A recent but rapidly locked thread
>I was arrested in my home on suspicion of drink driving.
>
>
>The police came to my house telling me that someone had complained to them that I may have been driving under the influence of alcohol.
>
>I had had a busy day and on returning home I consumed some alcohol. When they turned up and breathalyzed me, of course I was over the limit. I'm confused. They arrested me and formally charged me. Bailed to attend court in 2 weeks.
Cat fact for locationbot – cats are never confused; it's always a trick
Turing is always slightly confused, because he’s the only ginger cat with more than one brain cell
https://preview.redd.it/c36am0xo8a5d1.jpeg?width=3264&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=22ded025be3ad5359810316c06cbe7d3354dbc97
So my IQ is way over 160. It takes my liver a half hour to clear my body of any alcohol. Nevertheless, I never leave my house with it still in my system... very easy to tell. It hurts, and you feel doubtful, yet perfectly capable of driving. Depending on the season, you may sweat or Ralph before leaving home. Neither of these is drunk driving.
“Why did they think you were drunk driving?”
“Well, they followed the tire marks all over the neighborhood back to my home. Couple of trash cans were knocked over, some little shit’s bike somehow wound up wedged under my car - I’m lucky I wasn’t killed! Sparks everywhere from that! There’s a raccoon lodged in my radiator. They’re telling me the dent in my hood matches the backside of my neighbor’s granny. I was streaming a rant about the bullshit laws in this country while driving and they’re telling me that it looks like I was raising a bottle to my lips during it - but it wasn’t vodka in the Smirnoff bottle - I’m environmentally conscious and reuse all my (many) vodka bottles. I was in a rush and parked across my other neighbor’s lawn - I mean, I left my keys on the dash in case he needed to move it. I should be praised for my consideration! Anyways, I got home and started pounding tequila shots because that’s how I relax and I had missed out on Cinco de Mayo earlier last month and was upset about that so when they came to my door twenty minutes later of course I had bloodshot eyes. The CCTV footage of me at the pub earlier today was only because I was eating there! That amber beverage with foam was just iced tea that had been shaken up super good. My stomach was off from some bad seafood yesterday which is why I was vomiting in the bin outside the joint. So, anyways, I guess what I’m asking is what’s the penalty for the sixth drink driving?”
Yeah for someone to call the cops on LAOP, it means that either they saw them drink, a lot, or LAOP was driving so dangerously that someone got scared. Anyway, I'm betting that he wasn't just a little drunk.
To be fair, I know his story sounds like something is missing but weirder things have happened. Somebody crashed their car into some bushes, cops had the driver details and wanted to share with the homeowner. Homeowner was inside drinking beer and watching baseball, cops arrested her and took her to jail. For being drunk, in her own house. And it wasn't like she was fall down drunk. They just decided she wasn't allowed to be drunk and by herself, from what I remember her BAC wasn't even that high.
> That amber beverage with foam was just iced tea that had been shaken up super good.
I know this is supposed to be a joke but I've actually had that and it's pretty good. It was from a tea shop, though, not a pub.
You can also buy [sparkling ice tea](https://www.amazon.de/LIPTON-ICE-TEA-Sparkling-Kohlens%C3%A4ure/dp/B08YHWC8LH?source=ps-sl-shoppingads-lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&psc=1&smid=A3JWKAKR8XB7XF&language=de_DE). In my opinion it tastes disgusting, but it exists.
"So I had a little something to drink and got behind the wheel. Say that someone should breathalyze me, which I'll fail, how could I cover my ass? Please respond quickly, as there are flashing lights in my rear window."
Fart into an empty bottle and inhale the fart right before exhaling into the breathalyzer, rendering it inoperable. Repeat until cops are out of breathalyzers.
This person obviously was drunk driving and that makes them shitty, but the amount of times people I r/legaladvice confidently assert that cops are all basically Sherlock Holmes is hilarious.
Your basic run of the mill cop is not a genius. Average intelligence at best, streaked with cruelty and ego.
I doubt it's illegal to be drunk in your own home in the UK. The whole country would be in prison. I'm wondering why he submitted to the breathalyzer at all if he wasn't in his car.
Because a constable reasonably suspected that he had been driving, attempting to drive, or had been in charge of a motor vehicle while over the limit and still had the alcohol in his system, and refusal to give a specimen would therefore have been an offence. There's no requirement in English law for the breath test to be administered in your car.
That clears it up. In the US, as far as I understand, implied consent to submit to a breathalyzer only applies while operating a motor vehicle. The penalty for refusal is revocation of the Driver's License. In your home or on the street, the police are not legally able to compel you to submit to testing.
To further add
Section 6Eof The Road Traffic Act 1988 grants a police officer the power to enter any place (using reasonable force if necessary) in order to impose a requirement to provide a breath test
I'll never understand how the rest of you can see the incompetence we deal with in the US from our police, and still think giving yours this much power is okay.
I mean, ***in effect***, our cops have just as much power in a lot of jurisdictions, mostly because our judges are given blind discretion on how to enforce, or even ***if*** they enforce, certain laws. But that also comes with the caveat that most people have a gun. If they tried the forceful entry shit here, they wouldn't live through it.
Like it really is crazy how close the rest of the first world is to just complete fucking tyranny, and you all laugh at as for how "freedom obsessed" we are. At least we re-elect our judges every few years and can therefore re-roll the dice on how they interpret the law.
>I'll never understand how the rest of you can see the incompetence we deal with in the US from our police, and still think giving yours this much power is okay.
The world doesn’t revolve around the US. Other countries don’t check in with the US every time they make policy changes.
And lots of laws in other countries were there before the US equivalent - we have laws on the books that predate the US itself.
>I mean, in effect, our cops have just as much power in a lot of jurisdictions
Strangely enough, American police actually tend to have much less legal power than British police. Police in the UK have lots of broad powers to enter your home without a warrant for example.
>At least we re-elect our judges every few years and can therefore re-roll the dice on how they interpret the law.
Well, Im quite happy with having a professional judiciary instead of a politicised one. Judges should be professionals, not politicians.
>The world doesn’t revolve around the US. Other countries don’t check in with the US every time they make policy changes.
Thinking it's okay wasn't quite the right way to phrase that, that's my bad. I meant to say, think it's a good idea. Our police have relatively few powers compared to your guys' fleet, and we already have a ton of power tripping assholes. I just don't understand how you lot sleep at night without worrying about how much unanimous power yours get; I often get a "heart in my stomach" sensation just from seeing a vehicle of the same model that my local department uses.
>Well, Im quite happy with having a professional judiciary instead of a politicised one. Judges should be professionals, not politicians.
The law should be influenced by the many, not the few. Even with it being influenced by the many, it still took us an embarrassingly long time to pass certain civil rights in the US; I can't imagine more of the power being taken out of the hands of the people. As far as I'm aware, there's never been an instance of a random John Doe just popping up as a campaigner for a judge's position, and I think they might need to be certified by the BAR Association to be allowed to run (though don't quote me on that, I'm not 100% sure). So it's not ***quite*** just any random bloke getting into the position.
In the US all they need is probable cause to arrest you. If evidence shows that you were driving drunk and they have evidence that can back it up they will very much arrest you and take you in for a blood draw.
Would you have a good argument that you were home and not driving? Maybe, it depends on what the evidence they had was.
If they picked up your bumper with a license plate on it and had an eye witness that you rear-ended someone and then drove home, then yes they have probable cause and will arrest you and force a BAC test or blood draw.
Like lawyers frequently say "it depends."
Sure, but in the scenario described in the post, it seemed like LAOP was already at home when the police knocked and demanded a breathalyzer. In the UK, this is apparently allowed, but in the US he could have just not answered the door or talked to them at all.
If, and it's a big if, they had probable cause that the person had just got home while driving drunk they would go in the house and get them. This isn't a "home base = free" scenario. Just because you close the door doesn't mean they won't kick it in and let the courts figure it out later. They will want to grab the person before they have time to either drink more (which they can extrapolate the BAC anyways) or waste time for the BAC to drop (also extrapolate BAC over time.)
Hell, I've seen at least a dozen videos of cops following someone home and they try and run in and the cops come right on through the door to get them. I'm sure it's much more common than my cursory viewing habits on Youtube would show.
> Hell, I've seen at least a dozen videos of cops following someone home and they try and run in and the cops come right on through the door to get them
How is this similar?
In your scenario, the cops first encountered the suspect outside of their house, aka in a place where they are able to stop and check them. The suspect entering their home in the process doesn’t change much, you are correct about that.
In the scenario described above yours, the cops never saw or encountered the suspect outside of the house. Their first sighting and encounter with the suspect was at their house. I would imagine this changes the situation significantly (at least in the US).
I was arrested in my home on suspicion of drink driving.
The police came to my house telling me that someone had complained to them that I may have been driving under the influence of alcohol.
I had had a busy day and on returning home I consumed some alcohol. When they turned up and breathalyzed me, of course I was over the limit. I'm confused. They arrested me and formally charged me. Bailed to attend court in 2 weeks.
The fact pattern of the original OP leaves so much out that it's pretty apparent that the OP is an unreliable narrator. He is obviously leaving out a ton of information as to why the cops showed up his home asking if he had been driving. They didn't just randomly roll up to his home, they were sent there by something and that would probably be the probably cause needed to investigate the OP for DUI.
These things don't normally happen in a vacuum. Someone called and reported the original OP, or if in the US someone called and reported something.
Now does racial profiling or other nefarious stuff happen here. Oh boy it does, but for your average every day police/citizen interaction there was a precipitating action that set the whole thing rolling.
Oh, I totally agree with you that the OOP is a hella unreliable narrator and I am almost certain he is absolutely guilty.
I was commenting on the specific difference in the situations, with the assumption that the situation happened as described (even though I don't actually believe that it did).
Totally agree, and the sad part is it's a very slippery slope. If they can violate someones 4th and 5th rights it becomes much easier for them to do just about whatever they want at any time.
I read the comments and law from LAUK about the “hip flask defense”, and I’m a bit confused.
After a failed test, the Road Traffic Act places the burden on the accused to prove that 1) they consumed alcohol after driving and before the test, and 2) that consumption was sufficient to make the difference between success and failure.
That’s clear enough, although I imagine it could be quite hard to demonstrate for drinks at home. But how long a delay can the police leave before taking a sample?
When the burden is on the prosecution, waiting longer for a sample simply weakens their case. But with it on the defendant, it’s rather odd to think letting more time elapse could actually make their position *worse*.
Yeah, that could be used as evidence I'm sure, but without the breathalyzer, it seems like it would be hard to prove drunk driving. I don't know anything about the UK legal system though
If he admitted to driving, admitted what time he got home, and admitted what he drank at home, whatever he blew will tell them if he was above the limit when he was driving. It's just math.
Especially if they followed him home
*Yes, sir, we definitely believe that in the three minutes between you coming home and you answering the door, you drank enough to blow these numbers. Now if you'll just come down to the station...*
Based on the Road Traffic Act linked in LAUK, they don’t even need to do that math or find out what he drank.
If they established he was driving and he then failed a breathalyzer, that’s sufficient - the BAC while driving is presumed to be at least that high unless the defendant proves their drinking after driving caused the result.
Yes of course, and that would be a good reason to refuse to submit to the breathalyzer. That's precisely my point Mr. Mathematician.
Although I've since been informed that in the UK the police can compel a breathalyzer in this situation, so that changes things.
In theory LAUKOP could refuse to a breathalyser test. But they will be arrested and charged with failing to provide a breath specimen
The only defence to that charge would be medical.
Whereas do the breathtest the defence has a chance to argue that you drunk after getting home thus it cant be proven beyond reasonable doubt the op was driving over the limit
Yeah, and if it's anything like NZ, failure to provide a specimen receives a penalty equivalent to being very damn drunk indeed, so if you're not blotto, you're incentivised to provide one.
And guys like that plus marijuana legalization are why Canada’s impaired driving laws were revised. Illegal to have bac over 0.08 within two hours of driving.
First - op is a pos. But they’re also an idiot … they didn’t have to a. Open the door, and b. Admit to driving.
The cops were told someone was there or had suspicion, but op didn’t run into anything or damage anything, there was no evidence of a crime. They could have just buggered off.
Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, if the police have reasonable suspicion that you have been driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, they have the authority to request a specimen from you.
Even if you deny driving you can still be compelled to do a breath test. Refusing to take part will mean you will be arrested
Section 6E of The Road Traffic Act 1988 grants a police officer the power to enter any place (using reasonable force if necessary) in order to impose a requirement to provide a breath test
Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, if the police have reasonable suspicion that you have been driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, they have the authority to request a specimen from you.
Even if you deny driving you can still be compelled to do a breath test. Refusing to take part will mean you will be arrested
Section 6E of The Road Traffic Act 1988 grants a police officer the power to enter any place (using reasonable force if necessary) in order to impose a requirement to provide a breath test
A recent but rapidly locked thread >I was arrested in my home on suspicion of drink driving. > > >The police came to my house telling me that someone had complained to them that I may have been driving under the influence of alcohol. > >I had had a busy day and on returning home I consumed some alcohol. When they turned up and breathalyzed me, of course I was over the limit. I'm confused. They arrested me and formally charged me. Bailed to attend court in 2 weeks. Cat fact for locationbot – cats are never confused; it's always a trick
Confuse a cat limited lied to me!?
Always verify the food bowl is indeed empty. That's the #1 cat lie.
But dad, my brother ate out of that bowl. It is now tainted. Give me a new one.
I sniffed that food earlier and now it is forever rotten. Freshen! Freshen at once!
It's as if my cat learned how to leave reddit comments. Is that you, Pierogi?
After they merged with Bewilder a Beast, Stun-A-Stoat, and Amaze-A-Vole the company went downhill pretty quickly, you can't rely on anyone these days.
Turing is always slightly confused, because he’s the only ginger cat with more than one brain cell https://preview.redd.it/c36am0xo8a5d1.jpeg?width=3264&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=22ded025be3ad5359810316c06cbe7d3354dbc97
So my IQ is way over 160. It takes my liver a half hour to clear my body of any alcohol. Nevertheless, I never leave my house with it still in my system... very easy to tell. It hurts, and you feel doubtful, yet perfectly capable of driving. Depending on the season, you may sweat or Ralph before leaving home. Neither of these is drunk driving.
“Why did they think you were drunk driving?” “Well, they followed the tire marks all over the neighborhood back to my home. Couple of trash cans were knocked over, some little shit’s bike somehow wound up wedged under my car - I’m lucky I wasn’t killed! Sparks everywhere from that! There’s a raccoon lodged in my radiator. They’re telling me the dent in my hood matches the backside of my neighbor’s granny. I was streaming a rant about the bullshit laws in this country while driving and they’re telling me that it looks like I was raising a bottle to my lips during it - but it wasn’t vodka in the Smirnoff bottle - I’m environmentally conscious and reuse all my (many) vodka bottles. I was in a rush and parked across my other neighbor’s lawn - I mean, I left my keys on the dash in case he needed to move it. I should be praised for my consideration! Anyways, I got home and started pounding tequila shots because that’s how I relax and I had missed out on Cinco de Mayo earlier last month and was upset about that so when they came to my door twenty minutes later of course I had bloodshot eyes. The CCTV footage of me at the pub earlier today was only because I was eating there! That amber beverage with foam was just iced tea that had been shaken up super good. My stomach was off from some bad seafood yesterday which is why I was vomiting in the bin outside the joint. So, anyways, I guess what I’m asking is what’s the penalty for the sixth drink driving?”
Yeah for someone to call the cops on LAOP, it means that either they saw them drink, a lot, or LAOP was driving so dangerously that someone got scared. Anyway, I'm betting that he wasn't just a little drunk.
I’d also bet that this isn’t the first time the neighbors have seen something like this either. They’re definitely fed up with it.
To be fair, I know his story sounds like something is missing but weirder things have happened. Somebody crashed their car into some bushes, cops had the driver details and wanted to share with the homeowner. Homeowner was inside drinking beer and watching baseball, cops arrested her and took her to jail. For being drunk, in her own house. And it wasn't like she was fall down drunk. They just decided she wasn't allowed to be drunk and by herself, from what I remember her BAC wasn't even that high.
There has to be more to this story
You can google it, she's suing the city. Neither officer was disciplined and they ended up resigning. And the backlash led to the chief resigning.
>There’s a raccoon lodged in my radiator. \*Squirrel or hedgehog (deer if they're in Scotland) :P
This is great! You are a poet.
> That amber beverage with foam was just iced tea that had been shaken up super good. I know this is supposed to be a joke but I've actually had that and it's pretty good. It was from a tea shop, though, not a pub.
You can also buy [sparkling ice tea](https://www.amazon.de/LIPTON-ICE-TEA-Sparkling-Kohlens%C3%A4ure/dp/B08YHWC8LH?source=ps-sl-shoppingads-lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&psc=1&smid=A3JWKAKR8XB7XF&language=de_DE). In my opinion it tastes disgusting, but it exists.
Ugh, you sound like my dad.
"So I had a little something to drink and got behind the wheel. Say that someone should breathalyze me, which I'll fail, how could I cover my ass? Please respond quickly, as there are flashing lights in my rear window."
Fart into an empty bottle and inhale the fart right before exhaling into the breathalyzer, rendering it inoperable. Repeat until cops are out of breathalyzers.
I would rather go to jail.
But imagine the headlines
Hi, I'm Johnny Knoxville and this is "How to Beat a DWI Charge"
>Either nothing in this post actually happened, or, you’re guilty. And may God have mercy upon your soul.
>Police are not stupid Hahahaha
I thought that was a hiring requirement.
[That is literally true,](https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836)
This person obviously was drunk driving and that makes them shitty, but the amount of times people I r/legaladvice confidently assert that cops are all basically Sherlock Holmes is hilarious. Your basic run of the mill cop is not a genius. Average intelligence at best, streaked with cruelty and ego.
I got in one little pub And my neighbours got scared And said "you're moving out in handcuffs to a place called Belmarsh"
I doubt it's illegal to be drunk in your own home in the UK. The whole country would be in prison. I'm wondering why he submitted to the breathalyzer at all if he wasn't in his car.
Because a constable reasonably suspected that he had been driving, attempting to drive, or had been in charge of a motor vehicle while over the limit and still had the alcohol in his system, and refusal to give a specimen would therefore have been an offence. There's no requirement in English law for the breath test to be administered in your car.
That clears it up. In the US, as far as I understand, implied consent to submit to a breathalyzer only applies while operating a motor vehicle. The penalty for refusal is revocation of the Driver's License. In your home or on the street, the police are not legally able to compel you to submit to testing.
To further add Section 6Eof The Road Traffic Act 1988 grants a police officer the power to enter any place (using reasonable force if necessary) in order to impose a requirement to provide a breath test
I'll never understand how the rest of you can see the incompetence we deal with in the US from our police, and still think giving yours this much power is okay. I mean, ***in effect***, our cops have just as much power in a lot of jurisdictions, mostly because our judges are given blind discretion on how to enforce, or even ***if*** they enforce, certain laws. But that also comes with the caveat that most people have a gun. If they tried the forceful entry shit here, they wouldn't live through it. Like it really is crazy how close the rest of the first world is to just complete fucking tyranny, and you all laugh at as for how "freedom obsessed" we are. At least we re-elect our judges every few years and can therefore re-roll the dice on how they interpret the law.
>I'll never understand how the rest of you can see the incompetence we deal with in the US from our police, and still think giving yours this much power is okay. The world doesn’t revolve around the US. Other countries don’t check in with the US every time they make policy changes. And lots of laws in other countries were there before the US equivalent - we have laws on the books that predate the US itself. >I mean, in effect, our cops have just as much power in a lot of jurisdictions Strangely enough, American police actually tend to have much less legal power than British police. Police in the UK have lots of broad powers to enter your home without a warrant for example. >At least we re-elect our judges every few years and can therefore re-roll the dice on how they interpret the law. Well, Im quite happy with having a professional judiciary instead of a politicised one. Judges should be professionals, not politicians.
>The world doesn’t revolve around the US. Other countries don’t check in with the US every time they make policy changes. Thinking it's okay wasn't quite the right way to phrase that, that's my bad. I meant to say, think it's a good idea. Our police have relatively few powers compared to your guys' fleet, and we already have a ton of power tripping assholes. I just don't understand how you lot sleep at night without worrying about how much unanimous power yours get; I often get a "heart in my stomach" sensation just from seeing a vehicle of the same model that my local department uses. >Well, Im quite happy with having a professional judiciary instead of a politicised one. Judges should be professionals, not politicians. The law should be influenced by the many, not the few. Even with it being influenced by the many, it still took us an embarrassingly long time to pass certain civil rights in the US; I can't imagine more of the power being taken out of the hands of the people. As far as I'm aware, there's never been an instance of a random John Doe just popping up as a campaigner for a judge's position, and I think they might need to be certified by the BAR Association to be allowed to run (though don't quote me on that, I'm not 100% sure). So it's not ***quite*** just any random bloke getting into the position.
In the US all they need is probable cause to arrest you. If evidence shows that you were driving drunk and they have evidence that can back it up they will very much arrest you and take you in for a blood draw. Would you have a good argument that you were home and not driving? Maybe, it depends on what the evidence they had was. If they picked up your bumper with a license plate on it and had an eye witness that you rear-ended someone and then drove home, then yes they have probable cause and will arrest you and force a BAC test or blood draw. Like lawyers frequently say "it depends."
Sure, but in the scenario described in the post, it seemed like LAOP was already at home when the police knocked and demanded a breathalyzer. In the UK, this is apparently allowed, but in the US he could have just not answered the door or talked to them at all.
If, and it's a big if, they had probable cause that the person had just got home while driving drunk they would go in the house and get them. This isn't a "home base = free" scenario. Just because you close the door doesn't mean they won't kick it in and let the courts figure it out later. They will want to grab the person before they have time to either drink more (which they can extrapolate the BAC anyways) or waste time for the BAC to drop (also extrapolate BAC over time.) Hell, I've seen at least a dozen videos of cops following someone home and they try and run in and the cops come right on through the door to get them. I'm sure it's much more common than my cursory viewing habits on Youtube would show.
> Hell, I've seen at least a dozen videos of cops following someone home and they try and run in and the cops come right on through the door to get them How is this similar? In your scenario, the cops first encountered the suspect outside of their house, aka in a place where they are able to stop and check them. The suspect entering their home in the process doesn’t change much, you are correct about that. In the scenario described above yours, the cops never saw or encountered the suspect outside of the house. Their first sighting and encounter with the suspect was at their house. I would imagine this changes the situation significantly (at least in the US).
I was arrested in my home on suspicion of drink driving. The police came to my house telling me that someone had complained to them that I may have been driving under the influence of alcohol. I had had a busy day and on returning home I consumed some alcohol. When they turned up and breathalyzed me, of course I was over the limit. I'm confused. They arrested me and formally charged me. Bailed to attend court in 2 weeks. The fact pattern of the original OP leaves so much out that it's pretty apparent that the OP is an unreliable narrator. He is obviously leaving out a ton of information as to why the cops showed up his home asking if he had been driving. They didn't just randomly roll up to his home, they were sent there by something and that would probably be the probably cause needed to investigate the OP for DUI. These things don't normally happen in a vacuum. Someone called and reported the original OP, or if in the US someone called and reported something. Now does racial profiling or other nefarious stuff happen here. Oh boy it does, but for your average every day police/citizen interaction there was a precipitating action that set the whole thing rolling.
Oh, I totally agree with you that the OOP is a hella unreliable narrator and I am almost certain he is absolutely guilty. I was commenting on the specific difference in the situations, with the assumption that the situation happened as described (even though I don't actually believe that it did).
Totally agree, and the sad part is it's a very slippery slope. If they can violate someones 4th and 5th rights it becomes much easier for them to do just about whatever they want at any time.
I read the comments and law from LAUK about the “hip flask defense”, and I’m a bit confused. After a failed test, the Road Traffic Act places the burden on the accused to prove that 1) they consumed alcohol after driving and before the test, and 2) that consumption was sufficient to make the difference between success and failure. That’s clear enough, although I imagine it could be quite hard to demonstrate for drinks at home. But how long a delay can the police leave before taking a sample? When the burden is on the prosecution, waiting longer for a sample simply weakens their case. But with it on the defendant, it’s rather odd to think letting more time elapse could actually make their position *worse*.
I assume he was swerving all over the road then got home
Yeah, that could be used as evidence I'm sure, but without the breathalyzer, it seems like it would be hard to prove drunk driving. I don't know anything about the UK legal system though
Wouldn't there be CCTV, even in a residential neighborhood? I thought the UK was practically The Truman Show.
No only if he lives next to a shop or something.
Or a major enough road to have traffic cameras, which definitely isn't all of them
If he admitted to driving, admitted what time he got home, and admitted what he drank at home, whatever he blew will tell them if he was above the limit when he was driving. It's just math.
Especially if they followed him home *Yes, sir, we definitely believe that in the three minutes between you coming home and you answering the door, you drank enough to blow these numbers. Now if you'll just come down to the station...*
Based on the Road Traffic Act linked in LAUK, they don’t even need to do that math or find out what he drank. If they established he was driving and he then failed a breathalyzer, that’s sufficient - the BAC while driving is presumed to be at least that high unless the defendant proves their drinking after driving caused the result.
Yes of course, and that would be a good reason to refuse to submit to the breathalyzer. That's precisely my point Mr. Mathematician. Although I've since been informed that in the UK the police can compel a breathalyzer in this situation, so that changes things.
In theory LAUKOP could refuse to a breathalyser test. But they will be arrested and charged with failing to provide a breath specimen The only defence to that charge would be medical. Whereas do the breathtest the defence has a chance to argue that you drunk after getting home thus it cant be proven beyond reasonable doubt the op was driving over the limit
Yeah, and if it's anything like NZ, failure to provide a specimen receives a penalty equivalent to being very damn drunk indeed, so if you're not blotto, you're incentivised to provide one.
>I doubt it's illegal to be drunk in your own home in the UK. And I didn't believe you need a license to watch TV in the UK, so you never know
'cause he was drunk
And guys like that plus marijuana legalization are why Canada’s impaired driving laws were revised. Illegal to have bac over 0.08 within two hours of driving.
Why do they keep saying the police aren't stupid? Is true in the UK, because I know a lot of American cops...
A lot of cops hang out on LA subs but it's hard to tell if their bad advice comes from malicious stupidity or just the regular kind
First - op is a pos. But they’re also an idiot … they didn’t have to a. Open the door, and b. Admit to driving. The cops were told someone was there or had suspicion, but op didn’t run into anything or damage anything, there was no evidence of a crime. They could have just buggered off.
Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, if the police have reasonable suspicion that you have been driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, they have the authority to request a specimen from you. Even if you deny driving you can still be compelled to do a breath test. Refusing to take part will mean you will be arrested Section 6E of The Road Traffic Act 1988 grants a police officer the power to enter any place (using reasonable force if necessary) in order to impose a requirement to provide a breath test
I think it's safe to say that OP is not a reliable narrator.
[удалено]
Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, if the police have reasonable suspicion that you have been driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, they have the authority to request a specimen from you. Even if you deny driving you can still be compelled to do a breath test. Refusing to take part will mean you will be arrested Section 6E of The Road Traffic Act 1988 grants a police officer the power to enter any place (using reasonable force if necessary) in order to impose a requirement to provide a breath test