Is random breath testing legal in the UK

[adamfawsitt]

This week in a local village the Police set-up a roadblock. They stopped every car and spoke to them briefly about alcohol awareness, those they suspected of drinking were directed to an area on the village green where 2 traffic cars were conducting breath tests.

Is this legal, on what basis can Police stop motorists without reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed?

[Magic919]

They are stopping cars. They are allowed to do that. If they smell booze or see signs of intoxication they breath test. Sounds above board to me.

[adamfawsitt]

Thanks Magic - on what basis are 'they' allowed to stop cars withoit reasonable suspicion of an offence being committed at the time of the stop?

[Magic919]

They don't need a suspicion of offence. Look at Section 163 Road Traffic Act 1988. If we drive cars, they can stop us.

[eatcustard]

"They stopped every car and spoke to them briefly about alcohol awareness."

So they are advising you not to DD, good Idea to me and if they smell booze on you they give you a brethaliser.

[adamfawsitt]

@Magic - that section says that you must stop if ordered but does not cover on what basis the Police can stop you which is the root of my question.

[adamfawsitt]

@eatcustard - thanks, it may be a good idea but my question is as to the legality of the operation.

[Magic919]

That's because you think they need some basis. It's not there as they don't.

[adamfawsitt]

@Magic - just found this on the .Gov website which would seem to indicate the exercise in my village was not legal:

"2. Breath tests

The police can stop you at any time and ask you to take a breath test (‘breathalyse’ you) if:

1. they think you’ve been drinking
2. you’ve committed a traffic offence
3. you’ve been involved in a road traffic accident

If you refuse to take a breath test, or fail to supply a sample of breath and don’t have a ‘reasonable excuse’, you can be arrested. A reasonable excuse could be a genuine physical or mental condition stopping you from giving a sample."

[adamfawsitt]

Christmas just started in our household so will have to leave this until later / tomorrow.

Happy Christmas one and all!

[SS2.]

adamfawsitt said:

@Magic - just found this on the .Gov website which would seem to indicate the exercise in my village was not legal:

"2. Breath tests

But, according to your own account, they weren't stopping vehicles specifically to breathalise every driver.

There really wasn't anything amiss with their process.

[vonhosen]

adamfawsitt said:

@Magic - just found this on the .Gov website which would seem to indicate the exercise in my village was not legal:

"2. Breath tests

The police can stop you at any time and ask you to take a breath test (‘breathalyse’ you) if:

1. they think you’ve been drinking
2. you’ve committed a traffic offence
3. you’ve been involved in a road traffic accident

If you refuse to take a breath test, or fail to supply a sample of breath and don’t have a ‘reasonable excuse’, you can be arrested. A reasonable excuse could be a genuine physical or mental condition stopping you from giving a sample."

The requirement to stop & the requirement for a breath test are from separate legislation.
They don't need any reason to stop you, but they need one of the above reasons to require a breath test.

From your own account they weren't stopping everyone '&' breath testing them all.
If they are stopping people under the requirement in Sec 163 RTA, perfectly legal without suspecting any offence. Then only those that were suspected of drinking are required to provide a breath test, again perfectly legal as it's one of the criteria from the legislation. It would be illegal if everybody stopped was required to give a breath test (if none of the three conditions applied in some of those cases).

[allergictocheese]

There are caveats for stops under 163, in that they must be for a proper police purpose and can't be capricious. Stops in this instance are acceptable as there is a recognised need to enforce drink driving legislation and this time of year is an obvious peak.

[Landshark]

allergictocheese said:

There are caveats for stops under 163, in that they must be for a proper police purpose and can't be capricious. Stops in this instance are acceptable as there is a recognised need to enforce drink driving legislation and this time of year is an obvious peak.

Cannot see any caveat stating for a proper policing purpose??


Stops in this circumstances are acceptable as you are driving a car on a road and are required to stop by a police officer in uniform!

[Einion Yrth]

Landshark said:

allergictocheese said:

There are caveats for stops under 163, in that they must be for a proper police purpose and can't be capricious. Stops in this instance are acceptable as there is a recognised need to enforce drink driving legislation and this time of year is an obvious peak.

Cannot see any caveat stating for a proper policing purpose??


Stops in this circumstances are acceptable as you are driving a car on a road and are required to stop by a police officer in uniform!

Clearly only applicable to Formula 1 cars though.

[mph1977]

adamfawsitt said:

Thanks Magic - on what basis are 'they' allowed to stop cars withoit reasonable suspicion of an offence being committed at the time of the stop?

s. 163 road traffic act as others have stated - allows them to stop to verify the legality of any vehicle

The breath test however needs a suspicion of being intoxicated, Police Officers ( and various health Professionals) are deemed as expert witnesses on such matter by virtue of their role and training.

[mph1977]

adamfawsitt said:

@Magic - just found this on the .Gov website which would seem to indicate the exercise in my village was not legal:

"2. Breath tests

The police can stop you at any time and ask you to take a breath test (‘breathalyse’ you) if:

1. they think you’ve been drinking
2. you’ve committed a traffic offence
3. you’ve been involved in a road traffic accident

If you refuse to take a breath test, or fail to supply a sample of breath and don’t have a ‘reasonable excuse’, you can be arrested. A reasonable excuse could be a genuine physical or mental condition stopping you from giving a sample."

this is borderline FOTL

the stops are under s.163 there is no need for a suspicion ( reasonable or not) for a s. 163 stop

if you then display signs of intoxicated ( an opinion formed by the Constable based on one or more of your behaviour, the smell of intoxicating liquor on your breath, the presence of cerebellar signs) or an offence is revealed then they breath test...

[mph1977]

adamfawsitt said:

@Magic - that section says that you must stop if ordered but does not cover on what basis the Police can stop you which is the root of my question.

to verify the identity of the driver is a legitmiate reason under s.163

[Bigends]

mph1977 said:

adamfawsitt said:

@Magic - that section says that you must stop if ordered but does not cover on what basis the Police can stop you which is the root of my question.

to verify the identity of the driver is a legitmiate reason under s.163

Under review by the Home office next year to bring recording of vehicle stops in line with pedestrian stops

[mph1977]

Bigends said:

mph1977 said:

adamfawsitt said:

@Magic - that section says that you must stop if ordered but does not cover on what basis the Police can stop you which is the root of my question.

to verify the identity of the driver is a legitmiate reason under s.163

Under review by the Home office next year to bring recording of vehicle stops in line with pedestrian stops

how do they propose that the identity of drivers and that they are insured to drive the vehicle are determined ?

a database vehicle check without a stop only verifies that insurance is held, not that the driver is named on that insurance ...