Do the Police need a reason to do a breath test ?

[njwc]

A colleague was stopped on her way to work this morning and breathalysed, and when she asked why she was told that they were just randomly stopping people and testing them. She is teetotal so found it quite amusing, although her kids were a bit upset by it all.

Following a discussion we came to the conclusion that none of us knew whether truly random checks are allowed, most people thought there had to be a good reason for breathalysing (e.g. suspicion of drinking, involved a crash etc). Is this the case or do the rules for allow totally random checks ?

BTW This is purely a question in search of an answer, prompted by a discussion in the office. I have no axe to grind on this subject, and am just trying to find an answer on behalf of my colleagues

[maxrider]

No excuse is needed for anything, they can do what they like, when they like... are you really that naive?

[k50 del]

They shouldn't need a reason for random breath tests, anything that can help to remove drink drivers from our roads should be encouraged.

[puggit]

And if you decline I'm sure they can arrest you for being a terrorist

[bluesandtwos]

BiB *in uniform* can request a test where s/he has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol in their body or that person has committed a moving traffic offence or has been involved in an accident.

Fail to provide a specimen = arrest.

[Einion Yrth]

bluesandtwos said:

BiB *in uniform* can request a test where s/he has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol in their body

Since we all generate small quantities of alcohol from purely natural processes the fact that someone is alive is sure and certain knowledge that they have alcohol in their bodies, ergo plod may by some interpretations of current law breath test whomsoever they like.

[njwc]

jamesson - thanks for the link, I did do a search but missed that one

bluesandtwos - thanks also for the clear reply

everyone else -

I dont know how my colleague appears when at the wheel of a car, but she certainly appears sober when shes at work, which being a teetotaller is probably not too hard for her to do She got the distinct impression that they were randomly stopping and testing people with no reason other than that they could do this.

So, from a purely acedemic viewpoint, if an officer decides to breathalyse someone without a good reason what are the consequences ? Could they be disciplined or is it easy to just say 'I was suspicious of the driver' or are the 'powers that be' unconcerned about it on the basis that its not a 'bad' thing to be doing anyway ?

I assume that if the driver was found to be over the limit that they'd be dealt with in the normal way, and rightly so.

For clarification, I dont have a problem with random stops or tests and I certainly dont condone driving with excess alcohol. I'm just curious about the technicalities of the situation now

[mcflurry]

k50 del said:

They shouldn't need a reason for random breath tests, anything that can help to remove drink drivers from our roads should be encouraged.

Totally agree

[Einion Yrth]

jamesson said:

Maybe your colleague is a naff driver and her actions behind the wheel aroused suspicion. I've pulled over cars where you think the driver's had a few, and actually, they're just crap behind the wheel. Just a thought.

Which leaves us with the daft situation where if someone's driving like a tit becaused they're pished they get banned (no problem with this BTW) yet if they're driving like a berk just because they're crap drivers it's 'mind how you go'.

[Dwight VanDriver]

Just to confirm what Ja has stated.

POLICE CANNOT CARRY OUT RANDOM BREATH TESTS - but that is being debated to be brought in

But they have the power to stop any vehicle and following that stop if they have
reason to suspect driver has alcohol in his body (Think of window being wound down and drivers breath smells of 80% proof) or has committed a moving Traffic Offence then can request a breath test. If refused power of arrest only if alcohol suspected.

If it can be proved that test was random upon a person then any proceedure under the law fails so must get off. Further opens up can of worms on malicious prosecution and substantial damages at Civil Court.

dvd

[leosayer]

mcflurry said:

k50 del said: They shouldn't need a reason for random breath tests, anything that can help to remove drink drivers from our roads should be encouraged. Totally agree

Anything???

Having to blow into a pipe on the dashboard before your car will start?

Road blocks with compulsory breath test for all drivers after 11pm? Or within 100m of all schools?

Careful what you wish for.

[k50 del]

leosayer said:

mcflurry said: k50 del said: They shouldn't need a reason for random breath tests, anything that can help to remove drink drivers from our roads should be encouraged. Totally agree Anything??? Having to blow into a pipe on the dashboard before your car will start? Road blocks with compulsory breath test for all drivers after 11pm? Or within 100m of all schools? Careful what you wish for.

It may shock you to learn that I have no issue with any of these things, it's a bit like ID cards I think, the only people to object are those with something to hide. If it makes the roads a safer place then we should all encourage it.

[sultanbrown]

Contrary to what has been said here, a little while ago Cambridge Constabulary did a blanket stop and breath test for everyone travelling into the city. Several of my friends were over an hour late to work because of it.

[Moo Moo]

I got pulled last night by Sussex's finest in Haywards Heath. They asked me if I had been drinking, I said no. They said are you sure, I said yes. He said, oh ok then on your way.

[Jonna_Rex]

Nope, it´s part of their duties.

[gilbertd]

I've been breath tested twice in 31 years, on both occasions it was at night and I had committed a moving traffic offence. On neither occasion did I get anything other than a verbal warning about the offence (once travelling at what the nice police officer described as "travelling at a conservative 80 ish", the other time with only one headlight), but that was used as the escuse to test me. I was always under the impression that you had to commit a moving traffic offence or be driving in such a manner as it appeared you may have been drinking. However, in the couple of weeks leading up to Christmas, there were regular random stops in Peterborough at lunchtime. They would simply pull every other car and breath test the driver. Now I don't have a problem with this, other than it causing long queues making me even later than I normally am for everything.

Has the law been changed to make this possible or are they stretching a point?

[Jonna_Rex]

Not stretched..just part of their job.

>> Edited by Jonna_Rex on Thursday 2nd February 19:33

[Lady Summerisle]

The only time I've ever been pulled over was after leaving a pub carpark (I hadn't even visited the pub was just parking there). There was a few cars pulled over in the same spot and the policeman said it was part of an anti drink driving campaign. Strangely he asked me to breathe in his direction to see if I'd had a drink - he couldn't smell anything (cos I hadn't had a drink) but before they could finish kicking my tyres they got called away on an emergency so didn't get much in the way of an explaination.

[J1mmyD]

bluesandtwos said:

BiB *in uniform* can request a test where s/he has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol in their body or that person has committed a moving traffic offence or has been involved in an accident. Fail to provide a specimen = arrest.

This is the case. Strictly speaking for any stop and search or breath test the BiB needs to be able to show 'reasonable grounds'. (Years since I did Criminal so I'm sure I've got this wrong, but it's ss.21-22 PACE? - someone can correct me, I'm sure).

Anyway, this is the main problem with 'random' testing. But who's going to complain? If you're over the limit, it sounds like sour grapes and no-ones going to pay attention. If you're not over the limit, are you going to take the time to complain and follow through the complaint to those who dictate police area policy? (I might, but then, I'm a pedantic t**t)