Got breath tested last night

[Ixion]

I have always been of the understanding that the supervisor can be charged if intoxicated, and that there is case law to that effect.

But, I can find no relevant authority in the Land Transport Act 1998, or anywhere else. They all specifiy "drive or attempt to drive". It would require a serious perversion of the English language to say the supervisor was actually driving.

Be careful however. Be VERY careful . Sect 61 of the Act , "Causing death orinjury while under the influence " is less vague (or more so, depending how you look at it). It specifies the person in charge of the vehicle not the driver

A person commits an indictable offence if the person is in charge of a motor vehicle and causes bodily injury to or the death of a person

It would not be very hard to make a case that the supervisor is "in charge" of the vehicle.

Informed comment and/or correction would be welcome.

[scumdog]

I have always been of the understanding that the supervisor can be charged if intoxicated, and that there is case law to that effect.

But, I can find no relevant authority in the Land Transport Act 1998, or anywhere else. They all specifiy "drive or attempt to drive". It would require a serious perversion of the English language to say the supervisor was actually driving.

Be careful however. Be VERY careful . Sect 61 of the Act , "Causing death orinjury while under the influence " is less vague (or more so, depending how you look at it). It specifies the person in charge of the vehicle not the driver



It would not be very hard to make a case that the supervisor is "in charge" of the vehicle.

Informed comment and/or correction would be welcome.

Ya got it summed up pretty well ya hoary old bugger..

[SMOKEU]

Say for example, I had my full for 1 year, then I would not have been a supervisor and my mate could have got a fine and demerits for breach of license conditions. The fact that I've had my full for over 2 years does not make me any more physically in charge of the vehicle than if I didn't have a license at all. And even though I'm meant to be supervising my mate, I'm still not in charge of the vehicle whatsoever regardless of weather or not I'm intoxicated. If he decides to go 150kmh in a 100 zone I can't stop him, or should I just rip up the hand brake at 150kmh so I'm in control? (not that I'm stupid enough to interfere with the controls on a vehicle when someone else is driving). So the whole part of the supervisor being in charge of the vehicle is complete bullshit, I have no control over the drivers actions if I'm just a passenger.

[Indiana_Jones]

So what if 2 guys in a car with full licences crash.

And they both say the other person was in charge of the vehicle.

Or a Spartagus "I was in charge" "No I was"

....But you were driving. No sir, I was driving but bob and frank in the back seat had been given the watch sir.

lol

-Indy

[jafar]

you're doing it all wrong. If you're on a learners or restricted and driving with passengers when you shouldn't be - or as in your case the supposed supervisor may be over the limit, you use the excuse:
"I'm sorry, but my mate(s) were at a party and they got too boozed/stoned/ass-pounded to drive home, and they weren't allowed to stay so I went to pick them up. I know it's illegal but I thought it was better than them driving".

Bonus points if one of the passengers is covered in vomit.

$400.00 per passenger , makes for an expensive nite out

[Jantar]

Say for example, I had my full for 1 year, then I would not have been a supervisor and my mate could have got a fine and demerits for breach of license conditions. The fact that I've had my full for over 2 years does not make me any more physically in charge of the vehicle than if I didn't have a license at all. And even though I'm meant to be supervising my mate, I'm still not in charge of the vehicle whatsoever regardless of weather or not I'm intoxicated. If he decides to go 150kmh in a 100 zone I can't stop him, or should I just rip up the hand brake at 150kmh so I'm in control? (not that I'm stupid enough to interfere with the controls on a vehicle when someone else is driving). So the whole part of the supervisor being in charge of the vehicle is complete bullshit, I have no control over the drivers actions if I'm just a passenger.

You are confusing the terms "In Charge" and "In Control". The captain of a ship is always the person "in charge", yet is very seldom "in control". "In charge" means the person who gives the orders, "in control" means the person who is actually driving (or steering or piloting).

However the mere fact that you are the licenced driver doesn't automatically mean that you are the person in charge. If you had been intoxicated, and in the passenger seat, then its better that the driver gets done for driving outside the conditions of his licence than that you get done for DIC.

[mdnzz]

Having been in this position I can assure you the officer was well within their rights to test the 'supervisor' as well as the driver.

As the supervisor you are responsible for the way the driver is operating the vehicle at anytime you are present.
This means that yes you can be charged as well if they decide to race through the streets at 100kms.

If you have had a drink, but not enough to be over the limit yet the learner driver is outside their conditions,
ie: late at night driving you home from the party/pub, then the officer has the right to forbid you both from driving for at least 24 hours.

They can forbid you to drive for a variety of reasons.

All of this comes down to your attitude when pulled over.
Remember unless they have already QP'd your plate and checked you out they have no idea who you are, they are just doing a job, a smile, polite acknowledgment and they will treat you the same.

While many do not use these rights they use their better judgment, if you try to push them or test them then sometimes it will bite you in the ass big time.

Unless you are doing anything that breaks the law then there really is nothing for you to worry about and nothing for them to do.

Guess a lot of people are quick to bag others, must be just how they like to be treated themselves.

[Rcktfsh]

section 68 of the land transport act sets out who maybe breath tested,

Who must undergo breath screening test
(1)An enforcement officer may require any of the following persons to undergo a breath screening test without delay:
(a)A driver of, or a person attempting to drive, a motor vehicle on a road:
(b)A person whom the officer has good cause to suspect has recently committed an offence against this Act that involves the driving of a motor vehicle:
(c)If an accident has occurred involving a motor vehicle,—
(i)The driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident; or
(ii)If the enforcement officer is unable to ascertain who the driver of the motor vehicle was at the time of the accident, a person whom the officer has good cause to suspect was in the motor vehicle at the time of the accident.

driver is interpreted in s2 as

Driver, in relation to a vehicle, includes the rider of the motor cycle or moped or bicycle;

I can't see how a supervisor can therfore be defined as driver?

[mdnzz]

I can't see how a supervisor can therfore be defined as driver?

I think you'll find the supervisor is not regarded as the driver, they are a supervisor, and as such must be capable of doing such.

Would you allow a driving instructor to be incapacitated by drugs/alcohol passing out licenses?

Or a senior officer taking a rookie officer out in a squad car while he had had a few liquid lunches?

Its not really about who was driving but the fact that the supervisor was also breath tested.

[discotex]

Its not really about who was driving but the fact that the supervisor was also breath tested.

I think you'll find the point Rcktfsh was making is that who the police have legal right to breath test is covered by legislation. Anyone else has the right of refusal.

My reading of the legislation is that the supervisor would be well within their rights to refuse a breath test given they are not the driver as included in 1a or 1b.

[Rcktfsh]

Digressing slightly but handy to know that all current statutes are available free of charge at www.legislation.govt.nz

[peasea]

You are confusing the terms "In Charge" and "In Control". The captain of a ship is always the person "in charge", yet is very seldom "in control". "In charge" means the person who gives the orders, "in control" means the person who is actually driving (or steering or piloting).

However the mere fact that you are the licenced driver doesn't automatically mean that you are the person in charge. If you had been intoxicated, and in the passenger seat, then its better that the driver gets done for driving outside the conditions of his licence than that you get done for DIC.

Have to agree on that one. A few bucks and a few points mean bugger all compared to loss of license and a DIC conviction.

[scumdog]

Not quite the same thing but a rear-seat passenger in a vehicle can be done for careless use...

[discotex]

Not quite the same thing but a rear-seat passenger in a vehicle can be done for careless use...

How does that work?

[Max Preload]

Having been in this position I can assure you the officer was well within their rights to test the 'supervisor' as well as the driver.

Don't confuse that request, with which you willingly complied, with the powers of the officer to compel you to comply.