Police breath testing

**MarkH** · 15th March 2010, 20:40

Originally Posted by T.W.R

If being there and being horribly held up by the actual checkpoint yeah maybe but as you weren't even there and just using second hand news to blurt on about it...it'd be better to

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that this discussion thread was only for those with direct first hand experience of this particular incident. I guess I'll go and hang my head in shame now.

**Ixion** · 15th March 2010, 20:52

Originally Posted by rwh

They're welcome to test for it - when they have cause to believe that the driver is intoxicated.

Richard

by and large I agree with you. But I think that it could be argued that the requirement is reasonale grounds to suspect that the driver may have taken intoxicating liquor. And that if the driver is leaving a place where the majority of those present have been drinking there is reasonale grounds to suspect that any particular driver may have done so also. I'd think it a reasonable real world assumption that people leaving a pin have had a drink . Cirumstantial grounds for suspicion

**rwh** · 15th March 2010, 21:04

Originally Posted by Ixion

by and large I agree with you. But I think that it could be argued that the requirement is reasonale grounds to suspect that the driver may have taken intoxicating liquor. And that if the driver is leaving a place where the majority of those present have been drinking there is reasonale grounds to suspect that any particular driver may have done so also. I'd think it a reasonable real world assumption that people leaving a pin have had a drink . Cirumstantial grounds for suspicion

I think we're mostly on the same page here, but I still think that's a bit far.
From the stats from this event, they tested 2000 people and got 5 fails - that's a 0.25% chance that any one person would be intoxicated. That's way too low, in my opinion, and would not be tolerated in any other area.

The fact that there was a near 100% chance that they'd get someone is certainly not good enough.

Imagine picking some 'dodgy suburb', and performing a simultaneous raid on all the dwellings at once (ignore resourcing constraints for the time being).

You'd probably get a thousand or so stashes of pot, a few P labs, and probably find a few domestic assaults in progress, etc etc. Would that make the raid justified? Hell no. Why should we be subject to different rules because we're in or on vehicles?

Richard

**rwh** · 15th March 2010, 21:13

Originally Posted by Ixion

by and large I agree with you. But I think that it could be argued that the requirement is reasonale grounds to suspect that the driver may have taken intoxicating liquor. And that if the driver is leaving a place where the majority of those present have been drinking there is reasonale grounds to suspect that any particular driver may have done so also. I'd think it a reasonable real world assumption that people leaving a pin have had a drink . Cirumstantial grounds for suspicion

Actually I went off on a bit of a tangent there - I'd been thinking up the analogies, and wrote what I was thinking about rather than responding to your post.

Yes, there's a good chance that a person coming out of a pub has had something to drink. But that's not illegal, even if they get in their car and drive off. In every other case, you have to have reason to believe an offence has been or is being (or is going to be?) committed. That means you would have to have reason to believe that the person had drunk too much - and that simply isn't true for the vast majority of pub patrons driving away.

Richard

**Ixion** · 15th March 2010, 21:14

Perhaps the test of that is whether the repeat the exercise next year. PC Spokesmansays might argue " we knew there were all these people there and a lot of drinking going on. So we thought we had reasonable grounds to suspect that a lot of them would be over the limit. "

In fact, turns out there weren,t. 5 out of 2000 is random. Which would mean no reasonable grounds next time. But until they did the test the cops couldn't know that.

**FJRider** · 15th March 2010, 22:17

Originally Posted by Ixion

Perhaps the test of that is whether the repeat the exercise next year.

In fact, turns out there weren,t. 5 out of 2000 is random. Which would mean no reasonable grounds next time. But until they did the test the cops couldn't know that.

There "may" be a similar testing at/after the Brass Monkey ... not just out the gate. But some distance away ... So NO warning ... and NO chance to eat a bit more, and a have few more cups of coffee. All said and done ... how may bikers would have left the March Hare site KNOWING they were over. AND knowing they WOULD be tested .... ???

**kwaka_crasher** · 15th March 2010, 22:26

Originally Posted by red mermaid

Tell that to the families of the people killed each year by drunk drivers (not forgetting those with serious injuries) and see what they think of your conclusion.

That would be a significantly more easily undertaken task than telling the families of those killed on the roads each year through sheer driving incompetence which is most of them..

**rwh** · 15th March 2010, 22:48

Originally Posted by red mermaid

Tell that to the families of the people killed each year by drunk drivers (not forgetting those with serious injuries) and see what they think of your conclusion.

It always seems harsh, but I'm firmly of the belief that law made as a response to the extremes of emotion relating to specific cases - especially the emotion of people close to the case - is rarely good law.

Richard

**kwaka_crasher** · 15th March 2010, 23:33

Originally Posted by Ixion

I'd think it a reasonable real world assumption that people leaving a pin have had a drink . Cirumstantial grounds for suspicion

I'd call it assumption by association.

**Ixion** · 16th March 2010, 10:20

(Pub, leaving the [B]pub[/]. Bloody predictive txt).

True, but nont the less valid for that.

The context was whether the cops were unfairly harassing bikers. If someone's leaving a site where there's known to be a lot of alcohol been consumed, it's not unreasonable to suspect that they may have shared in that consumption. And ask them to do the testy thing to see. Not harrassment. Delaying people for 4 hours (if that happened) is another matter. But that's an operational issues , not one of fairness.

**Coldrider** · 16th March 2010, 10:25

Originally Posted by kwaka_crasher

I'd call it assumption by association.

I'd call it association by consumption

**kwaka_crasher** · 16th March 2010, 16:06

Originally Posted by Ixion

If someone's leaving a site where there's known to be a lot of alcohol been consumed, it's not unreasonable to suspect that they may have shared in that consumption.

While I normally agree with you on matters of civil liberties, I can't buy into the 'grounds for suspicion based solely on proximity' argument.

Originally Posted by Ixion

Delaying people for 4 hours (if that happened) is another matter. But that's an operational issue, not one of fairness.

But the effect is the same. If the 4 hours is true, that's undue delay.

**sinned** · 16th March 2010, 16:15

I thought the Police could only hold you at a check point for 15 minutes, unless there was an offense to process.

**kwaka_crasher** · 16th March 2010, 16:23

Originally Posted by sinned

I thought the Police could only hold you at a check point for 15 minutes, unless there was an offense to process.

15 min for the purpose of establishing identity. However they hadn't reached the checkpoint yet - they were technically stuck in traffic...

**{.bLanK}G_o_D** · 16th March 2010, 16:24

The first goal of a breath testing site is to reduce the amount of intoxicated people driving/riding on the road.
If that means making a song and dance out of it by all means.
The more visible they are to the public the better.
The more pubs, rallys, racing events, partys etc etc etc they park out side, the better.

Originally Posted by DangerousBastard

Why not just smoke dope instead? The next morning you are straight as an arrow.. and surely a much better time to be had..

Steve

You need to find better dope dude.