Lawyer escapes drink-driving charge

[SMOKEU]

" A prominent Westport lawyer has escaped a fourth drink-driving charge, despite being over the limit, because he was breath-tested on private property.

Doug Taffs, 59, was caught by police on August 19 with a breath-alcohol reading of 480 micrograms.

Police attempted to pull him over about 200 metres from his house but followed him on to his property when he failed to stop for their flashing lights.

Judge Michael Behrens dismissed the charge because the police conducted the breath test on private property.

''I find that New Zealand citizens have an expectation that police will not come on to their land and randomly breath-test them,'' he said.

''I believe the evidence was improperly obtained.''

Senior Constable Donald Abbey and Constable Greg Sherie had been driving to Granity when they spotted a Land Rover travelling along Fairdown Rd.

The car had not breached any traffic rules, but Abbey said:''I bet he's come from the pub.''

They did a U-turn to give a random breath test, but Taffs did not stop.

He continued up the road about 200m before entering his driveway and parking by his house.

The police followed the car on to Taffs' property.

Taffs told the court he never saw the flashing lights, but Sherie said ''any reasonable motorist'' would have seen them.

The judge said he was not prepared to say Taffs had seen the police lights and believed his ''surprise and concern'' at finding the officers in his driveway was ''genuine''.

After failing a breath test, Taffs was taken back to the Westport police station, where an evidential breath test confirmed he was over the limit.

''When I spoke to the defendant he admitted he had been drinking and I could smell alcohol on his breath,'' Sherie said.

In conducting the test, the policemen were acting on an ''implied licence'' that entitles them to enter a property and knock at the front door, provided they are there for a lawful purpose.

If they are asked to leave, they must.

Sherie said he knew he was on private property but was not asked to leave.

Judge Behrens ruled that the police did not have the right to test Taffs on his property.

''Constable Sherie was intent on beginning breath-testing procedures because the decision to do so had been made before he entered on to Mr Taffs' property. He did not consider whether he could go on to the property or not,'' Judge Behrens said.

He dismissed the charge, saying public interest did not outweigh privacy, particularly on a police officer's whim ''with absolutely no grounds for a belief ... that a motorist has been driving with excess alcohol on his breath''.

Taffs declined to comment today, but his lawyer, Pip Hall, was pleased with the outcome.

''The judge followed established legal precedent and what it is saying is that the police have no right to gather information in that way," he said.

Taffs has three drink-driving convictions, including an incident where he hid coins in his mouth in a bid to beat the breath-testing machine.

After being stopped for drink-driving last year, Taffs was taken back to a police station, where he was found trying to escape by climbing over a back wall.

He then tried to disengage the breath-testing machine by unplugging its power cable and hiding a cord in the drawer of a filing cabinet.

Police put the cord back into the machine, but when Taffs took the test, silver coins fell out of his mouth.

He recorded a blood-alcohol reading of 115 millgrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

At the time, Taffs said he ''lost the plot'' and had acted ''like a complete prat''."






I always thought that if a cop sees you operating a motor vehicle on a public road that they can then follow you onto private property for the purposes of a breath test and to check driver license etc. I find it a bit hard to believe that he was allowed to evade the breath test like that.

[Banditbandit]

Bastard !!! He's a drunk driver who has got off on a technicality - now I largely agree with the technicality - police should not be asble to stop drivers "on a whim" .. however he's a known drunk driver and I'm not sure that he was stopped "on a whim" ... I think testing him and getting him off the road is a good move ..

He'll get caught - legitimately - because he won't be able to stop himself ... Just hope he gets caught and taken off the road before he kills someone .

[oneofsix]

first reaction is disgust at a drunk driver getting away with it so the writers did a good job. Then further research and you see in the cases where figures are given he was only just over the limits and there is plenty of research to show these are not the people causing the problems it is the ones two to three times the limits. Also he wasn't driving or behaving badly unlike the Wellington cop that pulled the same stunt.
Now I think the cops recognised the Land Rover and decided there was a chance as they already had this guy in their sights. Wonder what sort of lawyer he is and if his job means he gets up their noses?
I think the judge was right and sorry :Police: better luck next time.

[Scuba_Steve]

Think the real issue is he's been convicted 3 times, Why is he still allowed to drive???
I would also question how he's allowed to continue as a lawyer too, but then isn't that the definition of a lawyer "a criminal that defends other criminals in court"

[Gremlin]

I always thought that if a cop sees you operating a motor vehicle on a public road that they can then follow you onto private property for the purposes of a breath test and to check driver license etc. I find it a bit hard to believe that he was allowed to evade the breath test like that.
I thought it was more pursuit related. ie, they initiated the stop prior to him entering private land, and were therefore able to proceed.

Don't really care if he's just over the limit. The NZ limit is too high already and he's clearly not learning...

I'm also wondering if the council will do anything over his conduct...

[oneofsix]

I thought it was more pursuit related. ie, they initiated the stop prior to him entering private land, and were therefore able to proceed.

Don't really care if he's just over the limit. The NZ limit is too high already and he's clearly not learning...

I'm also wondering if the council will do anything over his conduct...

If the problems are only cause by those at 2 - 3 times the limit then the limit isn't too high and you are just falling for the silly line that the way to fix drunk driving is to lower the limit. The limit is low enough to not be the cause of drunk driving, we've done the lowering the limit thing over the last 2-3 decades and got it and general public understanding to a point where drunk driving is not acceptable and now the trick is to keep public acceptance there, don't over do it and turn people off to the whole subject, and get the real drunks off the road.
As to the pursuit, what;s good enough for there own is good enough for everyone else. But no the real issue is privacy and your right to some and also protection from over zealous authorities, police, council, SIS, KGB etc. and sometimes this does mean tipsy drivers escape to protect the rights of the rest of us.

[Banditbandit]

Think the real issue is he's been convicted 3 times, Why is he still allowed to drive???
I would also question how he's allowed to continue as a lawyer too, but then isn't that the definition of a lawyer "a criminal that defends other criminals in court"

Driving offences are not crimes ... Crimes are defined in the Crimes Act ... I can't remember what the act covering the road rules is .. but it is not the Crimes Act.

[Road kill]

Double edged sword really.

First there's "the law" that may be right "but will only ever apply to those that know how to use it.

And then there's the "Multi time" drunk driver that really needs to be banned for life.

I just hope the coppers have all their ducks in a row next time,,,and really nail that cunt.

[davereid]

If the problems are only cause by those at 2 - 3 times the limit then the limit isn't too high and you are just falling for the silly line that the way to fix drunk driving is to lower the limit. The limit is low enough to not be the cause of drunk driving,



Yes, 30,0000 drivers were prosecuted for drink driving last year. But only 20 road deaths "involved" drivers between 50-80mg.

And of those the driver between 50-80mg was the victim as often as the cause.

And its not valid to assume that the driver would not have made the same mistake if he was below 50mg, as in fact the vast majority of accidents are cause by entirely sober people.

There is no evidence to suggest that lowering the limit would have any effect at all, as drivers between 50-80mg have exactly the same accident rate as drivers between 0-50mg.

The 160mg plus driver however, is a different story, and its the very drunk driver who needs to be eliminated from the roads.

[Zedder]

"Lawyer escapes drink-driving charge", well why not, the ex Serious Fraud Office Chief Prosecuter got off forgery charges this week even after pleading guilty.

[Glowerss]

Not a big fan of drunk driving myself, but

The guy hadn't done anything illegal or to suggest he'd been drinking. By the sounds of it, the police simply have him marked as repeat offender. While all well and good, you still can't romp onto the fullas property to test him. Especially since he was just barely over.

Judge was right to toss this one.

Im sure the five-oh will get him next time :Police:

In the interest of further education, exactly how do you guys measure inebriation? Or how does it compared to Blood Alcohol Content? Legal limit back home was .08%. Always used to dealing with precentages. How do/does microns compare? Trusty google is letting me down :crybaby: And what kind of penalties do you guys peddle for drunk driving? I'm sure I can find out what the NZTA will tell me, but in my experience thus far what the NZTA will tell you and what actually happens tend to be 2 very different things.

I rarely drink, and definitely won't drink and drive, so questions are largely academic :banana:

[Gremlin]

If the problems are only cause by those at 2 - 3 times the limit then the limit isn't too high and you are just falling for the silly line that the way to fix drunk driving is to lower the limit. The limit is low enough to not be the cause of drunk driving, we've done the lowering the limit thing over the last 2-3 decades and got it and general public understanding to a point where drunk driving is not acceptable and now the trick is to keep public acceptance there, don't over do it and turn people off to the whole subject, and get the real drunks off the road.
Ok, I don't believe that simply lowering the limit will magically fix the problem. It doesn't work for anything (speed limits on roads, dog licencing etc). Those that break the law will continue to do so.

However, at 80mg you're actually pretty intoxicated and your judgement is impaired. That's what I have a problem with.

[Bassmatt]

Double edged sword really.

First there's "the law" that may be right "but will only ever apply to those that know how to use it.

And then there's the "Multi time" drunk driver that really needs to be banned for life.

I just hope the coppers have all their ducks in a row next time,,,and really nail that cunt.

This is a big problem IMO. You can ban them all you like but it doesn't seem to stop them getting pissed and driving.
Short of locking them up for life or cutting their hands off, I dont know how it can be stopped.

[Winston001]

Bastard !!! He's a drunk driver who has got off on a technicality - now I largely agree with the technicality - police should not be asble to stop drivers "on a whim" ..

The police have been able to do random stops since 1982 - they don't need a reason.



I would also question how he's allowed to continue as a lawyer too, but then isn't that the definition of a lawyer "a criminal that defends other criminals in court"

I agree. His behaviour is disreputable and its highly likely he was censured and fined by the Law Society for the last episode. He'll probably face a further complaint over this.

The trouble is a person has to be pretty bad before they get disbarred because that takes away their livelihood. Plus this behaviour is not directly related to his work.

[Winston001]

Frankly I'd have thought he was a goner but am no expert in criminal law. The doctrine of fresh pursuit over-rides the private property protections but only if the offender is fleeing or knows they are being pursued. In this case this jerk managed to raise reasonable doubt that he saw the police car.

[mashman]

Crush his car and get Crusher Collins to kick him in the bollocks on the 6pm news. Could get massive viewing figures and if you put adverts either side of the kick, you could generate lots of revenue. Win win.

[Glowerss]

This is a big problem IMO. You can ban them all you like but it doesn't seem to stop them getting pissed and driving.
Short of locking them up for life or cutting their hands off, I dont know how it can be stopped.

Stiffer and genuine penalties. Drink Driving back home is less common then it is here, despite there being roughly 3x the people :lol: because they do not fuck around with drunk driving.

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/ill.php

Third offence is 3-7 years jailtime, as its considered a felony offence (3 felony offenses and you're considered a recidivist offender and will up for lifetime in prison) whopping great big fines and a minimum of a 10 year license suspension.

The penalties get to be truely ridiculous (as well they should be) If you're drunk driving with somebody under the age of 16 in the car.

Fine – Mandatory $25,000 - Child under 16 in Vehicle (Felony Aggravated DUI)

Compared to New Zealands maximum penalties for third offenders being suspended for a year ( :killingme ) up to two years in jail and a fine up to $6000. Considernig NZ's history of the judicial system giving wet slaps on the wrist, those penalties are likely to be far, far less severe.

If you want to stop people from driving home drunk, make it hurt.

[mashman]

I still think the breathaliser before starting the engine is the way to go. Not to stop the engine, but to turn on a light on top of the car to alert those around them that a person is DIC. It'd probably save more lives and the small fortune we spent on barred housing... but no, let's ban and fine them 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc... times and eventually we'll throw them in jail, maybe, possibly, depending on how good their lawyer is.

[Edbear]

Stiffer and genuine penalties. Drink Driving back home is less common then it is here, despite there being roughly 3x the people :lol: because they do not fuck around with drunk driving.

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/ill.php

Third offence is 3-7 years jailtime, as its considered a felony offence (3 felony offenses and you're considered a recidivist offender and will up for lifetime in prison) whopping great big fines and a minimum of a 10 year license suspension.

The penalties get to be truely ridiculous (as well they should be) If you're drunk driving with somebody under the age of 16 in the car.

Fine – Mandatory $25,000 - Child under 16 in Vehicle (Felony Aggravated DUI)

Compared to New Zealands maximum penalties for third offenders being suspended for a year ( :killingme ) up to two years in jail and a fine up to $6000. Considernig NZ's history of the judicial system giving wet slaps on the wrist, those penalties are likely to be far, far less severe.

If you want to stop people from driving home drunk, make it hurt.

Now there's a novel idea! Now we just have to convince TPTB that it might be worth a try... :(

[Jantar]

I thought it was more pursuit related. ie, they initiated the stop prior to him entering private land, and were therefore able to proceed....

That is where the matter of law comes into play. There was no pursuit, they had no reason to believe he had committed any offence, so were carrying out a random stop, and as the law says, they may only carry out random stops "on the road". If the police had noticed an offence, then they were legally entitled to pursue him onto private property, but not to do so merely for a fishing expedition.

[Banditbandit]

The police have been able to do random stops since 1982 - they don't need a reason.



My comment about not being able to stop people "on a whim" was straight from the judge's commtns in the original story

''Constable Sherie was intent on beginning breath-testing procedures because the decision to do so had been made before he entered on to Mr Taffs' property. He did not consider whether he could go on to the property or not,'' Judge Behrens said.

He dismissed the charge, saying public interest did not outweigh privacy, particularly on a police officer's whim ''with absolutely no grounds for a belief ... that a motorist has been driving with excess alcohol on his breath''.

Random checkpoints are a whole other thing ...

[imdying]

Meh, David Bain walks amongst us, so there's bigger issues in the legal world IMO.

[Genestho]

Stiffer and genuine penalties. Drink Driving back home is less common then it is here, despite there being roughly 3x the people :lol: because they do not fuck around with drunk driving.

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/ill.php

Third offence is 3-7 years jailtime, as its considered a felony offence (3 felony offenses and you're considered a recidivist offender and will up for lifetime in prison) whopping great big fines and a minimum of a 10 year license suspension.

The penalties get to be truely ridiculous (as well they should be) If you're drunk driving with somebody under the age of 16 in the car.

Fine – Mandatory $25,000 - Child under 16 in Vehicle (Felony Aggravated DUI)

Compared to New Zealands maximum penalties for third offenders being suspended for a year ( :killingme ) up to two years in jail and a fine up to $6000. Considernig NZ's history of the judicial system giving wet slaps on the wrist, those penalties are likely to be far, far less severe.

If you want to stop people from driving home drunk, make it hurt.

The problem is (and the general public still fail miserably to see how the justice system works.)
Offenders, have rights, poor dears don't have enough money to pay a huge fine, they need their licenses for work.. defence lawyers exploit these and use the processes to get the best outcome for their clients.
Judges make certain considerations in sentencing.

Most drink drive offences will usually get off on technicalities, true story.
The only thing to do is to rewrite the human rights law so that offenders don't have rights. Hahaha. Problem is, that EVERYbody has rights now.
Welcome to the justice system and how it 'works' in NZ. :msn-wink:

[Zedder]

The problem is (and the general public still fail miserably to see how the justice system works.)
Offenders, have rights, poor dears don't have enough money to pay a huge fine, they need their licenses for work.. defence lawyers exploit these and use the processes to get the best outcome for their clients.
Judges make certain considerations in sentencing.

Most drink drive offences will usually get off on technicalities, true story.
The only thing to do is to rewrite the human rights law so that offenders don't have rights. Hahaha. Problem is, that EVERYbody has rights now.
Welcome to the justice system and how it 'works' in NZ. :msn-wink:

Well there's ya problem, it's not called the justice system at all but rather the legal system. The rights thing appears to have got way out of control though.

[Genestho]

Well there's ya problem, it's not called the justice system at all but rather the legal system. The rights thing appears to have got way out of control though.
Yeah exactly, I was trying to think of a quote regarding law and the justice system, something about them not being the same - it still eludes me, Hehe. :)

[PrincessBandit]

Despite his record, the man is still a lawyer and would be only too well-informed about how to weasel his way out of a situation which could result in ending up in hot water. (Even better informed of how to go about this while still remaining on the right side of the law). A dumbarse he might be, but a dummy he ain't.

[scumdog]

Most drink drive offences will usually get off on technicalities, true story.

I think you meant "most drink drivers who get off do so on a technicality"

'Cos most drink drivers DON'T get off at all...

[Genestho]

I think you meant "most drink drivers who get off do so on a technicality"

'Cos most drink drivers DON'T get off at all...
Indeed I did, sorry mate, I'm shattered and I did get distracted as I was typing!!! :calm:

[jasonu]

Yes, 30,0000 drivers were prosecuted for drink driving last year. .

Really? Is that 30,000 in NZ alone? That is about 115 DIC prosecutions a day, 5 days a week.
I dunno (or care) what the stats are here but that sounds like a lot to me.

[unstuck]

Really? Is that 30,000 in NZ alone? That is about 115 DIC prosecutions a day, 5 days a week.
I dunno (or care) what the stats are here but that sounds like a lot to me.

Nah, thats just southland, Speights drinking muppets.:drinkup:

[jasonu]

Nah, thats just southland, Speights drinking muppets.:drinkup:

Can't be right. Speights is possum piss which is non alcholic...

[MIXONE]

Can't be right. Speights is possum piss which is non alcholic...

SPEIGHTS= Superior Piss Enjoyed In Great Hotels Throughout Southland.

[Scuba_Steve]

Crush his car and get Crusher Collins to kick him in the bollocks on the 6pm news. Could get massive viewing figures and if you put adverts either side of the kick, you could generate lots of revenue. Win win.

You can leave crusher collins in the car...
Well heres a question, why don't we crush their cars???

Apparently their gonna stop boy racing with the crushing law (:rofl:) So why not implement it here where there is a real danger & where it might actually make a difference given the majority tend to be middle aged with decent cars worth something

[scumdog]

SPEIGHTS= Superior Piss Enjoyed In Great Hotels Throughout Southland.

Drink Speights and lose your mates...

[scumdog]

Frankly I'd have thought he was a goner but am no expert in criminal law. The doctrine of fresh pursuit over-rides the private property protections but only if the offender is fleeing or knows they are being pursued. In this case this jerk managed to raise reasonable doubt that he saw the police car.

Kinda raises a whole hornets nest... every drunk numpty drunken bozo will now drive on until they get home claiming: "Aw, shee-it, sorry boss, never realised you was behind me..."

[Deano]

Since the Urewera 4 trial, there have been a number of amendments/repeals to various Acts, as a result of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.

Problem is, the powers that be seem to have thrown the baby out with the bath water in at least one example.

Rights of property owners seem to allow them to break the law with less consequences than before.

Thankfully the RMA Reform Bill may bring things back in line with regard to seized equipment from offenders who have no regard for the peace and quiet of their neighbours.

[Jantar]

Kinda raises a whole hornets nest... every drunk numpty drunken bozo will now drive on until they get home claiming: "Aw, shee-it, sorry boss, never realised you was behind me..."

Maybe not so unbelievable. Mrs Jantar and I were heading home from the pub one night, I was pissed and Mrs Jantar was the sober driver. Anyway I looked behind us and saw a cop car following us with red and blues flashing so looked forward to see just where wifey would pull over. As she drove past the best place to stop I asked her if she intended stopping for tihe cop. Her reply floored me as she asked "what cop?"

Anyway she did stop and the "random" breath test proved negative. I say random, because the cop knew we had been at the pub watching the rugby. He knew exactly how long we had been there and was extremely suprised the Mrs Jantar passed. What he didn't know was she was drinking coke and raspberry, not beer. Friends later told us that he was obviously waiting for us as he had been parked along the road outside the pub for some time and drove off just as we left the pub. He stopped us 3 km out of town.

I learned two things. Random breath tests are not so random, and drivers don't always use their mirrors.

[scumdog]

I learned two things. Random breath tests are not so random, and drivers don't always use their mirrors.

You better believe the first part - especially if you're one of those drivers who park well away from the pub in thE hope the cops don't realise you are drinking up large and are associated with the vehicle parked up the road.

Last weekend one such driver was stopped for a 'random' test and gave a reading of 1214mgm - and was his 3rd EBA...jail looks like a possibility for him..

[Deano]

Aren't cops allowed to 'randomly' or not allowed to stop people for breath testing?

I mean FFS, they have the right to pull you over to check compliance of your vehicle at any time don't they? And, oh by the way, I smell alcohol...please blow into this...what is the problem ?

You drive on the road, you are fair game to be stopped. Don't like it ?, take the bus.

[scumdog]

Are cops only allowed to 'randomly' stop people for breath testing?

I mean FFS, they have the right to pull you over to check compliance of your vehicle at any time don't they? And, oh by the way, I smell alcohol...please blow into this...what is the problem ?

You drive on the road, you are fair game to be stopped. Don't like it ?, take the bus.

'Any where - any time' I think they said..

[mashman]

You can leave crusher collins in the car...
Well heres a question, why don't we crush their cars???

Apparently their gonna stop boy racing with the crushing law (:rofl:) So why not implement it here where there is a real danger & where it might actually make a difference given the majority tend to be middle aged with decent cars worth something

bwaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaa... that would be murder. Although a smart lawyer might reasonably argue self defence or at worst an unfortunate SMIDSY.

heh... I have no problem with that for recidivists. Although I reckon if they have multiple vehicles, KB should be consulted as to which car should be crushed. Could make for some fun threads.

[Zedder]

You better believe the first part - especially if you're one of those drivers who park well away from the pub in thE hope the cops don't realise you are drinking up large and are associated with the vehicle parked up the road.

Last weekend one such driver was stopped for a 'random' test and gave a reading of 1214mgm - and was his 3rd EBA...jail looks like a possibility for him..

Jail a possibility on only his third EBA? Don't be so bloody naive Scumdog.

[scumdog]

Jail a possibility on only his third EBA? Don't be so bloody naive Scumdog.

One can dream...one can dream....

[Winston001]

Aren't cops allowed to 'randomly' or not allowed to stop people for breath testing?

I mean FFS, they have the right to pull you over to check compliance of your vehicle at any time don't they? And, oh by the way, I smell alcohol...please blow into this...what is the problem ?


Yes. They can. That is what random stopping is - no reason, just checking.


Historically citizens have the right to unimpeded progress and freedom from being retained without cause. That is still the law in some of the United States. That is why American cops use a broken tail-light etc as an excuse to pull over a driver.

But that is no longer the law (so far as I know) in the UK, Australia, and NZ.

In 1982 the NZ Court of Appeal held that randomly pulling over a motorist was lawful for public policy reasons and ever since we have had random stopping ie. no particular reason is required to stop a motorist.

[Gremlin]

...gave a reading of 1214mgm - and was his 3rd EBA...jail looks like a possibility for him..
Stop it, you're getting me all excited in the naive hope there is punishment...

[Scouse]

Don't really care if he's just over the limit. The NZ limit is too high already and he's clearly not learning...

...If you dont like our limit then you can always piss off back to from where you came

[Marmoot]

He continued up the road about 200m before entering his driveway and parking by his house.

The police followed the car on to Taffs' property.

Taffs told the court he never saw the flashing lights, but Sherie said ''any reasonable motorist'' would have seen them.

The judge said he was not prepared to say Taffs had seen the police lights and believed his ''surprise and concern'' at finding the officers in his driveway was ''genuine''.

Technicality?

If the road was 60km/h, it would take 12 seconds to cover the 200m distance.
If the road was 100 km/h, it would take 7.2 seconds to cover the 200m distance.

Either way it is more than the 6 seconds interval recommended for a driver to check the rearview mirror.
That means the guy could be done on the grounds of trying to evade the police, or at the very least driving without due care and attention (careless driving?).

Lateral thinking...