Pitchpro
Road Traffic act 1988 Section 6 paragraph 3 says otherwise!
Gie it a rest ninfan, the officer was a bell-end of the highest order and is obviously used to being able to throw his authority around without recourse, the other officers meekly went along with the follow up breathylyser procedure so i read into that scenario that they automatically back each other up whether or not there is evidence to say so.
Deserves to be stripped of rank.
Yeah, I'm sure you'd feel the same if someone got off a DD charge because the police couldn't be arsed!
I look forward to seeing how matey boy gets on with his civil case for false arrest 😉
I would be more concerned if someone got off a DD charge because the police were too busy fitting up an innocent man.
It's not a matter of the police being [i]not being arsed[/i], it that video it's a matter of the [i]police being arses[/i]
The policeman carrying out the arrest says "[i]you've been seen driving this morning[/i]" - a lie.
That is really worrying doubly so that the officers colleagues jumped in and backed up the first copper . Ninfan despite your views the police clearly agreed they had no grounds to suspect drink driving hence the withdrawal of the case at first hearing . If only he sued the individual officer not the GMP and given the amount of tax payers money that will get blown on this there ought to be some way of recouping that from his pension .
a lie.
Far as we know.
It's difficult, isn't it. It's quite easy to make a lot of assumptions ("he's not been drinking, he's not been driving") that we don't actually know are true, then string out the copper. Our Mr Peers has clearly been a thorn in their side for a while, he wails about being a "pedestrian" but regular pedestrians don't tend to walk around wearing hard hats with signs on declaring how innocent they are.
Not that that makes any of it right, of course. Being aggressively and militantly law-abiding might be trollish behaviour, but it's not actually illegal, so it does look like the police were out of order. Cynically, I'd hazard that they've played right into his hands in arresting him.
And anyway, what exactly does "detained" mean in this context? Under what power was he being detained? It certainly wasn't a stop and search.
Crankboy - police clearly agreed they had no grounds to suspect drink driving hence the withdrawal of the case at first hearing
Eh, surely CPS felt there was not enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution - thats hardly the same as 'police agreeing no grounds to suspect', is it? - if every case dropped at court was 'no grounds to suspect' then the whole system would have collapsed under the compensation bill!
Ninfan no if the police had grounds to suspect then he would be guilty of failing to provide. As the offense is made out by the combination of the police having reasonable grounds to suspect and him not providing the sample. Given the fact he clearly refuses to provide the only missing evidence to prosecute is the police having any evidence they reasonably suspected he had been drink driving.
[quote=Cougar ]And anyway, what exactly does "detained" mean in this context? Under what power was he being detained? It certainly wasn't a stop and search.
I'm not sure there was any legal basis at all (though I'll admit to not being an expert). It seemed to be the officer's way of giving the impression he had an obligation to go with him without the trouble of actually arresting him.
I am astonished that anyone thinks the police have acted appropriately in this case.
All this does is increase the resentment for people we are looking to trust.
Seems like if he hadn't been drinking, he could have avoided a lot of hassle for himself by not being a bellend and providing a breath sample.
Maybe he shouldn't have had to, but none of us know if he had indeed been driving. Or drinking for that matter.
A breath test would have cleared it all up straight away surely ?
(Unless he was lying of course)
Seems like if he hadn't been drinking, he could have avoided a lot of hassle for himself by not being a bellend and providing a breath sample.
que?? This implies that if you do not comply with the police then you are a bell end, even if they are wrong? Nothing bellend ish about it. If I was walking down the street and was asked by the cops to be breathalysed I'd tell them to jog on too. I drive to plenty of places and then get over the limit. Nothing illegal about that. It's how you get home that counts.
Detained means not under arrest but required to remain for a legitimate police purpose so a search under pace or a preliminary breath test. The compulsion comes from the risk of being charged with obstructing a constable or in this case a refusal is a discrete offence of failing to provide a screening sample and also creates a power of arrest to take to the police station for an evidential sample.
Basically detained falls short of arrest but creates adverse consequences if you don't play ball. It can also mean "I have no power to keep you here but I don't want you to know that ."
Crankboy - regards evidence, as my 'couldn't prosecute satan' mate often says, 'what we can do and what we're willing to run with on the day are often different things'...
Next up ninfan explains how black is really white.
Sad fact is this kind of harassment and abuse of power probably goes on all the time.
It's a road side breathalyzer test.
He must be stopped whilst in control of a vehicle.
He cannot have been drinking after exiting the vehicle.
That's completely incorrect. Under the road traffic act a uniformed officer has the power to enter a property and require a person they suspect to have been driving whilst over the limit to take a roadside breath test. If they refuse, or fail it, they get locked up to give an evidential sample at a police station. They then have the power to search the vehicle and the premises and interview the person (when sober) to investigate any post consumption claims. A civilian expert then considers the results of the evidential sample and what the suspect claims to have post consumed to give a verdict as to whether they were over the limit at the time of driving.
The claim that they have to be caught behind the wheel is poppycock
if the police had grounds to suspect then he would be guilty of failing to provide
I may be wrong on this, but that's not a crime in and of itself, is it? My understanding was that you could freely refuse a breath test without penalty and opt to provide a urine sample back at the station instead. Most people don't choose this for fairly obvious reasons, but they're allowed to. I think.
que?? This implies that if you do not comply with the police then you are a bell end
No it doesn't.
It implies that [b]he[/b] was being a bellend. In the situation being discussed.
If he was telling the truth about not drinking/driving, providing a breath test would have cleared everything up nicely.
No hassle for anybody, and he could have gone back to what he was doing and being the smuggest bloke in the world.
(I'm surprised he wouldn't have taken that option with glee to be honest)
Or if he hadn't driven then explaining that, although he and the copper both know he normally drives a blue Mercedes there on a morning, today the car was at home and he had taken the bus.
Happy days.
(If he was telling the truth obviously)
At best that copper is saying that if i see you drive to a pub and i stop you while walking home i can do you for drink driving. Total arse.
Basically detained falls short of arrest but creates adverse consequences if you don't play ball. It can also mean "I have no power to keep you here but I don't want you to know that ."
That's where I was going with that. You can be detained under PACE for a stop and search if, and only if, the officer has reasonable grounds for suspicion. You can't be detained just because the officer doesn't like the cut of your jib.
if the police had grounds to suspect then he would be guilty of failing to provide
I may be wrong on this, but that's not a crime in and of itself, is it? My understanding was that you could freely refuse a breath test without penalty and opt to provide a urine sample back at the station instead. Most people don't choose this for fairly obvious reasons, but they're allowed to. I think.
If you fail to provide at the roadside and the copper thinks you're over the limit, then you get locked up. Then if you fail to give any evidential sample at the nick you get charged with failing to provide which in many cases is a sterner sentence than being, for example one and a half the limit.
If you fail to provide at the roadside and the copper [i]doesn't[/i] think you're over the limit then you get reported for summons and sent on your way.
In the example of this copper and this protestor (or whatever he calls himself) then only the copper who initially a) accused him of stinking of intoxicants b) said he knew he'd driven that morning is in the wrong. The other lads are only acting on the information passed by the first guy, a Sergeant
Ninfan reasonable coarse:
Judge: did you see the defendant driving?
Police officer: no I saw his car in the car park.
Judge: did you have clear visbility up until the time you encountered the suspect and can be sure he ingested no alcohol.
Policeman: no judge.
Judge: you didn't see the defendant drink, you didn't see him drive,leave or attempt to enter a vehicle. You were not present to say whether he had a drink since the car was parked, however long that may be. Where is th evidence?
Policeman: we forceably made a pedestrian take a road side breathalyzer test though not driving.
I'm not even a solicitor..... He would get raped in court.
parkesie - MemberAt best that copper is saying that if i see you drive to a pub and i stop you while walking home i can do you for drink driving.
Did you not know it's illegal to have a drink while owning a car?
Cougar that understanding of yours is dangerously wrong you have to provide the sample the officer asks for unless you have a reasonable excuse essentially medical and you make the officer aware of it. If you provide breath and blow over but under 50ug% then you can chose to replace the breath with blood or urine but again the police chose which.
Refusal at the roadside is a relitively minor offence carrying points or a ban and a fine refusal at the roadside also gets you arrested to go through the evidential test at the station. Refusing at the station Carey's automatic disqualification and is imprisonable.
So in general cooperate with the procedure. Always assuming it is a lawful one based on a genuinely held reasonable suspicion.
Could of provided a urine sample for him. Police mans shoes would be a suitable container surely?
Good to know, Ta. Not something I've ever had to do.
Lets not forget he was pushed over at the start...
anyhow, in contrast, at 21m48s we have a well played interaction with the police:
Looking forward to Babylon on C4 at 9pm tonight...
That Bilderberg vid is great 😀
My understanding was that you could freely refuse a breath test without penalty and opt to provide a urine sample back at the station instead.
Probably best not to get your traffic law knowledge from "Withnail and I"...
thugs with badges,unfortunately nothing unusual 😐
For an officer to undermine the publics confidence in the police seems incredibly counter productive - that sargeant's action seem to be about short term tactical gain for a long term loss of public confidence.
The police sargeant seems to be a bit of an unsavoury character who isn't really in control of his work.
I read that the chap had driven there the night before and stayed in a hotel nearby, meaning that the police officers saying he'd been seen driving that morning were lying.
It's clear the inspector was trying to intimidate him and let it go to far - any other interpretation is nonsense, and anyone that thinks the police behaviour was appropriate is an idiot.
The guy was an idiot for the way he was going on he could of dealt with it better himself instead of provoking and being a smart arse. The Police officer made a fool of himself or maybe he did beleive he seen him drive in but either way he wasn't very professional in the way he acted.
No one came out good in this.
But only the police officer has been granted the power to effect other peoples lives in such a way by lying and trumping up false charges.
It is a cop out to just say the police are representative of the general population and that a percentage of them are dicks just the same as everyone else. The police have a special authority to uphold the law, and when they abuse that authority it's impact is far greater than the consequences of normal citizens being dicks.
The guy was an idiot for the way he was going on he could of dealt with it better himself instead of provoking and being a smart arse.
I dunno - why should you accept a breath test when you haven't even been driving? It's just harassment and there's no reason why anyone should have to put up with it.