Random Police stops
Discussion
On the way to work I noticed a number of Police cars leading to a layby where drivers were asked to pull off the road for questioning. I assume they were being asked if they had consumed alcohol to be judged if a test was required.
Having done nothing wrong my question is are these drivers obliged to answer any questions put to them by an officer?
There are a plethora of videos out there where people refuse to give information believing themselves innocent and as such entitled to be on their way, but at the same time, I understand that Bib is just trying to keep us all safe.
Having done nothing wrong my question is are these drivers obliged to answer any questions put to them by an officer?
There are a plethora of videos out there where people refuse to give information believing themselves innocent and as such entitled to be on their way, but at the same time, I understand that Bib is just trying to keep us all safe.
vxr8mate said:
On the way to work I noticed a number of Police cars leading to a layby where drivers were asked to pull off the road for questioning. I assume they were being asked if they had consumed alcohol to be judged if a test was required.
Having done nothing wrong my question is are these drivers obliged to answer any questions put to them by an officer?
There are a plethora of videos out there where people refuse to give information believing themselves innocent and as such entitled to be on their way, but at the same time, I understand that Bib is just trying to keep us all safe.
They are obliged to stop, they are obliged to provide their licence, insurance, name/address/dob etc. Depending on what the Police officer reasonably suspects they may have other obligations.Having done nothing wrong my question is are these drivers obliged to answer any questions put to them by an officer?
There are a plethora of videos out there where people refuse to give information believing themselves innocent and as such entitled to be on their way, but at the same time, I understand that Bib is just trying to keep us all safe.
So they are compelled to engage but the answer beyond that is..........it depends on the individual circumstances.
Having experienced one of these, I checked the law.
The Police have very wide powers under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. If you don't stop, you're committing a criminal offence. However, the person stopping you must be a police officer in uniform or a traffic officer.
IANAL but I had understood that judges did require that police stopping motorists under this Act must be acting in the execution of their duty and that they can’t simply stop drivers for s
t and giggles. The grey area is trawling for potential offences.
I'm not quite sure how the random stopping of a stream of traffic would measure up in court to the stop having a police purpose in respect of any one individual car in the absence of any specific purpose for stopping that car. It reeks rather of a fishing expedition.
And, no, I'm not standing up for the rights of drink drivers or the uninsured, but I did rather enjoy growing up in a non-police state and would prefer to keep it that way.
The Police have very wide powers under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. If you don't stop, you're committing a criminal offence. However, the person stopping you must be a police officer in uniform or a traffic officer.
IANAL but I had understood that judges did require that police stopping motorists under this Act must be acting in the execution of their duty and that they can’t simply stop drivers for s
t and giggles. The grey area is trawling for potential offences.I'm not quite sure how the random stopping of a stream of traffic would measure up in court to the stop having a police purpose in respect of any one individual car in the absence of any specific purpose for stopping that car. It reeks rather of a fishing expedition.
And, no, I'm not standing up for the rights of drink drivers or the uninsured, but I did rather enjoy growing up in a non-police state and would prefer to keep it that way.
psi310398 said:
Having experienced one of these, I checked the law.
The Police have very wide powers under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. If you don't stop, you're committing a criminal offence. However, the person stopping you must be a police officer in uniform or a traffic officer.
IANAL but I had understood that judges did require that police stopping motorists under this Act must be acting in the execution of their duty and that they can’t simply stop drivers for st and giggles. The grey area is trawling for potential offences.
I'm not quite sure how the random stopping of a stream of traffic would measure up in court to the stop having a police purpose in respect of any one individual car in the absence of any specific purpose for stopping that car. It reeks rather of a fishing expedition.
And, no, I'm not standing up for the rights of drink drivers or the uninsured, but I did rather enjoy growing up in a non-police state and would prefer to keep it that way.
Checking that the driver is licenced, insured (& driving within the terms of any licence held/insurance) is in the execution of their duty. Anything relevant to other matters that emerge as a result of that initial contact may also then be part of the execution of their duty.The Police have very wide powers under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. If you don't stop, you're committing a criminal offence. However, the person stopping you must be a police officer in uniform or a traffic officer.
IANAL but I had understood that judges did require that police stopping motorists under this Act must be acting in the execution of their duty and that they can’t simply stop drivers for s
t and giggles. The grey area is trawling for potential offences.I'm not quite sure how the random stopping of a stream of traffic would measure up in court to the stop having a police purpose in respect of any one individual car in the absence of any specific purpose for stopping that car. It reeks rather of a fishing expedition.
And, no, I'm not standing up for the rights of drink drivers or the uninsured, but I did rather enjoy growing up in a non-police state and would prefer to keep it that way.
There are also other powers to stop outside of Sec 163, but 163 is the one most likely to be being used in the sort of circumstances the OP is suggesting.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 21st December 11:17
The Police are doing drink drive checkpoints here everyday. They have massive long queues as they are testing 3 out of 4 drivers (and usually have a few on a layby I assume didn't pass the breath test). I think the reason for taking such a high sample is that it gets people talking about enforcement and this will hopefully act as a deterrent over Christmas and New Year. I'm glad to see it tbh.
vonhosen said:
Checking that the driver is licenced, insured (& driving within the terms of any licence held/insurance) is in the execution of their duty. Anything relevant to other matters that emerge as a result of that initial contact may also then be part of the execution of their duty.
Yes, I don't dispute that. Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 21st December 11:17
But, equally, it does rather look like bootstrapping when you stop whole swathes of people - the motive, I suggest, is rather more to find a reason to dig further i.e. it is speculative.
psi310398 said:
Yes, I don't dispute that.
But, equally, it does rather look like bootstrapping when you stop whole swathes of people - the motive, I suggest, is rather more to find a reason to dig further i.e. it is speculative.
Of course it is. It's aiming to see if there are grounds to administer a breath test. But, equally, it does rather look like bootstrapping when you stop whole swathes of people - the motive, I suggest, is rather more to find a reason to dig further i.e. it is speculative.
vxr8mate said:
So, any motorist stopped under these circumstances only need give the required responses to questions regarding licence, tax and insurance?
Any conversation such as 'have you had a drink recently Sir' could be ignored, or would that be viewed as obstruction?
No it would be viewed as a being pleb.Any conversation such as 'have you had a drink recently Sir' could be ignored, or would that be viewed as obstruction?
HantsRat said:
vxr8mate said:
So, any motorist stopped under these circumstances only need give the required responses to questions regarding licence, tax and insurance?
Any conversation such as 'have you had a drink recently Sir' could be ignored, or would that be viewed as obstruction?
No it would be viewed as a being pleb.Any conversation such as 'have you had a drink recently Sir' could be ignored, or would that be viewed as obstruction?
vxr8mate said:
So, any motorist stopped under these circumstances only need give the required responses to questions regarding licence, tax and insurance?
Any conversation such as 'have you had a drink recently Sir' could be ignored, or would that be viewed as obstruction?
It wouldn't be viewed as obstruction in the legal sense of 'obstructing a police officer', but it could help form grounds to administer a breath test. Any conversation such as 'have you had a drink recently Sir' could be ignored, or would that be viewed as obstruction?
vxr8mate said:
So, any motorist stopped under these circumstances only need give the required responses to questions regarding licence, tax and insurance?
Any conversation such as 'have you had a drink recently Sir' could be ignored, or would that be viewed as obstruction?
Answer with either Yes or No could lead to a test. I saw one on TV where the driver answered no and the officer said "you will not mind taking a test then will you?Any conversation such as 'have you had a drink recently Sir' could be ignored, or would that be viewed as obstruction?
BMR said:
Actually drove by one of these random stops where they were breathalising drivers last Saturday and sort of wish they’d pulled me in. Been stopped before but never breathalised.
I was pulled over on M2 many years ago. I was asked about my speed, and said I was keeping up with the flow. 'As you have committed a moving motoring offence, I am entitled to breathalyse you'. I said that I had drunk nothing recently, 'maybe, but when I breathalyse you, the other drivers will look and be warned'. I blew zero, and was then free to go, no speeding ticket but just told to accelerate to joining speed along the hard shoulder.psi310398 said:
vonhosen said:
Checking that the driver is licenced, insured (& driving within the terms of any licence held/insurance) is in the execution of their duty. Anything relevant to other matters that emerge as a result of that initial contact may also then be part of the execution of their duty.
Yes, I don't dispute that. Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 21st December 11:17
But, equally, it does rather look like bootstrapping when you stop whole swathes of people - the motive, I suggest, is rather more to find a reason to dig further i.e. it is speculative.
If there are no grounds to demand a breath test following that lawful use of Sec 163 then there are no grounds to demand a breath test etc. (The fact somebody has been stopped in order to check licence/insurance etc is not grounds for a breath test). The person should be detained no longer than is necessary for the original reason for stop under Sec 163 (or in pursuance of any other legal reason to detain resulting from, or coming to light out of, that original contact).
I had my documents checked near the French/Spanish border recently & had a nice view down the barrel of a pump action shotgun as I approached (by paramilitary attired officers). No hint that I had committed any offences, no breath test ensued, they just wanted to see my insurance certificate.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 21st December 13:49
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff