Random Breath Tests

[modeste]

In this next of the woods and at this time of the year the police are stopping drivers and asking them to provide a sample of breath.

I was always under the impression that police had to have reason to stop a driver and administer such a test. Am I wrong?

[237SJ]

I think they can only pull people over if they suspect they`ve been drinking and are driving as such. They use excuses though. They pulled me over because I was doing 32mph in a 30mph zone and used it as an excuse to breathalise me. I passed of course but it was embarassing as all the passing motorists had a good gawp.

[pink-kittens]

Random means just that, you can be pulled for a random breath test, no reason needed

http://www.rta.nsw.go...paigns/rbt/index.html

[237SJ]

I didn`t know New South Wales law applied here

[pink-kittens]

http://www.telegraph....dom-breath-tests.html

[sandyRoe]

There's a lot of accidents, and fatalities, caused by people who think it's OK to drink and drive. Anything that helps stop drunk drivers is a very good thing.

[New Judge]

In practice random breath tests are not allowed.

However, the Police only have to show that they reasonably suspect a moving traffic offence has occurred to stop the vehicle and then to reasonably suspect that the driver had been drinking to require a breath test. Consequently, if there is anything that the Police do not like about the manner in which a vehicle is being driven this gives the Police grounds to stop the driver and carry out a breath test. The important issue is the Officer does not have to prove or even "believe" that an offence has occurred, merely that he "suspects" an offence has occurred.

If the vehicle is not moving the officer has to suspect that the driver had been drinking and that he had either driven or was about to attempt to drive. So seeing a driver get into a car in a pub car park would usually provide those suspicions.

In reality it would be very difficult to provide a defence against the offence on the lines that the stop or requirement for a breath test was unjustified. The very fact that the driver provided a positive test result would usually be sufficient to support the officer’s suspicions.

[jd_1984]

What about simply "not liking the look of somebody". You know a coppers nose and all that?

[DTCwordfan]

They were out testing on the edge of Truro this morning at 9am......using a speed check (plus anything else) right on the entry into the 30 mph zone as their excuse. I was ok and let through, partly as a taxi in front almost came to a complete halt, eliciting a "Move on you w-nk-r gesture" from an irritated female cop running the front end of the operation. One guy was in the layby being breath-tested......

[ABerrant]

I believe a slight modification of New Judge's (otherwise comprehensive) answer is required.

"...the Police only have to show that they reasonably suspect a moving traffic offence has occurred to stop the vehicle..."

Police (constables in uniform) have the power to stop any driver at any time under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. They don’t need to give a reason and failing to stop is a criminal offence.

The "show that they reasonably suspect" aspect is in regard of searches (after stops) under PACE.

[joeluke]

Some people who haven't been drinking should also be subject to random breath tests

[New Judge]

Yes, that is a useful amendment, ABerrant. Cheers.

[joko]

well i doubt theyd bother just randomly picking a car, say because its blue or something...itd be a waste of their time...they will have some minor reaosn

[beso]

So the UK does not have random breath tests? How stupid are you legislators?