I had to nip out to run an errand for mum this morning (New Years Eve / Day). I have not had any alcohol since 25.12.24 - and then it was only 1 pint of larger.
(House alarm going off and Dad has a bad case of flu so couldn't help.)
On the way back there was a road block - the traffic was crawling up to the block so no one was speeding. They were breathalyzing everyone.
In the past, when I was much younger, when I have been stopped, the officer usually reported something wrong with my car (rear light out etc.) or would put head through window and smell and if no scent of alcohol and sensible answers then there would be no test. At one time it was weekly (late nights, would fix light on the banger and a different light would fail the next week - dodgy electrics.)
Not today. Very young officer, extremely brusk, ordered me out of the car without any politeness or explanation. I have it on dashcam. Me "How can I help you officer", Him "Out of the car now - your going to be breathalyzed."
I asked what his rationale was and he said driving at 1:30 in the morning on New Years Day was enough.
Not wanting to be arrested for refusal to provide a specimen - as I have a busy day later - I did the test but I told him I didn't think it was right.
His response was that "he didn't care what I thought!".
I know we have some ex-traffic officers here and as I have said before, I have always had excellent interactions with traffic officers and have never been ticketed by one, despite being stopped loads of times - even made a few laugh.
I would like to know if the beathtest was legal and if it wasn't - what I can do if the same happens in the future?
|
They are meant to have reasonable suspicion that you have been drinking. That’s pretty wide and could include anything from erratic driving to an aggressive attitude when stopped.
In practice the simplest thing is just to comply. If you haven’t been drinking there’s really no issue and you will be on your way quicker than having an argument which you aren’t going to win.i
|
Its a two edge sword. They can carry out random stops without any cause or reason, but should require reasonable suspicion to require a breath test.
The reasonable suspicion criteria are however so broad*, they might as well not exist. And of course once requested, its an offence not to provide a sample. For the future? Just comply with the request, taint worth the hassle.
*1:30am on New years day as a reason however might not stand up in court.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 1 Jan 25 at 08:19
|
According to the Met,
"The police can stop you at any time and ask you to take a breath test (‘breathalyse’ you) if:
they think you’ve been drinking
you’ve committed a traffic offence
you’ve been involved in a road traffic collision"
Presumably the grumpy officer was not happy to be spending his New Year's Eve standing at a checkpoint. The checkpoint should, however, be used to assess the likelihood of the driver being under the influence.
|
What can you do next time?
Not much, it's probably not legal but the amount of police sacked in the last couple of years suggests they aren't too worried about that.
|
|
Zippy, did it look as though they were catching people over the limit?
|
|
I would guess 01:00 to 02:00 on new years day would be the years prime time to catch DD's
|
>> Zippy, did it look as though they were catching people over the limit?
>>
There were a couple of cars parked up so I guess that they must have caught some.
No one was speeding or driving erratically because the traffic was too slow - because of the roadblock.
Thinking about stops at this time of year in the past, all officers started a conversation to assess slurred speech I guess and had a good "sniff".
Usually along the lines of "Good evening, we're checking for drivers over the limit, what have you been doing tonight".
I have had a few tests, in to bags years ago and electronic devices more recently. Never been an issue. But importantly, previously - the officers have always been polite and good humoured.
|
I do have some sympathy with a brusque attitude. They have no idea who they are dealing with and whether they are drunk/drugged/have a tendency towards impulsive violence. Or someone who feels he might be borderline and wants to avoid the test, or even escape.
As already said, it's probably not their favourite part of the job, when most are with their families having a good time (usually!!), so they don't need someone making the job more difficult.
Having said that - they must have been fairly confident that they were within their rights (or could easily make it seem so) as they have no idea what they haven't stopped some person well versed with the law and their rights.
My own attitude would be to just do it and carry on. I quite like the deterrent effect of somewhat heavy-handed policing and also that some real wrong 'uns might be found out (maybe not even for drink driving - did you have to give your details, if so did they check you on PNC?)
|
>>I do have some sympathy with a brusque attitude. They have no idea who they are dealing with >>and whether they are drunk/drugged/have a tendency towards impulsive violence. Or someone >>who feels he might be borderline and wants to avoid the test, or even escape.
I do. Take that to it's conclusion and they may as well throw the driver on the floor, apply some compliance blows and handcuff them even if they appear to be totally cooperative, "just in case".
Politeness costs nothing. You can't go through life being hostile to everyone just because you don't know who they are or what risk that they "might" pose.
It's the same rationale that some bad officers use for cuffing everyone that they deal with without doing a risk assessment and has been shown to be illegal.
They are supposed to police with consent. That means co-operation and getting on with the public.
It shouldn't be us and them and in this morning's situation it really felt like "us and them" rather than how it should have been and has been in the past.
If they don't want the duty in unsociable hours and conditions then they shouldn't be doing the job.
|
Being polite costs nothing.
Delays when you are “on a mission” is annoying.
I have no problem with doing random breath tests at any time.
More traffic police, enforcement of regulations etc etc would be welcome.
Traffic Policing has seen a drop of 10% in Scotland recently and a huge drop in the last 14 years when Police Scotland replaced local forces.
|
>>I have no problem with doing random breath tests at any time.
Where do you draw the line?
Do you have a problem with the police randomly entering your home just to check that you're not doing anything illegal there, have no stolen good etc?
As I said never had a problem before. This could have been handled much better, just by taking a more friendly attitude.
|
>> Where do you draw the line?
>>
>> Do you have a problem with the police randomly entering your home just to check
>> that you're not doing anything illegal there, have no stolen good etc?
Legally they can stop you if you are driving for any reason, a legal power they have had since driving licences were issued. They do not have a legal reason to randomly enter your home without a warrant. All as mandated by the government we voted for. So its not a police state now is it.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 1 Jan 25 at 15:33
|
>> >> Where do you draw the line?
>> >>
>> >> Do you have a problem with the police randomly entering your home just to
>> check
>> >> that you're not doing anything illegal there, have no stolen good etc?
>>
>> Legally they can stop you if you are driving for any reason, a legal power
>> they have had since driving licences were issued.
They need a legal reason to breathalyse too, yet didn't have one....
Last edited by: zippy on Wed 1 Jan 25 at 15:35
|
>> As I said never had a problem before. This could have been handled much better,
>> just by taking a more friendly attitude.
If the weather down your way was anything like here last night the copper would have been windblown and wet through before he'd dealt with multiple 'stroppy' members of the public.
I was working yesterday. Caller #1 seemed unable to understand that if one of my colleagues said DWP had taken a claim for benefit on the day before he was reading another adviser's notes; we cannot see their system. If DWP's IT or staff subsequently drop kicked the claim into the outer darkness CA had no way of knowing. We could only sympathise and support him in putting it right.
If #2 and #3 had been rude, beyond assertive in manner, and equally unable to grasp what they were told I might have been been short with #3.
One of the reasons I love my job is that 95+% of clients think we're wonderful.
|
>> I do. Take that to it's conclusion and they may as well throw the driver
>> on the floor, apply some compliance blows and handcuff them even if they appear to
>> be totally cooperative, "just in case".
Talk about completely dragging things out of context into the realms of the extreme?
Impolite into gratuitous unwarranted and illegal police brutality in one fell swoop?
|
>>
>> Impolite into gratuitous unwarranted and illegal police brutality in one fell swoop?
>>
Potentially illegal breath test.
I was clumsily citing an example of extremes if a police officer is willing to break one rule where might he end.
|
>> I was clumsily citing an example of extremes if a police officer is willing to
>> break one rule where might he end.
Anybody who reads law reports, or the blogs from lawyers dealing with Police malpractice, will see what Zips meant....
|
>> did you have to give your details, if so did they check you on PNC?
No. Drivers licence not requested. I doubt they were even ANPR checks as it was around a bend.
|
Not read the full thread (yet)
The Act surrounding breathalyser offences is peppered with case law around. So called random breath test were not lawful, Real Bobbies who knew their way around the legislation could make things work. Fifteen years ago (my last experiences of such things) older Coppers disliked the idea, where road checks took place* for such things had a low opinion of the policy. The Act is superbly written.
I was wondering my response to such a check had it happened this Christmas.. I never drink and drive, and almost the only grounds for a request would be if I were speeding (I do speed) in other words a "moving traffic offence" . Unlikely to drive with a faulty light, or not wearing a seat belt, or using a mobile device. Whilst I applaud proper roads Policing, bending the law is wrong. When I watch the odd Police fly on the wall thing and the officer offers the used tube to the driver, I think I would tell them up where the sun don't shine. I discussed this very matter with a friend and former colleague a few years ago, she was of the view if she was stopped for no prescribed reason she would refuse to provide. Her point was that she would provide evidential breath tests and if they were zero, she'd take the Police on for unlawful detention. If random checks were made legal I'd be happy with that. Ulawful does not do the Police ay favours. If you're bored read the RTA and the RTOA and associated case-law, well worth it.
* So called Road Safety Checks are/were allowed under PACE 1984 authorised by a senior officer at the scene, this can be a Constable. Chunks of PACE have gone since I lost interest I such things.
Last edited by: R.P. on Wed 1 Jan 25 at 18:36
|
|
Re-reading Bromp"s post that the behaviour of the Officer is exactly what alienates people who are normal supporters of the Police. Guess the Officer has been watching too many Tik Tok videos.
|
What he and Biggles said.
There are 3 times a BT can be administerd:
1. Suspicion of alcohol
2. Moving traffic offence
3. Driver involved in a road traffic accident.
We have no legislation to administer 'random testing' but what we have can take you near enough.
Suspicion of alcohol can be smell of intoxicating liquour ( you cant smell alcohol), glazed eyes, dillated pupils, speech, pallor, unsteady on feet.
Moving traffic offence does not include offences under he Vehicle Excise Act other than number plate light.
Accident as opposed to re portable collision as defined under 172 RTA. So kissing a kerb or backing into a solid object which sustains no physical damage. However if someone does that in your sight then that could also be suspicion of alcohol.
Often you can get 2 of the 3 and sometimes a 'full house'.
We do not have Random Breath Testing in this country
163 RTA gives power to stop and 164 /165 power to demand to see documents. Its an offence not to produce at roadside. But that's not a moving traffic offence but no insurance/MOT/Driving Licence is.
So back to Zippys interaction. Only if he had a suspicion of alcohol could he demand a breath test.
Is being stroppy Suspicion of Alcohol? I would argue no unless maybe intoxicating liquour was smelled.
Providing I'd had no sauce I'd politely decline and see what the next move would be, Failure to provide providing there is a suspicion of alcohol can lead to arrest. Otherwise just Reportable
There is no need for attitude. Just politely explain why and what you want. If you wish to administer a voluntary BT say so. But it is important to know your powers and limitations.
You can generally detect in a short conversation whether or not someone has been drinking.
Drug Driving powers more or less mirror the Drink Driving ones.
|
|
Just to add - Suspicion of alcohol can be manner of driving. Weaving slightly, driving too slow or overly cautious, you could say driving too well. A stop and interaction may reveal other things which corroborate or lower that suspicion that suspicion.
|
>> Just to add - Suspicion of alcohol can be manner of driving. Weaving slightly, driving
>> too slow or overly cautious, you could say driving too well.
>>
In other words they can stop you when they like. Try and dispute "Weaving slightly" in court. Unless you've got a dashcam fitted, but few have.
|
|
People phone in suspected drink drivers, that also provides reasonable suspicion.
|
"Try and dispute "Weaving slightly" in court."
Non starter really. Presumably you'd be in court for OPL? So having been spoken to and reeking of booze that corroborates the initial suspicion for a BT. If its neg you're on your way.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Wed 1 Jan 25 at 23:08
|
>> In other words they can stop you when they like. Try and dispute "Weaving slightly"
>> in court. Unless you've got a dashcam fitted, but few have.
The one time I've been in a car pulled over by a police vehicle with blue lights that was the reason given (when I asked).
Mrs B was driving the Xantia and we were on one of the main roads into Chester, just coming into the built up area. Police car had pulled out of a lane behind us a mile or two back.
Asked if we owned the car where we lived and where we were from/to. Neither of us had been drinking and the kids were in the back. No test administered and we were on our way with minimal delay.
|
>>Weaving...
That's just avoiding potholes nowadays.
|
Friend of Mrs Zee got pulled last week.
"we noticed you were weaving a bit"
"yes avoiding pot holes"
"fair enough, take care"
|
Someone I know got a tug on the North Wales Expressway some years ago. He hadn't partaken of liiquor.
He asked the officer why he had been stopped and was given the reply £ You are out of your area, looking at the registration number " Lordy ! That can't be a valid reason to stop ?? The A55 would be jammed with stationary cars !
Ted
|
>>Out of area...
My car bears a Hampshire plate. I live in Sussex. Last car was Sussex, Previous cars were Yorkshire, London and several other locations - all depending where the lease cos sourced them from I guess.
|
Would not a greater use of random tests for drug and drink driving be a good thing?
The slight inconvenience to those stopped and who test negative would be massively outweighed by the deterrence effect and the detection of offenders and help cut deaths and injurues on our roads.
|
>> Inventor of UK Breathalyser banned from driving caught over the limit after a boozy lunch
>>
Inventor of radar was caught out by a radar gun:
www.britannica.com/one-good-fact/why-did-a-creator-of-radar-regret-his-invention
Hung by own petard springs to mind ;-}
|
>> Would not a greater use of random tests for drug and drink driving be a
>> good thing?
>>
>> The slight inconvenience to those stopped and who test negative would be massively outweighed by
>> the deterrence effect and the detection of offenders and help cut deaths and injurues on
>> our roads.
>>
In theory I have no major problem with random testing, but the law doesn't allow it. I would have had no problem the other morning if the officer was polite - but he was stinkingly rude.
How far do you extend these random things - should police be allowed to randomly enter homes to search for drugs or those "grow houses", after all, they kill as well.
Would you like your front door knocked down at 3AM for a random search?
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” - Benjamin Franklin.
Last edited by: zippy on Thu 2 Jan 25 at 18:01
|
>> How far do you extend these random things - should police be allowed to randomly
>> enter homes to search for drugs or those "grow houses", after all, they kill as
>> well.
>>
>> Would you like your front door knocked down at 3AM for a random search?
>>
>> “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither
>> Liberty nor Safety” - Benjamin Franklin.
Zipster, Driving is NOT a freedom right or Liberty. You have no right to operate a motor vehicle under any civil liberty sphere. It is the most regulated and policed activity for which you need to be qualified and tested, and obey a myriad of rules lest your legal license to drive will be revoked. Its something you signed up to. A contract in effect.
|
>> Zipster, Driving is NOT a freedom right or Liberty. You have no right to operate
>> a motor vehicle under any civil liberty sphere.
Yebbut one erosion of freedom leads to another.
|
>> Yebbut one erosion of freedom leads to another.
Yebut, its not a freedom to erode. It never was. Thats the point.
Its the wrong place to start a comparison.
|
>> Yebut, its not a freedom to erode. It never was. Thats the point.
>>
>> Its the wrong place to start a comparison.
Come off it Z, you and I had a lot of freedom once we'd passed the test and of course had insurance etc. Sure, there were constraints of which DD was and is one but allowing driving to be a 'privilege' government can erode at will is a steep and slippery slope.
|
“ but allowing driving to be a 'privilege' government can erode at will is a steep and slippery slope.”
Driving a car IS a privilege. There is no basic human right that demands that allows you untrammelled freedom to drive on Britain’s roads. You are licensed to be able to do so by the Government. The Government has passed laws that allow them to withdraw or restrict that right. They can further restrict that right howsoever they want.
|
>> Driving a car IS a privilege. There is no basic human right that demands that
>> allows you untrammelled freedom to drive on Britain’s roads.
I think the key words in Zippy's post is 'at will' as in government doing it with no checks/balances.
|
It seems a pretty meaningless debate to me.
Is it a privilege to be allowed a driving licence when anyone else who fulfils the relevant criteria can have one?
Are 'equal rights' a privilege or indeed a right?
It would be a privilege to be allowed to keep one's licence with 12 points on it.
|
>>
>> Someone I know got a tug on the North Wales Expressway some years ago. He
>> hadn't partaken of liiquor.
>>
>> He asked the officer why he had been stopped and was given the reply £
>> You are out of your area, looking at the registration number " Lordy ! That
>> can't be a valid reason to stop ?? The A55 would be jammed with stationary
>> cars !
>>
>> Ted
>>
I've been stopped for that reason.
|
Been driving for 38 years.
Never had a single point.
Never been breathalysed.
Never had an accident.
Been pulled once when I was 18 and driving my dad’s company car Carlton. Asked whose car it was and where I was going and I pointed to my inebriated father in the back seat, collecting him from his works Xmas night out and it’s his car. Fair enough on you go.
Can’t help but think I have just jinxed myself with this post.
|
Most obnoxious cop I met pulled me over one Christmas evening. Had the (pregnant) wife, 2-y-o daughter and springer spaniel in the car. Hadn't been drinking, as SWMBO was 8+ months gone.
Showed him my licence and he asked for SWMBOs, then referred to her by her christian name. That got my goat and I said "that's Mrs BT to you". Colleagues then went over the car with a fine-tooth comb. When one had his head under the bonnet, obnoxious told me to press the horn. I pointed out colleague and suggested it wouldn't be a good idea. Obnoxious leaned in and sounded the (additional) air horns!
|
>>and he asked for SWMBOs
I don't think there is an obligation for passengers to provide identification in a traffic stop unless suspected of a crime of anti-social behaviour.
|
Around 1973, 19 year old in a nearly new Ford Capri, I was pulled constantly, every other trip.
It usually went
"Is this yours". "How can ***you*** afford this". etc etc. Usually hoiked out, me searched, car searched.
I learned how to goad them, or how to pass the attitude test depending on my mood
luckily they were never around when the back end was luridly hanging out on a wet bend.
|
Back in the late 70s a friend of my brother had a two tone Capri…he was a teetotaller, more than happy to always chauffeur his drunken friends around weekend nights.
Usual route home from Ilkley to Eldwick, along the unlit moor road. Got pulled up, and my brother , sat in the front, was breathalysed. He was very very drunk.
It all went wrong when the arresting officer had it explained to him that it was a LHD Capri, imported by my pal who had lived in Belgium for several years.
After that episode he was a marked man…constantly stopped by the police…it became wearisome.
We still laugh about that…I wasn’t there at the time.
|
>>After that episode he was a marked man...constantly stopped by the police...it became >>wearisome.
And that is the definition of petty minded corruption and that action fails on fairness, integrity and impartiality - all parts of the oath that police officers take.
Last edited by: zippy on Sat 4 Jan 25 at 17:43
|
Many years ago, a chap I knew was working as a banqueting manager at a posh country house hotel. Naturally he often didn’t finish work until the early hours of the morning and he had about an hour’s drive home.
A young man, driving home at 2.00am in a white shirt and a bow tie attracted regular attention from the police.
He got quite used to being questioned if he’d been drinking, and would sometimes reply that he had indeed had a cup of tea earlier on when he had taken a break.
|
>>driving at 2:00AM...
Me at most weekends when I was a teen / early 20s. I didn't mind because they were always impeccably polite.
|
I got pulled at customs in Dover when I worked for P&O in IT tech support. I'd got paged mid Sunday afternoon when painting and immediate attention was required in Dover. So I went there right away in my painty t shirt and jeans. Just as I was leaving, early evening IIRC, there was a call from one of the French freight offices and I had to jump on a ferry to deal with that.
I guess it was that the scruffy and very painty man was carrying a couple of shiny professional looking briefcases which made their noses twitch and which led to a (luckily fairly brief) interrogation in a side room when I returned on a ferry at about 4 am.
|
I spent the best part of a week at Channel House in Dover in the mid 2000s working with several colleagues on a finance package. Had to get access to loads of reports from "IT" and we were given access to the network - could our paths have crossed?
The finance package never got anywhere though.
Last edited by: zippy on Sat 4 Jan 25 at 20:16
|
|
Nah Zippy, I was there is 1986 - 1988 (The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster happened while I was there)
|
>>Herald of Free Enterprize...
That must have been a terrible time for you all.
|
>> >>Herald of Free Enterprize...
>>
>> That must have been a terrible time for you all.
I half knew a guy (work colleague) who was on the Herald when it went down with all his family, survived ok. You wouldn't adam 'n eve it, but he was also on the train in the clapham rail disaster, Survived that too. However none of us would ever travel with him after that.
|
It was, even though I'd not been there that long I was friendly with a few who were lost to it, and of course the general feeling around the building was of great sadness for many weeks. A feeling I'll never forget, especially given everyone knew at least a few people involved.
Not helped by the press camped outside in large numbers making a real nuisance of themselves to anyone trying to go into the building.
|
"And that is the definition of petty minded corruption and that action fails on fairness, integrity and impartiality - all parts of the oath that police officers take."
"Me at most weekends when I was a teen / early 20s. I didn't mind because they were always impeccably polite."
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sat 4 Jan 25 at 19:21
|
>> "And that is the definition of petty minded corruption and that action fails on fairness,
>> integrity and impartiality - all parts of the oath that police officers take."
>>
>> "Me at most weekends when I was a teen / early 20s. I didn't mind
>> because they were always impeccably polite."
>>
Two different examples, two different opinions.
A copper continuously picking on someone because they have been shown up once, deserves the sack IMHO.
I have even sent a letter praising an officer to the CC once. Horses for courses.
Last edited by: zippy on Sat 4 Jan 25 at 20:00
|
Breath Test Legal Question - This Morning 01:45ish - CGNorwich
