How the hell did this work? Do the states really have a loop hole like this?
Or i wonder if he got pulled over after he started driving off and arrested/forced a breath test...
Edited by Mayday, 17 February 2012 - 06:14 PM.
Seriously?!
Started by
Mayday
, Feb 17 2012 06:11 PM
20 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 17 February 2012 - 06:11 PM
http://www.liveleak....=053_1329365345
How the hell did this work? Do the states really have a loop hole like this?
Or i wonder if he got pulled over after he started driving off and arrested/forced a breath test...
How the hell did this work? Do the states really have a loop hole like this?
Or i wonder if he got pulled over after he started driving off and arrested/forced a breath test...
#2
Posted 17 February 2012 - 06:40 PM
In the US you can refuse to answer a question that may incriminate yourself so he just doesn't answer (5th Amendment). If they just breath test him (or whatever they use) without probable cause it may be inadmissible in court and get thrown out.
I assume it's similar to over here and you shouldn't really do a breath test on someone unless you have reason to believe they have been drinking.
In theory a similar checkpoint in the UK would also have the same problems, you can only breathalyse if they admit to drinking or you have reasonable suspicion that they have been drinking.
Here's a good video on the 5th in the US:
I assume it's similar to over here and you shouldn't really do a breath test on someone unless you have reason to believe they have been drinking.
In theory a similar checkpoint in the UK would also have the same problems, you can only breathalyse if they admit to drinking or you have reasonable suspicion that they have been drinking.
Here's a good video on the 5th in the US:
Edited by gordon, 17 February 2012 - 06:42 PM.
#3
Posted 17 February 2012 - 07:09 PM
I'm guessing when she leant forward she would of smelt any alcohol if he had been drinking. If she had then it would be a different ending.
#4
Posted 18 February 2012 - 02:19 AM
She was probably satisfied that he hadn't been drinking, thus allowed to go on his way.
If you're doing a drink driving checkpoint (perfectly legal in the US) there's no point wasting your time on people who are clearly sober but just being twats, like this guy was.
People like this come in all forms (Freemen for example), thinking they can do whatever they want and that they "know their rights" and they're untouchable so long as they know how to play the game so to say. The US is normally seen over here as a country where law enforcement don't take any stick but clearly that's not always the case, as over here in the UK he probably would have ended up getting himself arrested needlessly (and with no-one but himself to blame).
They know their rights but care not for their responsibilities.
Edit: Honestly, just look at the daft comments on that site:
"The police have no right to know if I've been drinking, this isn't Nazi Germany ..yet"
"He did leave within 2 minutes and he upheld the 4th amendment at the same time. It's what everybody should do. If society accepts this the next step is going to be something worse like going door to door to make sure everybody is compliant and controlled."
Case in point.
If you're doing a drink driving checkpoint (perfectly legal in the US) there's no point wasting your time on people who are clearly sober but just being twats, like this guy was.
People like this come in all forms (Freemen for example), thinking they can do whatever they want and that they "know their rights" and they're untouchable so long as they know how to play the game so to say. The US is normally seen over here as a country where law enforcement don't take any stick but clearly that's not always the case, as over here in the UK he probably would have ended up getting himself arrested needlessly (and with no-one but himself to blame).
They know their rights but care not for their responsibilities.
Edit: Honestly, just look at the daft comments on that site:
"The police have no right to know if I've been drinking, this isn't Nazi Germany ..yet"
"He did leave within 2 minutes and he upheld the 4th amendment at the same time. It's what everybody should do. If society accepts this the next step is going to be something worse like going door to door to make sure everybody is compliant and controlled."
Case in point.
Edited by Stratos, 18 February 2012 - 02:23 AM.
#5
Posted 18 February 2012 - 03:34 PM
"These are not the droids you are looking for" springs to mind.
What would we do in the UK? We can't force people to answer our questions, we can arrest for not providing their name and address, and failing to provide a specimen of breath, but not talking to us isn't an offence. You could try for obstruct, I guess!
What would we do in the UK? We can't force people to answer our questions, we can arrest for not providing their name and address, and failing to provide a specimen of breath, but not talking to us isn't an offence. You could try for obstruct, I guess!
#6
Posted 18 February 2012 - 04:41 PM
"These are not the droids you are looking for" springs to mind.
What would we do in the UK? We can't force people to answer our questions, we can arrest for not providing their name and address, and failing to provide a specimen of breath, but not talking to us isn't an offence. You could try for obstruct, I guess!
"Good evening Sir, how are you today?"
"..."
"...Sir?"
"..."
"Erm, right... Have you had anything to drink tonight?"
"What's your name and collar number?"
In the UK, chances are that guy's coming in for something. Failing to provide, likely. I wouldn't bother with obstruct as I don't think that really fits, and either way it wouldn't go anywhere anyway. We don't arrest people for obstruction just for being an rear.
Edited by Stratos, 18 February 2012 - 04:42 PM.
#7
Posted 18 February 2012 - 04:52 PM
I assume it's similar to over here and you shouldn't really do a breath test on someone unless you have reason to believe they have been drinking.
In theory a similar checkpoint in the UK would also have the same problems, you can only breathalyse if they admit to drinking or you have reasonable suspicion that they have been drinking.
That's not true. In the UK there are three sets of circumstances in which a police officer in uniform can demand a breath test. The first in when they suspect the driver has been drinking, the second is if they've committed a moving road traffic offence, and the third is if they've been in an RTC. With the latter two it doesn't matter if the officer cannot smell alcohol or have any reason to suspect they have been drinking, they still commit an offence if they fail to provide. We cannot just randomly stop people and demand a specimin of breath though.
I'm going to move this to Policing Overseas, where it's better suited.
#8
Posted 19 February 2012 - 12:27 AM
If they had smelled an odor of alcoholic beverage he would have been hauled out of the vehicle. They took enough time to see if he was just a jackwagon or drunk. Here if you are impaired and refuse a breath test you will be suspended longer. You are told this when you get your driver's licence.
#9
Posted 19 February 2012 - 10:09 AM
"Good evening Sir, how are you today?"
"..."
"...Sir?"
"..."
"Erm, right... Have you had anything to drink tonight?"
"What's your name and collar number?"
In the UK, chances are that guy's coming in for something. Failing to provide, likely. I wouldn't bother with obstruct as I don't think that really fits, and either way it wouldn't go anywhere anyway. We don't arrest people for obstruction just for being an rear.
What exactly would he be coming in for? Being unhelpful isn't an offence.
I think this is the relevant section of the Road Traffic Act. Notice the following:
(6) A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse he fails to co-operate with a preliminary test in pursuance of a requirement imposed under this section.
There isn't a requirement to provide a specimen of breath at a checkpoint so surely you can't nick them for failure to provide? If it was suspected he had been drinking then it would be a different matter of course.
I may be wrong but reading the legislation, that is how it appears to me.
Edited by CharlieJulietMike, 19 February 2012 - 10:15 AM.
#10
FidelChazztro
-
- Members
-
- 101 posts
Learning the Ropes
Posted 19 February 2012 - 01:17 PM
From what I've learnt from such programs as Road Wars and good old' Traffic Cops, isn't it illegal, here in the UK, to not provide, when asked to, a specimen of breath? Also, wouldnt a sober, upstanding person just do the breath test and when it unsurprisingly went to '0' they could go on their way?
I suppose it is naive of me to believe that!
I suppose it is naive of me to believe that!
#11
Posted 19 February 2012 - 04:50 PM
From what I've learnt from such programs as Road Wars and good old' Traffic Cops, isn't it illegal, here in the UK, to not provide, when asked to, a specimen of breath? Also, wouldnt a sober, upstanding person just do the breath test and when it unsurprisingly went to '0' they could go on their way?
I suppose it is naive of me to believe that!
What giraffe said. We cant just go asking for no reason.
Sent from my U20i using Tapatalk
#12
Posted 19 February 2012 - 10:15 PM
From what I've learnt from such programs as Road Wars and good old' Traffic Cops, isn't it illegal, here in the UK, to not provide, when asked to, a specimen of breath? Also, wouldnt a sober, upstanding person just do the breath test and when it unsurprisingly went to '0' they could go on their way?
I suppose it is naive of me to believe that!
My top tip is dont take ANYTHING you see on 'reality' cop shows as gospel or indeed how things should be/are done.
That goes for double in relation to 'Rail Cops'.... NEVER watch that show... EVER...
Edited by Radman, 19 February 2012 - 10:16 PM.
#13
Posted 20 February 2012 - 08:08 AM
What exactly would he be coming in for? Being unhelpful isn't an offence.
I think this is the relevant section of the Road Traffic Act. Notice the following:
There isn't a requirement to provide a specimen of breath at a checkpoint so surely you can't nick them for failure to provide? If it was suspected he had been drinking then it would be a different matter of course.
I may be wrong but reading the legislation, that is how it appears to me.
That's what I meant.
I've never heard of checkpoints being used in the UK and I'm not sure if they'd even be legal to check for drink drivers. What I was saying was that if I want a specimen of breath from someone and they ignore me, they're going to end up coming in, for either failure to provide and/or any other offences that might fit depending on the circumstances.
#14
Posted 20 February 2012 - 08:26 AM
Yes, ultimately you can always make the requirement but if that requirement I unlawful then they can refuse. I've been nearby when a chap was stopped and when asked to provide a sample of breath refused. Unsurprisingly he came in and when asked for grounds for the requirement the officer had none (the officer didn't know they needed any and thought it worked just like section 163). Detention was not authorised. The last bit is hearsay as I wasn't there.That's what I meant.
I've never heard of checkpoints being used in the UK and I'm not sure if they'd even be legal to check for drink drivers. What I was saying was that if I want a specimen of breath from someone and they ignore me, they're going to end up coming in, for either failure to provide and/or any other offences that might fit depending on the circumstances.
I also phoned in a steamingly drunk drink driver whilst off duty (whilst in hi liveried company car!!) and he got pulled near his house. I was asked to do a statement and I had a discussion with the OIC. I didn't understand what evedential relevance it would have as the suspicion they've been drinking needs to be formed at the roadside by the officer making the requirement. A half intelligent solicitor would have the statement dismisse as irrelevant. As it goes this guy fell out of his car and failed to provide twice an was charged with that in the end.
Lovely chap by all accounts too. The irony being id been in the pub for a few sherbets and was myself in no fit state to drive, and carried on after the PC phone me up to say 'we've got him!", we raised a glass in his honour!
#15
Posted 20 February 2012 - 12:54 PM
If the person refuses to say anything then you simply make a document check... Which is an offence to fail to comply with. You can't issue a HORT/1 if they won't get you their details which means you have grounds for arrest. Job jobbed.
I take it in the US licence and registration checks can only be required if an offence has been carried out?
I take it in the US licence and registration checks can only be required if an offence has been carried out?
#16
Posted 21 February 2012 - 08:17 AM
If the person refuses to say anything then you simply make a document check... Which is an offence to fail to comply with. You can't issue a HORT/1 if they won't get you their details which means you have grounds for arrest. Job jobbed.
I take it in the US licence and registration checks can only be required if an offence has been carried out?
Laws do vary somewhat from state to state, but certainly in California you can do a rigistration and licence check any time for any reason.
I didn't see the video linked, but generally an officer has to have some form of probable cause that a driver is under the influence, such as committing a motoring offence. Then he has to administer a field sobriety test, which is the 'walk the line/touch the nose' series of tests. If these tests suggest to the officer that the driver is impaired he is then arrested and taken to the station for a breath test.
If the driver refuses to do the tests, or refuses to speak to the officers, then as far as the officer is concenred that is a failure and he will be arrested. If they lock the doors and wiond the windows up then the officer has good cause to suspect the person may be under the influence of something, or may have a medical problem, thus requiring help. And thus can force an entry to the car to insure the driver's safety.
But in almost all traffic stops where a driver has to be field tested at least one other officer will be called as backup and witness. Even small police depts who may have few staff on at night will call for backup from the Sheriff's or CHP or another agency.
#17
zippyRN
-
- Members
-
- 461 posts
Forum Convert
Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:03 PM
also no doubt 'probable cause' vs 'reasonable suspicion' has some impact in the whole scenario...
#18
Posted 22 February 2012 - 09:33 AM
also no doubt 'probable cause' vs 'reasonable suspicion' has some impact in the whole scenario...
Same thing really
#19
Posted 22 February 2012 - 10:31 AM
Not at all kiwipo, not at all. Probable cause is a much higher burden than reasonable suspicion. And it creates all sorts of different policing scenarios in the US than here in the UK.
#20
Posted 22 February 2012 - 01:45 PM
That's what I meant.
I've never heard of checkpoints being used in the UK and I'm not sure if they'd even be legal to check for drink drivers. What I was saying was that if I want a specimen of breath from someone and they ignore me, they're going to end up coming in, for either failure to provide and/or any other offences that might fit depending on the circumstances.
Used quite frequently round here in the run up to Christmas, still have to abide by the 'smell intoxicants, traffic offence or rtc' though.
#21
Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:47 PM
Stop points are used all the time throughout the year, especially in rural areas where there is naff all else to do on a night shift. Stop the car, document check (i.e. write down the driver's details), PNC the vehicle and if all is well on they go with a cheerful wave and jealous comment about the cold.
All that needs to be done to turn them into a drink drive point is changing the time to slightly earlier and breathalysing anyone you have grounds to do so. In the run-up to Christmas they were very popular in the few hours when there were two response shifts on but before kicking out time where I was.
All that needs to be done to turn them into a drink drive point is changing the time to slightly earlier and breathalysing anyone you have grounds to do so. In the run-up to Christmas they were very popular in the few hours when there were two response shifts on but before kicking out time where I was.
0 user(s) are browsing this forum
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
