[wildash]

My sister was driving my 13-year-old daughter home on my behalf at the week-end and was stopped by officers of Wiltshire Police for a random breath test. The police said this was part of a summer drink/drive campaign involving high profile roadside checks aimed at raising awareness of the consequences of being caught drink-driving. She had not been driving erratically or given any reason to suggest she might by over-limit.
I know that the Police have always had, and retain, a power to arrest drivers whom they suspect may be unfit to drive through drink or drugs, but I’m not sure whether such random tests, undertaken without grounds for suspicion, are legal?
My sister and my daughter found the experience traumatic.
Aside from the question of value-for-money and effectiveness as a deterrent, is it legal (if so, under what legislation?) and must motorists submit to such tests?

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by wildash

She had not been driving erratically or given any reason to suggest she might by over-limit.
I know that the Police have always had, and retain, a power to arrest drivers whom they suspect may be unfit to drive through drink or drugs, but I̢۪m not sure whether such random tests, undertaken without grounds for suspicion, are legal?

The Police were doing 'random' breath tests - That means choosing people at random, Not choosing drivers that were suspicious.(although I'm sure they would check anyone who displayed any signs of drink-driving too)

Aside from the question of value-for-money and effectiveness as a deterrent, is it legal (if so, under what legislation?) and must motorists submit to such tests?

Of course it is legal - They can stop you for any reason. What have you got to worry about if you are not breaking the law?

[smudger]

Welcome to the site wildash, well I have no objection to being stopped at random for such a test, especially if it helps catching drunk drivers.

I have no time for drunk drivers, as I have close up the carnage they can cause.:(

[Loony]

Originally Posted by wildash

My sister and my daughter found the experience traumatic.

Aside from the question of value-for-money and effectiveness as a deterrent, is it legal (if so, under what legislation?) and must motorists submit to such tests?

I can not see how it would be that traumatic to be honest.

As for value for money.In my eyes its worth every penny.

You do not have to give a breath test.However you will be arrested and charged with failing to supply one which will result in a ban.

[Rolebama]

I have no problem with being stopped under these circumstances, but then I am biassed having had two cars written off by drunk-drivers.

[Watcher]

Breath tests

The police do not have the power to randomly breath test drivers, however, under the RTA they do have the power to stop practically anyone they like for a whole variety of reasons.

Once they have stopped someone, they can ask for a breath test if they have reason to suspect that the driver has been drinking.

Again, this does not need to be complicated. If you were seen to weave a little, or fail to indicate somewhere, or any one of a thousand other minor 'reasons' will do.

If you fail to co-operate you could be arrested for failing to provide a specimen of breath, the punishment for which is as bad, or worse, than failing a breath test.

So, the short answer is 'no' they cannot do random tests, but it doesn't take much effort on their part to make it totally legitimate.

Whats more, I am in full agreement with the posters above, that I am more than happy to know that practically anyone can be stopped and breathalysed at practically any time. I only wish that they would do it more often, and have a simple means for testing for drugged drivers as well (I am convinced that that is if anything a worse problem than alcohol!). However, whilst we have 'powers that be' who think that cameras can keep us safe that won't change!

[Andy2009]

I also totally agree with these spot checks.

I don't go for the "nothing to hide so why worry" thing because that implies a surrender of privacy and freedom.

It's only a minute or two and no skin off ones nose.

[98selitb]

Originally Posted by Andy2009

I also totally agree with these spot checks.

I don't go for the "nothing to hide so why worry" thing because that implies a surrender of privacy and freedom.

I agree with that. However I would hope that once someone has passed a breath test, any details the police took should be destroyed immediately and in the presence of the driver, and there should be no record whatsoever of the test having happened. This is to make sure there is no evidence fabrication or abuse of process by the police, which happens on a daily - no, hourly, minutely - basis. I'm not being paranoid, this has happened to me.

I also don't go with the "nothing to hide so nothing to worry about" mantra, because thousands of innocent people, who had absolutely nothing to hide, are in prison right now for crimes they did not commit. Something between 10% and 25% of all convictions are wrong.

As for breath tests though, it is fairly solid as it is a machine doing the talking and not the policeman, so there shouldn't be anything to worry about if you aren't over the limit. Also if you fail the test on the roadside, you have to take another one at the station. This is to stop the driver claiming the roadside test machine was faulty.

[Andy2009]

Originally Posted by 98selitb

This is to stop the driver claiming the roadside test machine was faulty.

Or that... "..honestly osshifer - itsh just the moushwass i usssed for me tee..ee..eeth this morninnn...uggh, can you help me off the floor plisse?" :D

[ficklejade]

Originally Posted by 98selitb

I agree with that. However I would hope that once someone has passed a breath test, any details the police took should be destroyed immediately and in the presence of the driver, and there should be no record whatsoever of the test having happened. This is to make sure there is no evidence fabrication or abuse of process by the police, which happens on a daily - no, hourly, minutely - basis. I'm not being paranoid, this has happened to me.

I also don't go with the "nothing to hide so nothing to worry about" mantra, because thousands of innocent people, who had absolutely nothing to hide, are in prison right now for crimes they did not commit. Something between 10% and 25% of all convictions are wrong.

As for breath tests though, it is fairly solid as it is a machine doing the talking and not the policeman, so there shouldn't be anything to worry about if you aren't over the limit. Also if you fail the test on the roadside, you have to take another one at the station. This is to stop the driver claiming the roadside test machine was faulty.

I don't know how it is in England anymore but Scots Police announce that they will be doing random breath tests in newspapers, etc. in advance. I also don't agree with drunk (or drugged drivers).

I was fortunate, having checked with the Doc and pharmacy that it was okay to drive whilst taking a medicine for a problem and subsequently having an adverse reaction, I pulled over and parked and called for help. Believe me, the cops are brutal, even when you'd done all the checks one's medical advisors and oneself can do. It was finally proved that I had an, for the want of the techie explanation, a very rare reaction to the drug in question and that, the moment I started to feel odd, had pulled over and called for assistance. But I NEVER want to be subjected to that police exercise again.

[smudger]

Must admit that plod were not very "nice" to me when I was tested, after a car had rear ended my van!

On top of that, we all had to wait for about an hour for plod to arrive with the required kit.

I had indicated and slowed down to turn left, when this car came flying right into the back of my van.

It then bounced over to the other lane and hit a car head on, coming it the opposite direction:eek:

[Rolebama]

I have never been breathalyzed. Even after the shunt two years ago. I was aked if I had been drinking and I said I had nothing for weeks, which was accepted. I was stopped early last year at around 5am by an unmarked car, and during the conversation I was told I had been stopped because I was indicating and driving within the speed limit, so it was suspected I was making my way home after drinking and being overly cautious. I explained I always try to drive like that, and that I was aware that there was a car behind me, and was indicating for their benefit.

[p-dave]

Random testing is voluntary and for good reason

Originally Posted by Watcher

The police do not have the power to randomly breath test drivers, however, under the RTA they do have the power to stop practically anyone they like for a whole variety of reasons.

Once they have stopped someone, they can ask for a breath test if they have reason to suspect that the driver has been drinking.

Again, this does not need to be complicated. If you were seen to weave a little, or fail to indicate somewhere, or any one of a thousand other minor 'reasons' will do.

If you fail to co-operate you could be arrested for failing to provide a specimen of breath, the punishment for which is as bad, or worse, than failing a breath test.

So, the short answer is 'no' they cannot do random tests, but it doesn't take much effort on their part to make it totally legitimate.

Whats more, I am in full agreement with the posters above, that I am more than happy to know that practically anyone can be stopped and breathalysed at practically any time. I only wish that they would do it more often, and have a simple means for testing for drugged drivers as well (I am convinced that that is if anything a worse problem than alcohol!). However, whilst we have 'powers that be' who think that cameras can keep us safe that won't change!

Sorry - necro thread ressurection

But this is VERY annoying.

They're not allowed to randomly test you, and for very good reason.

Because it's breaking the principal of reasonable suspicion.

The police have licence to test you if they have reasonable suspicion - fair enough.

But if they don't have reasonable suspicion then they're detaining you without just cause. It could be called one of many things, a lawyer would know, but it's false arrest/imprisonment or something in that vein and is just the same as stopping black people because they are black.

We have police to act on our behalf, not theirs. We elect parliamentary representatives, who decide on the law of the land - they're OUR laws and we employ the police to 'police' them, not break them.

So they have a legal licence to detain you if they have just cause, for a breath test. If they do not have just cause then they are breaking the law.

And it's an important law - being detained is very serious and supporting 'random' tests is a slippery slope to a police state - where they can just choose who to hassle at random.

We have already lost a VERY important facet of legal protection - if your car is clocked by a 'safety' camera then the OWNER is obliged to tell the authorities who was driving it at the time. The actual guilty party is not identified. That goes against the basis of English law - it disregards your rights - it's a forced confession

So if stopped for a random test you should ask if it is random. There will be bluster (a bad thing) and threats to arrest you for non compliance - but if you haven't been seen to be causing suspicion then there is no basis to test and if you have a witness to them saying it's voluntary then manufacturing a pretext after that is Very Serious Indeed.
A smart cop would wave you away because a random test can only be voluntary because you haven't caused suspicion and an arrest for failure to supply a roadside sample a breach of the basic tenet of not interfering with law abiding citizens, and thus illegal.
Hands up if you want the police to have the power to stop you in the street/your house/wherever just because they want to because that's what random testing is and it should be resisted because those other things would follow if we let them get away with it.

It's easy enough for them to find a pretext for stopping anyone they like to test - essentially random.

But a truly random test is an erosion of basic liberty. It might seem like no skin off your nose, a minor delay etc but it's OUR law, not theirs and if they break it they should be penalised - but every year they get away with it. It's not as if every other car wont give them grounds for suspicion - not many can drive 'to standard'.

I have been stopped by a bad cop ie one acting beyond their remit. Jumped up little Hitlers like that need stamping on. It ended with the copper shouting at/threatening me for something I didn't do - I don't deserve that. He was throwing his weight around because he felt like it and could get away with it because there were no witnesses and it was his word against mine - if stopped these days the smartphone would go to record. It wasn't a night in the cells but putting someone in fear of their liberty is serious. He got away with it.

You don't want the police 'getting away with it' - those are the words you apply to criminals, which they can be, even if they think they're being fine, upstanding supporters of the public's safety.

[Dennis W]

North Wales Police set up a Vehicle Check Point in the Christmas and New Year period and give people a breath test without any suspicion at all.

[Hometune]

Originally Posted by p-dave

Sorry - necro thread ressurection

But this is VERY annoying.

They're not allowed to randomly test you, and for very good reason.

Because it's breaking the principal of reasonable suspicion.

The police have licence to test you if they have reasonable suspicion - fair enough.

But if they don't have reasonable suspicion then they're detaining you without just cause. It could be called one of many things, a lawyer would know, but it's false arrest/imprisonment or something in that vein and is just the same as stopping black people because they are black.

We have police to act on our behalf, not theirs. We elect parliamentary representatives, who decide on the law of the land - they're OUR laws and we employ the police to 'police' them, not break them.

So they have a legal licence to detain you if they have just cause, for a breath test. If they do not have just cause then they are breaking the law.

And it's an important law - being detained is very serious and supporting 'random' tests is a slippery slope to a police state - where they can just choose who to hassle at random.

We have already lost a VERY important facet of legal protection - if your car is clocked by a 'safety' camera then the OWNER is obliged to tell the authorities who was driving it at the time. The actual guilty party is not identified. That goes against the basis of English law - it disregards your rights - it's a forced confession

So if stopped for a random test you should ask if it is random. There will be bluster (a bad thing) and threats to arrest you for non compliance - but if you haven't been seen to be causing suspicion then there is no basis to test and if you have a witness to them saying it's voluntary then manufacturing a pretext after that is Very Serious Indeed.
A smart cop would wave you away because a random test can only be voluntary because you haven't caused suspicion and an arrest for failure to supply a roadside sample a breach of the basic tenet of not interfering with law abiding citizens, and thus illegal.
Hands up if you want the police to have the power to stop you in the street/your house/wherever just because they want to because that's what random testing is and it should be resisted because those other things would follow if we let them get away with it.

It's easy enough for them to find a pretext for stopping anyone they like to test - essentially random.

But a truly random test is an erosion of basic liberty. It might seem like no skin off your nose, a minor delay etc but it's OUR law, not theirs and if they break it they should be penalised - but every year they get away with it. It's not as if every other car wont give them grounds for suspicion - not many can drive 'to standard'.

I have been stopped by a bad cop ie one acting beyond their remit. Jumped up little Hitlers like that need stamping on. It ended with the copper shouting at/threatening me for something I didn't do - I don't deserve that. He was throwing his weight around because he felt like it and could get away with it because there were no witnesses and it was his word against mine - if stopped these days the smartphone would go to record. It wasn't a night in the cells but putting someone in fear of their liberty is serious. He got away with it.

You don't want the police 'getting away with it' - those are the words you apply to criminals, which they can be, even if they think they're being fine, upstanding supporters of the public's safety.

Here is the ranting of a left wing leaning, freedom of everything idiot espousing rubbish. Ahh, so diddums was stopped by a big nasty man who wanted to breathalyse him/her. Here we have a one sided view of a situation written by an anti police, anti authority, anti establishment clown with absolutely no regard for safety.
I will take a liberty and assume the author has never been in an accident or incident involving a driver who has had a drink or two. So its okay for hundreds of drivers intoxicated with alcohol to drive with impunity because diddums here doesn't like it? Really?

Random testing per se is not currently permitted. However, a police officer has to have suspicion of drink driving and in order to do so the law has narrowed this down to basically 3 items.
1. Accident. Following an accident a breath test will be requested.
2. Road Traffic Offence. Commit an offence and a request will be made.
3. Manner of driving. Swerve about or hit a kerb and a request will be made.

It should be made clear that in any of the above the offence of failing or refusing to provide a specimen of breath is a summary offence ONLY if the officer does not suspect drink. So, you have a prang and the police attend. No one mentions drink and the officer requests a test. He does not smell drink on your breath. You refuse. You will be reported for failing to provide the test.
However, if the officer is told by the other party they saw you come from a pub car park or the officer smells drink or your speech is slurred then if you do not provide the test you WILL be arrested.

In these cases where drivers complain of random testing as in road block exercises, you can say no to the test. Just hope he doesn't smell drink, your speech is not slurred, all the lights work on your car, your tyres are not defective etc etc and you can go on your way.
But this is what annoys me about those who complain about civil liberties and such like.
What is your problem? Why is it so unreasonable to blow for less than 10 seconds into a plastic tube? And what if the driver immediately behind you in this police state has had 6 pints? Do you want him on the road and very likely to wipe out an innocent family? So what is wrong with this approach. I can bet with absolute confidence that if your son, daughter, father or mother was injured or killed by a drink driver then you would be bleating, "Why aren't the police stopping and breath testing everyone?"

You really are pathetic.

[Dennis W]

The Rule of Law applies as much to the Police as to everyone else.

[Hometune]

Originally Posted by Dennis W

The Rule of Law applies as much to the Police as to everyone else.

So, who said differently?

[Dennis W]

Originally Posted by MrDanno

The Police were doing 'random' breath tests - That means choosing people at random, Not choosing drivers that were suspicious.(although I'm sure they would check anyone who displayed any signs of drink-driving too)




Of course it is legal - They can stop you for any reason. What have you got to worry about if you are not breaking the law?

It "may" be legal, but it only serves to alienate honest and Law-abiding citizens.

Police who do not follow the correct procedures tend to destroy the willingness of the public to respect the police.

[Snowball]

Quite a few years ago, driving home on his motorcycle after visiting us, our son was randomly stopped by a constable, and was asked, "have you been drinking?" Our son said that he had, and was made to wait at the roadside whilst the constable radioed for a police car to attend. Eventually, this car arrived and he was breathalysed, and the substance in the tube turned brown.
The officer asked what he had been drinking and he told them "coffee" - he drinks it strong, black and without sugar.
The copper was annoyed and said he hadn't told them that, to which he replied that they hadn't asked what he had been drinking when first stopped, and asked, "why didn't you ask me if I had been drinking anything alcoholic? You are supposed to know the law - I'm just a motorcyclist".

[Dennis W]

The North Wales Police tend to just give you a breathalyser test, regardless of them asking you if you have been drinking, and also regardless of them having reasonable suspicion that you are negatively affected by drink or drugs.

[smudger]

That's like the bloke who was stopped by plod, and when asked when he had his last drink,.....the bloke looked at his watch, .....this made the constable get a bit excited as he thought this one was in the bag.........The driver then says......... "I think it was about 1999' as that was when I stopped drinking"

[Dennis W]

That is similar to the case of two friends who had been in a pub together, one a tee-totaller, and the other rather a heavy drinker.

The car got stopped by a police officer. He went up to the window and asked the guy to "blow into this bag, please"

He did and it showed no indication of drink. So the police officer let them proceed.

What the PC had not noticed, was that the vehicle was Left hand drive, and it was the driver who had been drinking.

[Dennis W]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Quite a few years ago, driving home on his motorcycle after visiting us, our son was randomly stopped by a constable, and was asked, "have you been drinking?" Our son said that he had, and was made to wait at the roadside whilst the constable radioed for a police car to attend. Eventually, this car arrived and he was breathalysed, and the substance in the tube turned brown.
The officer asked what he had been drinking and he told them "coffee" - he drinks it strong, black and without sugar.
The copper was annoyed and said he hadn't told them that, to which he replied that they hadn't asked what he had been drinking when first stopped, and asked, "why didn't you ask me if I had been drinking anything alcoholic? You are supposed to know the law - I'm just a motorcyclist".

I am guessing that even if your son had said he had not been drinking, the PC would still have sent for a breathalyser.

[Hometune]

Originally Posted by MrDanno

Of course it is legal - They can stop you for any reason. What have you got to worry about if you are not breaking the law?

Exactly.

[Santa]

Giving smart answers in that situation was hardly the ideal. That cop might well have spent the next half hour checking every detail in search of some fault he could prosecute your son for.

Be polite, answer truthfully and never volunteer information is tha best policy.

[Dennis W]

What is the correct procedure for officers on foot to stop a vehicle during the hours of darkness, having regard to their own safety?

[smudger]

No doubt in these days of health and safety, there will be a "small book" written on the subject, which will to have to be learned off by heart, by every traffic cop in the country?

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Santa

Giving smart answers in that situation was hardly the ideal. That cop might well have spent the next half hour checking every detail in search of some fault he could prosecute your son for.

Be polite, answer truthfully and never volunteer information is tha best policy.

With resect, Santa, our son did not give a "smart" answer. He was asked if he had been drinking - not if he had taken any alcoholic drink - therefore his simple answer of "yes" was quite correct. The beat copper was very officious in the way he dealt with our son, so what was wrong with being very precise in answering the question?
Anyhow, from what I remember of the story, the officers in the police car that attended were more than a little peeved with the beat copper. Being more used to breathalysing drivers, their question would most likely have been precise regarding alcohol.
BTW - it was not at a period such as Christmas, neither was it late at night - he had visited on his way home from work.

Search for some fault? - Bike nearly new and in top class condition, all documentation in order, lights all working, wearing appropriate helmet, and bike being driven in a correct manner.

What a difference when we were involved in a hit-and-run by a stolen car. Although I had not been drinking, the attending traffic cop apologise for having to breathalyse me under standard procedure. The result was zero and the cop said, "that's the sort of reading I like to see". When I said it was the first time I had ever been breathalysed he gave me the blow pipe for a souvenir. Good cop!

[Santa]

Cops tend to be prejudiced against young men on motorbike anyway. When he asked, "Have you been drinking," your son knew, and the cop knew he knew, exactly what he meant. Because of his "Yes" the cop then had to wait and two other cops had to waste their time driving over to breathalyse him.

If you were a cop in that situation, how would you react? I know how I would.

[Dennis W]

Originally Posted by Santa

Cops tend to be prejudiced against young men on motorbike anyway. When he asked, "Have you been drinking," your son knew, and the cop knew he knew, exactly what he meant. Because of his "Yes" the cop then had to wait and two other cops had to waste their time driving over to breathalyse him.

If you were a cop in that situation, how would you react? I know how I would.

Maybe 40 years ago some police officers were prejudiced against some people. But I think they are trained NOT to be prejudiced these days.