may, subject to the following provisions of this section and section 9 of this Act, require him—

(a) to provide two specimens of breath for analysis by means of a device of a type approved by the Secretary of State, or

(b) to provide a specimen of blood or urine for a laboratory test.

(2) A requirement under this section to provide specimens of breath can only be made at a police station.

(3) A requirement under this section to provide a specimen of blood or urine can only be made at a police station or at a hospital; and it cannot be made at a police station unless—

(a) the constable making the requirement has reasonable cause to believe that for medical reasons a specimen of breath cannot be provided or should not be required, or

(b) at the time the requirement is made a device or a reliable device of the type mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above is not available at the police station or it is then for any other reason not practicable to use such a device there, or

(c) the suspected offence is one under section 4 of this Act and the constable making the requirement has been advised by a medical practitioner that the condition of the person required to provide the specimen might be due to some drug;

but may then be made notwithstanding that the person required to provide the specimen has already provided or been required to provide two specimens of breath.

The above sets out the procedure for requirement, then moves on to :-

(4) If the provision of a specimen other than a specimen of breath may be required in pursuance of this section the question whether it is to be a specimen of blood or a specimen of urine......shall be decided by the constable making the requirement......., but if a medical practitioner is of the opinion that for medical reasons a specimen of blood cannot or should not be taken the specimen shall be a specimen of urine.

And then the section that you three are referring to when ignoring the rest of the Act :-

8.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, of any two specimens of breath provided by any person in pursuance of section 7 of this Act that with the lower proportion of alcohol in the breath shall be used and the other shall be disregarded.

(2) If the specimen with the lower proportion of alcohol contains no more than 50 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, the person who provided it may claim that it should be replaced by such specimen as may be required under section 7(4) of this Act and, if he then provides such a specimen, neither specimen of breath shall be used.

Section 2 is the bad law and the problem because it STILL means that the requirement under 7(4) is dictated by the officer, NOT the accused. The accused can ask for it all he likes, but if the officer sticks to his guns he can proceed with the report with no blood test.
This section also makes it clear that the breath specimen must be no more than 50, in other words it assumes absolute accuracy of the breath testing device.
In the cases I have been involved in the accused wanted a blood test because they were convinced the breath machine was inaccurate: they were denied it by the arresting officer using S7(2).
If the machine is faulty it could read anything, so what is the point of setting a limit in which you would be entitled to a blood test.
You should ALWAYS be entitled to a blood test; it is the only real proof of blood/alcohol level.

[Dibble]

jith

In my experience, I would always offer the option to replace the breath with one of blood/urine if the reading was 40-50ugs.

It is up to the officer whether the "statutory option" sample is blood or urine, unless as you say there are medical reasons.

I've quickly learnt to give the subject every opportunity (and always, always, ALWAYS document the procedure) to provide some sort of sample.

If the subject claims to be asthmatic*, and unable to blow into the meachine, afraid of needles** or "not needing a wee"***, I'd always offer blood/urine (OK, I'm digressing onto "medical" reasons rather than statutory options here)

• after having run off and then fought with me

• despite being an intravenous drug user

• *despite having asked to go to the toilet non stop for the preceding part of the procedure.

I think it's better to not only offer every option, but also to be SEEN to offer every option. That way, it makes it trickier for them to get off with failing to provide.

I've even had defence solicitors advising clients to give the requested samples, then later appearing as witnesses to say this.

[jith]

Dibble said:

jith

In my experience, I would always offer the option to replace the breath with one of blood/urine if the reading was 40-50ugs.

It is up to the officer whether the "statutory option" sample is blood or urine, unless as you say there are medical reasons.

I've quickly learnt to give the subject every opportunity (and always, always, ALWAYS document the procedure) to provide some sort of sample.

If the subject claims to be asthmatic*, and unable to blow into the meachine, afraid of needles** or "not needing a wee"***, I'd always offer blood/urine (OK, I'm digressing onto "medical" reasons rather than statutory options here)

• after having run off and then fought with me

• despite being an intravenous drug user

• *despite having asked to go to the toilet non stop for the preceding part of the procedure.

I think it's better to not only offer every option, but also to be SEEN to offer every option. That way, it makes it trickier for them to get off with failing to provide.

I've even had defence solicitors advising clients to give the requested samples, then later appearing as witnesses to say this.

Dibble, I absolutely agree with you 100% on this.
If you are being accused on the reading of an Intoximeter and you think you are under the limit, you would have to be truly nuts not to take a blood test IF OFFERED.
But there is the snag Dibs; you are a gentleman with a true sense of justice, your posts testify to that.
But I'm afraid some of your colleagues are not, that is the way of things.
They will lay down the letter of the law whether or not it is fair or just.
The decision as to the method of sampling should exclusively be that of the accused's and no others. It is clearly prejudicial not to do this.

[Terzo123]

I Dont know about in England, but in Scotland, Well Strathclyde, the police use a pro formas when dealing with Drink/Drug drivers. And on this form should the individual blow between 39 & 49 ( I think) then the officers have no choice but to go to the page which offers blood/ or urine as an option for the suspect. It is then up to the suspect should they wish to elect for this option. It is out of the officers hands they must offer it.

Its a simple enough system, the police just follow the instructions on the form

[Chrispy Porker]

Terzo123 said:

I Dont know about in England, but in Scotland, Well Strathclyde, the police use a pro formas when dealing with Drink/Drug drivers. And on this form should the individual blow between 39 & 49 ( I think) then the officers have no choice but to go to the page which offers blood/ or urine as an option for the suspect. It is then up to the suspect should they wish to elect for this option. It is out of the officers hands they must offer it.

Its a simple enough system, the police just follow the instructions on the form

Same in England. The procedure is clear, MGDDa IIRC, and the blood/urine test is always offered. The 'may claim' bit of S8 gives the suspect a RIGHT for the breath specimen to be replaced, if it falls within these parameters. In my experience some do, some don't, but it is their choice.

The MGDD form is an exhibit which shows that procedure was followed correctly, along with CCTV from the Breath Test Room.(ETA)

Edited by Chrispy Porker on Saturday 2nd June 09:42

[curr2633]

Hey guy's I would like to thank you all for your informative input. However, we have digressed slightly from my original topic of trying to get a general understanding of how breath tests relate to the blood tests with the exception of R U Local. Another question that I have is, on what grounds are you allowed to be pulled over by the police ? I seem to remember reading somewhere 3 reasons for this ???

Edited by curr2633 on Saturday 2nd June 09:54

[vonhosen]

curr2633 said:

Hey guy's I would like to thank you all for your informative input. However, we have digressed slightly from my original topic of trying to get a general understanding of how breath tests relate to the blood tests with the exception of R U Local. Another question that I have is, on what grounds are you allowed to be pulled over by the police ? I seem to remember reading somewhere 3 reasons for this ???

Edited by curr2633 on Saturday 2nd June 09:54

You can be stopped for any reason.

A breath test can be demanded for 3 reasons

1) Officer suspects you have been drinking.
2) You are involved in a collision.
3) You have committed a moving traffic offence.

[Dibble]

curr2633 said:

...how breath tests relate to the blood tests

There is a direct correlation between breath/alcohol and blood/alcohol levels. I did have a table of what the readings were somewhere, but can't put my hand to it just at the moment. It was copied (I think) from Wilkinsons.

curr2633 said:

Another question that I have is, on what grounds are you allowed to be pulled over by the police ? I seem to remember reading somewhere 3 reasons for this ???

A police officer (in uniform) needs no reason whatsoever to stop you (s163 RTA 1988). They DO have to have a reason to breath test you.

However, you could be stopped for seomthing as innocuous as having a repeater/side light out, or no seat belt, and if the officer then smells booze, he or she may suspect you're driving OPL, and would have the power to require a roadside screening test.

[7db]

I reviewed an interesting case where the accused was seen to be acting "in a drunken manner" after driving. He was asked if he had taken mouthwash at the roadside, and so was not screened with the roadside test, and was taken back to the station.

He failed to blow successfully into the machine (and is medically documented as being an asthmatic since birth). The officer opted for a blood test instead. The accused, who suffers from documented chronic eczema and bleeds badly if the skin on his arms is damaged, declined to have blood taken from his arms, and offered blood to be taken instead from his hands - a medically valid method of providing a sample (case law prevents offering only from the knuckle of your big toe whence insufficient blood can be drawn). The nurse declined to take blood from his hands.

The accused offered a urine sample (verbally) but this was declined and he was charged with refusing to provide.

[Dibble]

I think in the circs 7db has described, I'd have gone for the blood (if mediclly appropriate) from the hand, or failing that a urine sample.

If the subject refuses to provide every option given, then they should be charged with fail to provide (IMHO, of course).

I once dealt with a drink driver who was obstructive throughout, claimed to be asthmatic, have a needle phobia etc etc, and who said to me "You're just taking the piss". I did, as that was the next option on the form. He got a three year ban.

[Chrispy Porker]

Likely Lads scene comes to mind.

Sgt: 'Blood or urine sir'

Bolam: 'Just a cup of tea please'

[iaha]

curr2633 said:

Hey guy's I would like to thank you all for your informative input. However, we have digressed slightly from my original topic of trying to get a general understanding of how breath tests relate to the blood tests with the exception of R U Local. Another question that I have is, on what grounds are you allowed to be pulled over by the police ? I seem to remember reading somewhere 3 reasons for this ???

The alcohol levels in your system are thought to be the same at 35ug in breath or 80ml in blood. When the blood sample is sent for analysis the FSS take 7 off the blood reading to ensure that the blood alcohol level was definitely not below the reading given. The police will then prosecute on a reading of 80 or above.
As has already been said, if there is a significant time differential between giving breath and blood, the reading will alter, downwards if the consumption was more than 1 hour previously, or up if the consumption was within the last hour (or thereabouts).

As has already been said, we need no reason to stop a vehicle.

[curr2633]

thanks for that info iaha, this is the kind of info that I'm after. Informative and not common knowledge amongst the everyday person.

Edited by curr2633 on Saturday 2nd June 13:14

[sleep envy]

if you opt for a blood sample do they have to send for a medic and is there one in the station?