Alcosensor question

[007XX]

Trust me, I'm no fan of drinking and driving. I'm just curious about the instruction manual for using alcosensors. So far as I know, this is not public information.

Thought you wouldn't
Trouble is, if someone on here was to post a way of getting around the alcosensors, I'm sure someone less mindful than you would try it out...Some info is best not to appear on public sites

Anyway, rant over...drunk drivers are one of my pet hates...

[Winston001]

Thought you wouldn't
Trouble is, if someone on here was to post a way of getting around the alcosensors, I'm sure someone less mindful than you would try it out...Some info is best not to appear on public sites

Anyway, rant over...drunk drivers are one of my pet hates...

Good point, silly me.

[007XX]

Good point, silly me.

Luv ya lots though...

[cowpoos]

Resident Police man 'scumdog', suggested Urinal cakes work a treat!!

[Winston001]

Yes he could blow in a mouthful of fluid, and damage the circuits... There is a "spit trap" to catch the usual amounts, but a mouthful...

After the blood test is taken, he would then be charged with intentional damage and billed accordingly... those things cost much moolah...

Good point regarding intentional damage.

I suppose if the suspect dribbled accidentally in the alcosensor and it failed to work, you could then legitimately require a blood specimen. However if instead the device gave a "pass" result then that's the end?

[Skyryder]

The best way not to get caught is not to do it.

Skyyrder

[Winston001]

I'm not sure why I feel the need to explain but some years ago I used to represent people on drink-drive cases. Successful defences are rare as hen's teeth so it is always interesting to learn more. Whole sections of casebooks are devoted to breath/blood alcohol decisions. From an academic point of view it is an interesting area of law.

I don't drink at all these days but I was certainly stupid in the past.

[marty]

if i genuinely thought someone was pissed, and was going to damage or try to influence the alcosensor then i'd just fail them on grounds that the BST was unavailable, use reasonable grounds, and require them to accompany. i can only recall one instance of that happening, and the battery was flat anyway. the unavailableness of the BST would have to be tested in court. i always carried a blow-in-the-bag as well as the alcosensor - it's hard to convince a cop that a deflated plastic bag has has a litre of breath blown into it.


(4)It is no defence to proceedings for an offence against this Act in respect of the proportion of alcohol in a person's breath—

(a)That there was or may have been an error in the result of the breath screening test [or evidential breath test]; or

(b)That the occurrence or likely occurrence of any such error did not entitle or empower a person to request or require an evidential breath test.


can't recall any not going my way using that process.

[spudchucka]

I'm not sure why I feel the need to explain but some years ago I used to represent people on drink-drive cases. Successful defences are rare as hen's teeth so it is always interesting to learn more. Whole sections of casebooks are devoted to breath/blood alcohol decisions. From an academic point of view it is an interesting area of law.

I don't drink at all these days but I was certainly stupid in the past.

Personally I think it is just a sloppy area of law that needs tightening up, there are too many technical defences available. Over time many of the loop holes get closed up with case law but there are still plenty of pull through lawyers that will defend a clearly guilty client in the hope of highlighting some pathetic technical error that is utterly inconsequential in terms of the test results, all the while skimming the fat off the legal aid system.

[marty]

i'm not sure it's sloppy. the EBA procedures and defences take up more rore room than any other single legislation bar the Treaty.

it is even written that it is no defence that there was an error in the process, however IMHO it's the judges allowing vexacious defences and appeals that have made the law/process what it is now.

[spudchucka]

Yes I agree, sloppy probably isn't the correct description for the legislation so much as the application or interpretation. I just think it could be a great deal more water tight than it is and I see no public good in a drunk walking free simply because the cop waited 10.5 minutes before asking the subject if they wanted a blood test instead of the prescribed 10 minutes, (or other pathetic crap like that, you know what I'm talking about).

[Winston001]

I agree too. I remember 20 years ago a barrister wondering aloud why breath/blood alcohol laws were so complex and thus open to challenge.

The answer I suspect is that most MPs drink and see nothing wrong with it. It is a small step from there to saying "Well a certain amount of alcohol does no harm to a driver, let's just set a limit." Plus no MP likes to be unpopular with the electorate. Drinking a "reasonable" amount and driving is still totally acceptable.

Watertight law could be written but it would require a Zero alcohol limit as a base.

[Winston001]

i......IMHO it's the judges allowing vexacious defences and appeals that have made the law/process what it is now.

Not sure that I agree. There aren't a lot of successfully defended cases and when they do occur, the Police legal section take a hard look and appeal if they think there is any chance of overturning it. They try damned hard to squelch defences - as a client of mine found out. It was the only EBA case I'd ever won.......and a High Court judge took it away.........

[skidMark]

I've never heard of a successful method for fooling an alcosensor but a mouthful of activated charcoal would be a good try. I suspect the officer might not be particularly helpful.

What does the manual say about a suspect having something in his mouth? Can he be required to clear his mouth before blowing?

What if he took a mouthful of fluid and blew that in?

I had a case once where the defendant blew cigarette smoke into the device with a positive result. Got a letter from DSIR later saying it would elevate the reading. The judge shrugged.......

Oooooo Ooooo Oooooo.

I know.

I know.

I know.

DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, THEN WHEN THEY BREATHE TEST YOU, HOLY CRAP.....YOU COME UP UNDER THE LIMIT.

I know, i'm a clever clever boy.

[Banesto John]

The EBA room at Greenlane (the old MoT base) was the scene of many vain attempts to beat the system.

Some wit recognised the mirth possible in this, and put a Dymo label on the wall in the toilet made available to drivers who had been caught out by a positive BST at the roadside. It was in the biggest letters available, in red tape, and went something like

"DRIVERS ARE REQUESTED TO EAT NO MORE THAN HALF A CAKE OF SOAP".

In 20 years I haven't seen a way to beat the system apart from some procedural nonsense. Don't want the inconvenience of a drink drive conviction? Easy, don't drink drive. I look forward to seeing the suggestions placed in KB in practise. They won't work, but will provide great amusement for the cops.

I saw a stat recently. I love stats. Sigh. 98% of all people charged with EBA offences plead guilty. Of the 2% that go to a defended hearing, about 90% of those are found guilty. That makes about, well, bugger all successful defended cases. Good luck trying to be one of them.