Police breath testing

[Ixion]

Yes and no. They can , in theory , only detain you for 15 minutes for the purpose of checking identity. But that's not really an issue in this instance. Problem is , that if you're at the back, it takes a LONG time to work up to the front. Cos of the 2000 bikes ahead of you. Once you GET there, the test is only a few seconds.

But, allowing the claimed 20 seconds, assume two cops testing , working flat out, and no time needed to process fails (there were only 5). That's one bike every 10 seconds. 6 a minute . 360 an hour . That'd be 6 hours to process the 2000. Granted not everyone would intend to leave at the same moment. But most would expect to head out in the first hour or so of the day. So, a delay of 4 hours seems arithmetically about right.

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.

I'm not that flash with it myself , TBH. But, if I see a guy coming out of a brothel, I'm going to suspect he's just gotten laid. If I see a guy come out of a restaurant I'll suspect he's just had a feed. The grounds for suspicion to test for alocohol doesn't need to be strong, even in the States (here of course they don't legally need any grounds - which IS wrong).

[kwaka_crasher]

I'm not that flash with it myself , TBH. But, if I see a guy coming out of a brothel, I'm going to suspect he's just gotten laid. If I see a guy come out of a restaurant I'll suspect he's just had a feed. The grounds for suspicion to test for alocohol doesn't need to be strong, even in the States (here of course they don't legally need any grounds - which IS wrong).

I believe (if my many hours of watching COPS is to amount to anything other than just the complete waste of time I always suspected it was...) that in the USA they have to get an admission or perform an impariment test if you're suspected of being under the influence prior to being allowed to take an evidential sample.

Personally, I think the drink-driving factor is blown all out of proportion, just like speeding is, but the trouble is our culture here of binge drinking means without serious policing it will quickly escalate.

The reality is that it's plain old incompetence that kills the most people.

[Ixion]

I believe (if my many hours of watching COPS is to amount to anything other than just the complete waste of time I always suspected it was...) that in the USA they have to get an admission or perform an impariment test if you're suspected of being under the influence prior to being allowed to take an evidential sample.

Personally, I think the drink-driving factor is blown all out of proportion, just like speeding is, but the trouble is our culture here of binge drinking means without serious policing it will quickly escalate.

The reality is that it's plain old incompetence that kills the most people.

Pretty much the same here - they can't require an evidential test (I think - correction is welcome) , or a blood test, until you fail the 'name and address' thing - which is an impairment test. Or, fail one of the old 'blow in bag' things , if any are still in use, or the even older 'stand on your head repeating limricks' tests. (There are a few exceptions for special cases I think)
Agreed on incompetence being the bigger problem - but incompetent drivers are doubly so when drunk .

[davereid]

But, if I see a guy coming out of a brothel, I'm going to suspect he's just gotten laid. If I see a guy come out of a restaurant I'll suspect he's just had a feed.

Thats not evidence, its just correlation.

Leaving a pub correlates with the possibility of drinking. But it does not form evidence of drinking. And even if it did prove drinking, it does not establish reason to believe the breath alcohol limit has been exceeded.


There is a correlation between having a meal and going to a restaurant.
But lots of people have entirely legitimate reasons to be in a restaurant without eating.

There is a correlation between the time of day or night, and criminal offending.
But lots of people go out at night without offending.

There is a correlation between race, and criminal offending.
But not all maori are criminal.

Does correlation therefore mean if a maori is out at night that he can be regarded by police as having provided evidence he is a criminal ?

[98tls]

There is a correlation between race, and criminal offending.
But not all maori are criminal.

Does correlation therefore mean if a maori is out at night that he can be regarded by police as having provided evidence he is a criminal ?

Only if he was stupid enough to smile.

[{.bLanK}G_o_D]

There is a correlation between race, and criminal offending.
But not all maori are criminal.

Not "all" of them.

[Ixion]

Thats not evidence, its just correlation.

Leaving a pub correlates with the possibility of drinking. But it does not form evidence of drinking. And even if it did prove drinking, it does not establish reason to believe the breath alcohol limit has been exceeded.

No, of course not. But it's not being used as evidence. It' would be used (though as noted, not required in NZ) as a basisi of suspicion. Even the "name and address" test isn't evidential. But I think it is reasonable, if the cops see a person leaving a pub, to assume he's had a drink. That seems reasonable grounds to ask him to do the screening test. Then, only if THAT fails, do you get the evidential test.

Even before CBT , walking out of a pub and jumping in a car was likely to invite a "Good evening Sir. Have you had anything to drink tonight ?" from a cop who saw you. Followed by chalked lines and limericks etc.

There is a correlation between race, and criminal offending. But not all maori are criminal. Does correlation therefore mean if a maori is out at night that he can be regarded by police as having provided evidence he is a criminal ?

Not a matter of evidence. But, if PC Plod gets a call on the radio "A big Maori bloke just robbed the bank and ran off down X street ". And PC Plod happens right then to spot a big Maori bloke running down X Street ? Being Maori and running down X Street isn't evidence of being a banK robber. But it does give justification for PC Plod to stop the Maori bloke and ask some questions. I'd be pretty pissed off if he *didn't*. Of course , the Maori bloke may be totally innocent, and was just running for his bus (and while PC Plod is questioning him the real bank robber strolls past on the other side of the road). But the correlation is reasonable grounds for suspicion IMHO.

[red mermaid]

For the avoidance of doubt, the facts are;
Police stop any vehicle randomly.
Police can require a breath screening test randomly.
A positive, failed, or refused test is grounds to require you to accompany for an evidential breath test.
A positive evidential breath is grounds to charge you with an offence, or you may request a blood test.

That is it in its simplest form and until you have spent a few years picking up the bits and pieces left after a drunk driver has done his bit I don't give tuppence h'penny for all this pie in the sky talk of rights and whether drink driving is really a problem.

It is, it kills and don't forget seriously injures people, and its about time a little more emphasis was put on responsibilities to society.

[98tls]

Cant belive this has gone on so long really,whats the problem?they set up outside the gate,everybody was forewarned 5 tried there luck and failed,pretty logical that sooner or later it would happen,amazed it wasnt sooner.Theres plenty on here that rant on about drink driving but it seems have a problem with the cops doing something about itAt times this place is far removed from a motorcycle forum and simply a place to bitch.

[BiK3RChiK]

For the avoidance of doubt, the facts are;
Police stop any vehicle randomly.
Police can require a breath screening test randomly.
A positive, failed, or refused test is grounds to require you to accompany for an evidential breath test.
A positive evidential breath is grounds to charge you with an offence, or you may request a blood test.

That is it in its simplest form and until you have spent a few years picking up the bits and pieces left after a drunk driver has done his bit I don't give tuppence h'penny for all this pie in the sky talk of rights and whether drink driving is really a problem.

It is, it kills and don't forget seriously injures people, and its about time a little more emphasis was put on responsibilities to society.

AMEN!!!

When I get stopped and breath tested, I applaud the Police for doing their job. Good on them!

When I see people loop around the back street of my place to avoid the checkpoint at the end of the street, but the Police see them and whip around and pull them up just outside my house, I laugh! Good on the Police for doing their job.

One only needs to be hit once by a drunk driver, and, if one survives and has to live with the pain of injuries sustained in the 'accident', I bet that person would not talk about people's rights associated with drinking and driving either! Go the Police!! I hope they get them all...

[kwaka_crasher]

Pretty much the same here - they can't require an evidential test (I think - correction is welcome) , or a blood test, until you fail the 'name and address' thing - which is an impairment test. Or, fail one of the old 'blow in bag' things , if any are still in use, or the even older 'stand on your head repeating limricks' tests. (There are a few exceptions for special cases I think)

They have the power to require you to undergo a breath screening test if you are operating a vehicle on a road. If you refuse they can require you to accompany them to a place for the purpose of an evidential breath and/or blood test. If you refuse to accompany you can be arrested. If you go but refuse the evidential test you can be arrested and charged with failing to supply the specimen for which the maximumn penalty is identical to failing the evidential.

I never give my name and address for the screening test. Unless I actually am Luke Skywalker of secret rebel base, Hoth and just don't realise.

Agreed on incompetence being the bigger problem - but incompetent drivers are doubly so when drunk .

So we're all agreed? Roadside death penalty for drivers who are drunk and are shit drivers even when they're not?

[kwaka_crasher]

One only needs to be hit once by a drunk driver, and, if one survives and has to live with the pain of injuries sustained in the 'accident', I bet that person would not talk about people's rights associated with drinking and driving either!

You're far more at risk of being hit by some fuckwit who doesn't know the GIVE WAY rule which in my experience seems to be almost half of all drivers. When are they going to do something about THAT? How about staking out carpark entrances? Or does getting hit by a drunk hurt more?

[Ixion]

...I don't give tuppence h'penny for all this pie in the sky talk of rights .

....

And the police wonder why the public don't respect them. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ? indeed . The public need a Sam Vimes I think.

[kwaka_crasher]

And the police wonder why the public don't respect them.

I'm sure they don't - they know full well.

[BiK3RChiK]

You're far more at risk of being hit by some fuckwit who doesn't know the GIVE WAY rule which in my experience seems to be almost half of all drivers. When are they going to do something about THAT? How about staking out carpark entrances? Or does getting hit by a drunk hurt more?

For me, being hit by a drunk driver hurt a whole lot! And still does....

I understand that they are looking at the give way rule, but surely, with experience, one should be able to 'read' drivers as to whether they are going to give way to you or not! Good luck trying to 'read' the driver coming towards you if he's drunk!!

And I'm sure that being hit in either situation is going to hurt. Albeit, one is usually slow speed and the other (as in my case), the speed is astronomical...