Drink Drivers
I am a trained operator of the Lion Intoxilyzer. As a result of this I get to perform a number of station procedures with people who have been arrested for failing a roadside breath test.
A few weeks ago I was called to the custody suite by a colleague to perform such a procedure. It was 0620 am and I was just about to finish my night shift at 7am so I wanted to get out asap.
My colleague and his crew mate had witnessed the male driving his van and put the blue lights on to stop him. The male had pulled over but then got out of his van and started to walk off. He was obviously still tanked up from the night before.
They detained the male and breath tested him in the police car which he failed so he was arrested and taken into custody. When he was handed over to me he seemed quite a pleasant chap. He knew he was going to fail the station procedure and he completed it without any problems. He followed all instructions he was given, blew into the tube first time correctly and did not try to trick the machine (which as far as I am aware is impossible to do). From his 2 samples given the lower reading was 46 microgrammes in 100 millilitres of breath.
The legal drink drive limit is 35 microgrammes in 100 millilitres of breath. My force have a policy that they will not prosecute if your blow between 35-40. If you blow between 40-50 you are offered what is called the Statutory Option. This means that you can accept your breath sample as it is and be charged with Excess Alcohol or you can elect to provide a blood or urine sample to be sent off for analysis. It is up to the officer in charge of the procedure whether it is blood or urine and unless there is a medical or religious reason why blood cannot be provided I will always insist that blood is used as this provides the more accurate result. A medical professional has to be called out to take the blood sample so it can mean more of a delay in custody.
Because this male blew 46 I offered him the statutory option. We returned to the custody desk and in front of the Sergeant I explained it to him in simple everyday speak I then read the official caption from the MGDD/B but he still refused the option coughing the offence and saying words to the effect of “What’s the point I’ve been drink driving, it’s only delaying the inevitable”. I couldn’t believe my luck I thought I was going to be stuck in the custody suite all morning waiting for the Doc to arrive when I should be tucked up warm and snug in bed. His refusal was all captured on the custody video and so was me offering him two opportunities to take the statutory option. He was charged with Excess Alcohol and off I went home to bed forgetting all about the job anticipating a Guilty plea at court.
This chap must have gone to see a solicitor whilst he was on bail to court because a week or so later I received notification that I was required at court to give evidence. I had forgotten all about this job so when I looked up the details I was surprised to see that it was this chap who had gone Not Guilty. I checked with the prosecutor as to why I was required and I was told that this chap had stated that the statutory option had not been properly explained to him so it was apparent that the solicitor he had spoken to was trying to get him off on a made up technicality that he would have provided a blood sample had he known the implications. When a blood sample is taken it has to be sent off to the Forensic Science Service for analysis. This can take a few months as it is not classed as urgent so the inevitable driving ban can be delayed for a considerable amount of time.
I await to see what happens at court when his brief cross examines me and tries to imply that I didn’t explain or offer the statutory option properly. I just hope the magistrates will take this time wasting into account when he is proved wrong when the custody video is played back in court.
I think that Drink Driving should be classed as an absolute offence. There should be no Guilty or Not Guilty option available to the defendant. If you are seen by a police officer driving and this can be corroborated by another source be that another police officer, video evidence or another witness, you then fail a roadside breath test or are arrested for being impaired, and you then provide 2 satisfactory specimens of breath for analysis at the police station I cannot see how you can then claim to be not guilty when it gets to court. If you have not raised any objections throughout this whole procedure, e.g. immediately denied driving, claiming the Intoxilyzer / Intoximeter is faulty or inaccurate, accused the officers of lying about any part of the case and you have fully co-operated throughout the whole police procedure what have you got to back up your Not Guilty plea?? Therefore how can you then claim to be Not Guilty?
Share this:
Like this:
Filed under: Police, War Stories | 16 Comments
-
Bobby’s Blogroll
Planet Police
The (Original) Policeman's Blog
The Twining Chronicles
Inspector Gadget
NIGHTJACK - English Detective
PCSO Bloggs
WPC Bloggs
The Magistrate's Blog
Toy Town (Scottish Police)
Totally Un-PC
Met County Mounty
Mad Max's Plodcast
Brand New Bobby (Special)
Life on Mars
The Paramedic's Diary
Ambulance Nut
Peoples PolicingArchives
-
Blog Stats & Directories
- 21,422 hits since March 08
-
————————————————
Many, many years ago I was the driver in the episode above and your entry descibes precisely my customer experience of one of the first ever Lion Intoxilyzer tests.
I too was expected to plead guilty but, on the advice of my local brief, pleaded not and despite the court evidence of 4 ( four ) constables and the station sergent ( this in Yorkshire at the hight of the miners strike ) was rightly aquitted.
The prosecution assumed that I was going to challenge the new fangled Lion Intoxilyzer but my defence against ” drunk in charge ” was based upon the location of my keys and whether I was likely to be going anywhere soon.
Incidentally, I still felt pissed when they released me at 7am with my car ( which they had brought back to the station ( ! ? ).
Sanctimonious, thanks for your comment. Drunk in charge is a whole different ball game and in my opinion quite difficult to prove unless the driver is found in the drivers seat with the keys in the ignition. My rant was with regards to the offence of Driving Whilst Over the Prescribed Limit (aka Excess Alcohol) where the offender is seen driving by the Police. However fair play to you for getting off because the onus was on you to prove that you had no intention of driving.
Don’t worry – he’ll go down, I’m sure. There’s more case law about Sec 4 & 5 of the RTA than anything else! I’ve had a couple of interesting ones myself over the years. Let us know what happens, would you?
BTW – it’s not just your force that doesn’t prosecute till 40, it’s a Home Office thingy. And it’s not you personally that decides whether it’s blood or urine – it’s always been intended that Police will decide on blood because it is a little more accurate (as you say).
Keep up the good work. it’s a good read.
Maybe he was too inebriated to understand the options that were being offered?
Shouldn’t you have kept him until he had sobered up and then explained them to him?
Uhhh….
…..perhaps that would have defeated the object.
But soon, almost any alcohol in the breath is going to result prosecution, exactly s you have just wished.
John
I can’t see how he could plead not guilty.
The machine tells us he was over the drink driving limit, and, as you say,it was on the video.
Please do let us know what happens.
Thanks.
In response to John (Comment 4) you hit the nail on the head that would have defeated the object. That is why we have to follow the MGDD/B & C booklet which has scripted sections of instructions to give to the defendant. As long as I have followed these instructions I do not think that they can claim they did not have it explained to them in a way they understood. This means that everybody in that situation has exactly the same thing said to them. I also went to the extra length of explaining what that scripted section meant in layman’s terms so I do think he will have a leg to stand on.
Whilst I have no sympathy for Drink Drivers (note not those drunk in charge necessarily) I don’t think you can have an absolute offence with no option of a not guilty plea until you can guarantee the intergrity of every serving officer out there.
I’m not questioning your integrity or that of anyone you serve with for that matter, but you have to accept that there are still “bad eggs” out there and whilst that continues the Police cannot be judge and jury. That’s precisely why we have an adversarial system.
Perhaps my view is coloured by the fact that I’m a brief though…
Fair point on your side Harrybelly, but you must be able to see where I’m coming from in that in probably 99%* of these cases it is obvious they only go Not-Guilty to drag out the process so that they can hang on to their licence for a few more months.
* figure made up in Bobby’s head
Fair enough. Means they then get a higher financial penalty and likely lengthier ban too though.
I’ve read this thread with interest. I am in court next Tuesday for driving with excess alcohol. I blew 40 and 52 on the intoxometer, and was then forced to give a urine sample. I was told on video that if I didn’t provide a specimen of urine I would be charged with not providing. I will be pleading not guilty at court, and will try to get the case thrown out.
This is my 4th offence the 1st being in 1989, I am always a few points over and blame the stupid laws which i feel encourage drinking and driving. Why say you can have to pints, why not have a zero tolerance to alcohol and driving. If you’ve drunk alcohol in the last 6 hours you’re not allowed to drive.
I blew green at the roadside when I was 20 after having 4 pints. This told me that I can drink more than 4 pints and still be under the legal limit.
lavalamp, If you blew 40 and 52 this is an unreliable reading from the Intoximeter. For your readings to be classed as reliable your highest reading cannot be above 46 if your lowest reading is 40 as the range between them would be too great. Speaking from personal experience most readings I have obtained are only 1 or 2 apart. If your reading is classed as unreliable it cannot be used as evidence so the officers would have to collect their evidence by some other means. They have a legal power to do this if a working breath screening device is not available or not working correctly.
This would either be by blood or urine. The choice is up to the the officer and not you. Usually the officer would opt to take blood from you as this gives the most accurate reading but this has to be taken by a medical professional such as a doctor or nurse. Due to your readings being only just over the limit I am assuming that the officers opted for urine because the sample could be provided straight away and they would not have had to wait for a doctor / nurse to attend the station thus allowing them to obtain a higher reading from you. Normally urine is only offered as an option if the suspect cannot provide blood for religious reasons or they have a phobia of needles etc.
From what you have said the officers have acted correctly and by explaining this to you on video you cannot claim that you were not warned correctly. This video will be disclosable to you or your solicitor. Your urine sample will have been sent off to the Forensic Science Service to be analysed and when the alcohol level came back over the limit the summons to attend court would have been issued. It sounds to me that you do not have a leg to stand on and it is wishful thinking to assume that you will get this thrown out of court unless the officers involved in your case have not followed a procedure correctly and your solicitor can get it thrown out on a technicality.
The laws do not encourage drink driving, there has been enough publicity stating that you should not drink anything if you are going to drive. Everybody is different and whilst a fat man could drink 3 pints of Carling and be under the limit, a skinny man could drink exactly the same 3 pints but be well over the limit. Also no two brands of beer are the same; some have a higher alcohol percentage than others. I agree with you that the limit should be zero but I doubt that will ever happen. It is technically possible in law to have a drink and be under the limit but still be prosecuted because the alcohol impaired your driving (Sec 4 Road Traffic Act 1988).
If this is your 4th offence you sound to me like a regular drink driver and luckily for the public you have been caught this time. You have not said if you have been convicted for drink driving in the past but if you have you are looking at a very lengthy ban this time round.
I was involved in an RTA and while i was in the back of the ambulance i was asked to give a breath sample i failed i was not told the reading and was not arrested or given my rights. While in hospital i was told that i needed to give a sample of blood and asked if i gave consent for a doctorto take it. I am still waiting on the results 6 weeks later should i not have been arrested in the ambulance or at least read my rights???
Carislepete, when you failed the roadside breath test in the back of the ambulance the normal practice would have been to arrest and caution you (when the officer says “You do not have to say anything…”). However if you were fully cooperative with the officers you may not have been technically arrested because the officers had your consent to collect all of the evidence so it was not required to give them the powers to do so. The device used at the side of the road is not able to give a reading that can be used evidentially, it is only a screening device to indicate if you are over the limit. That is why you would not have been told the reading. Some forces do not use digital devices which show a reading they just use a traffic light system on their breatherlyser’s e.g. green for no alcohol, amber for some alcohol but still under the limit and red for alcohol over the limit. Obviously I do not know the extent of your injuries or how intoxicated you were at the time of your RTA but if the officers felt you were too drunk or injured to fully understand what was going on or you were being treated for your injuries they may have felt it inappropriate to say the magic words to you at the time. Your blood sample has to be sent off to the Forensic Science Service for analysis. Drink drive cases are not their top priority unless someone has died as a result of the accident so it may take some time for the results to come back if they are busy but if you were over the limit you will receive a court summons through the post shortly.
I was arrested for drink driving after sitting in my car with the engine on gettin a heat.
My car had broken down about 8 (or more) hours before and I only returned to my car initially to retrieve my mobile phone in order to phone a taxi to get back to my hotel (was an overnight visit to aberdeen). I was freezing so I got in and turned my engine on to get the heaters going. I was fully aware that my car was completley undrivable and I have the appropriate paperwork from the repair the next day proving this, as well as a police officer attempt to drive my car.
I have a witness say she heard my engine reving (which was to try heat up the engine) and also apparently appear to move a very short distance (not at all as it wasn’t able to move) she called the police who then came as I had left my car and was walking towards the street sign in order to get the street name to call a taxi.
I was arrested and as i was explaining that my car was broken down I was asked how i knew this, I replied “because when I tried to drive it, it wouldnt move” an obvious answer i thought, I did not however mean right there and then, i meant when it originally broke down.
It’s now been a year since the arrest and i’ve been up and down to Aberdeen (costing alot of money) around 6 times and up again next week.
It really seems like a joke if i am found guilty of driving a car with excess alchohol as as far as i’m concerned I had no iintention and no possible way to drive the car. Cold and wanting my phone to call a taxi, is not exactly a crime.
(I would maybe understand a being in charge of a vehicle charge but still do not feel i done anything wrong.)
Luckily I have a witness that was with me when it originally broke down so they the judge should see that i was fully aware the car had broken down.
Whats your opinion?
Thanks