Drink drive procedure

[baraqua]

Could any legal boffins give a definitive answer in relation to drink drive legislation. After a positive roadside breath test can a Police Officer take the arrested person to a station knowing the breath device at that station was faulty, therefore letting him revert to the statutory option of taking blood or urine. Or should he seek out a station where a breath device is working correctly

[R1Geezer]

the former is perfectly legal.

[New Judge]

Yes, geezer is correct.

In fact, even if the Intoximeter equipment at the nick is in working order, the driver may still be required to provide either a blood or urine sample instead of breath, at the discretion of the police.

[R1Geezer]

did you also know that even if you pass the road side breathalyser they can still take you down the nick and do a blood test if they supect that you are over the limit.

[dennilson]

You may take the arrested person to a Police Station and require a blood or urine sample - when there are no intoxilysers available. The optimum word here is "available". It would be hard to argue that there were no intoxilysers machines available in large forces. The blood or urine option is if the reading is between 40 and 50 and if the machine fails. Prior knowledge that the machine was going to fail and go to the statutory option would be acting in bad faith on behalf of the Police. It may be acceptable in small forces where the distance between machines was so great that it would be impracticable.

[dizmouk2009]

Police roadside breathalisers are so accurate nowadays (the new models now display a digital breath analysis) although the digital reading taken at the roadside is only an indication for the police which, if indicating OPL (over the prescribed limit), will result in being taken into custody. Alot of the time the decision to take someone to a different police station to place a person on a intoximeter would be purely down to circumstances; as 35mg/100ml is the UK legal limit of alcohol in breath if someone were to exceed this limit by 2-3 times by the roadside the police would just take a urine/blood sample. Anyone reading over, say 100mg/100ml in breath would probably be easier to take them to a differnt police station with a working intoximeter purely because the police are legally binded to detain that person until they are safe to drive their vehicle (unless they have been prosecuted for 'DR**' (Drink related) before which could, given a certain period of time mean they instantly lose their right to drive a motor vehicle (the police are allowed to revoke your licence there and then given certain circumstances)). The availability of a working intoximeter in this situation would be valuable in order to 'turf out' sobering drunks.

Dizmo,
P.S I was convicted in 2005 (DR10), I blew 46mg in breath yet I was checked 3 times on the police station intoximetre before being released.

[dennilson]

Sorry to disagree dizmo but your statement: "if someone were to exceed this limit by 2-3 times by the roadside the police would just take a urine/blood sample. " Is 100 per cent incorrect. They would still have to be placed on the more accurate intoxilyser machine, this would give a true reflection of the amount of alcohol in breath. Police are not allowed to simply revert to blood or urine, unless there is no intox machine available, or it is faulty, and there is not another available nearby, or the reading is between 40 and 50, or it is medically impossible for the detainee to blow due to illness etc. The intoxilyser is the important piece of equipment, linked with computerised LIBIS this forms best evidence for the Police at Court

[dizmouk2009]

dennilson: My statement was directed at the original question regarding what would happen if the police didn't have a working intoxilyser. Apologies for my poor use of wording my thoughts.

Dizmo,

[dennilson]

Accept my apologies for misunderstanding you