if a person is stoped for a breath test ,and that person cannot give one due to the fact they have a lung disorder what happens
Printable View
if a person is stoped for a breath test ,and that person cannot give one due to the fact they have a lung disorder what happens
i think they would have to give blood test.
Definately, they take a Blood Test.
Having taken advise (from policeman son). If you are stopped by a policeman as being suspected to be driving whilst under the influence of alchol or drugs you are obligated to give a test. There are other issues such as a car accident when it becomes standard proceedure to take a sample.
If a person is unable to give a sample (for whatever reason), the policeman or woman would caution you and take you to the police station where a doctor would be consulted and you would then have to give a blood sample.
I would suggest that if this person has a medical condition that they carry some proof of what the condition is so as to help themselves should they be stopped by the police.
Cofion
Hingey
as i suffer from emphasema and there for cant drink i find the last comment uncalled for i asked a simple question ,and my thanks to those who gave me an answere
Very Irksome when people come out with crass posts due to the fact that they have not read the original post properly in the first place. Why not read and respond to what is in front of you rather than be unneccessarily provocative. It was a valid and genuine question so why must you assume the chap had been drinking. I believe it is commonplace to breath test all drivers in multiple vehicle accidents regardless of whether drink is suspected as being the cause or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by MICHAEL WYNNE
Just to clarify, if you give a valid reason why you can’t provide a breath sample, then the OFFICER would choose between BLOOD or URINE providing of course you don’t have a fear of needles then it would down to urine.
35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath
80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood
107 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of urine
Sid
From my experience of being a Police Officer for over 25 years I would carryout the following procedure.
Firstly - To be stopped by the Police you would need to have committed a moving road traffic offence, dodgy tail light etc.
Secondly - or as a result of being involved in a road collision.
If the officer suspects that you have alcohol in your body then he can request that you provide a roadside breath test. In the case of the collision(accident) then this is automatic (Dyfed Powys Police anyway) some Forces may vary.
If the roadside breath test is positive the driver would be arrested and taken to a police station.
If the driver refused the roadside breath test or was unable to provide a specimen of breath for that test then this could be classed as a refusal, whether he had asthma or otherwise. He again would be arrested.
Once at the police station a different procedure would take place, and as someone has already mentioned a Doctor would be called.
If that person could not provide two further specimens of breath at the police station then he/she would be offered the option of giving blood/urine. Normally it would be blood.
This would be sent for analysis and that person would then return at a later date to be charged with drinking and driving and no insurance, if it was positive, or informed via telephone/letter that no further action would be taken if it was negative.
I understand that no proof would be required if you only had the use of one lung or not. The same procedure would be carried out.
I've been out of the Force for 4 years now, but I'm sure that the same procedure wouild take place.
I hope this will help with understanding what happens.
Regards
Clive
Quote:
Originally Posted by MICHAEL WYNNE
I didn't read MW's post that way - just as his general opinion of drinking and driving, and although not very relevant to the topic, most would agree with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwyn Nicholas
Well JT the originator of the post was obviously offended by "MWs" post and read it the same as I did. I myself agree with MWs opinion on drinking and driving but that is another issue and should be a separate thread rather than highjacking this one to make a point. If you are unable to see that then fair enough, if you are, well.......you got me again John.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Turner
i think that maybe the origanal question may have been missunderstood by some. as has been pointed out by clive the policy at the moment is to request a breath test from all drivers involved in a R.T.A then it is quit likely that even a non drinker will be asked to provide a specimen.
as i understand the law you [U]can not[U] refuse a road side test for any reason. to do so will lead to your arrest.once at the police station then further enquiries will be made in regard to your reasons for refusal. in my opinion this does raise some questions regarding this policy, as i do not see the justification for requesting a specimen if there are no obvious indications that the person has been drinking.
i sympathise with the questioner as i am quite sure that he has no wish to be arrested for something he has no control over.
Now to complicate things even more!!! What everyone has been referring to in past post is Section 5 of the road traffic act (alcohol) which only refers to Motor vehicles or MV’s (i.e. cars / motor bikes); now let’s look at Section 4 of the road traffic act unfit through drink (alcohol) or drugs. This covers mechanically propelled vehicles or MPV’s (which includes cars / motor bikes but also includes tractors, dumper trucks etc etc!!
All MV’s are MPV’s but not all MPV’s are MV’S confused? you should be, it's been confusing coppers all over the country for years.
I’m stopped in my Massey Fergusson tractor for not having my little yellow light flashing on the roof of the tractor, indeed a moving traffic offence and I also stink of alcohol!) Because I’m driving a MPV and not a MV, the officer cannot breathalyse me, however the officer can arrest me for being unfit through drink or drugs, in this case drink.
Now back at the station a qualified officer or a Doctor can give evidence (impairment test) that in their opinion I’m unfit to drive due to alcohol or indeed drugs, (job done!!!)
The law DOES NOT now require a breath, blood or urine sample to be given, however if you want the case to be successful officers nearly every time get a breath, blood or urine sample for alcohol or blood or urine sample for drugs, this obviously helps the prosecution case.
At a road traffic collision (RTC) if the officer does not suspect alcohol or the driver has not committed a moving traffic offence then there is no need to require a breath sample, however officer's do ask as for some unknown reason it seems to be the norm.
Cheers
Sid
I feel a Blog coming on..............Scouse!
Read it again Gwyn :rolleyes: lol
I would just like to say thank you to all who have answered on here ..yes it was a tail light that was out and the treatment i got from the police officers involved was not very nice, it was NOT WREXHAM POLICE but a force north from here , as it was late when i was stopped they didnt want to know what was wrong and why i could not give a breath sample ,it took 4 hours for a dr to get there ,by the time i got back to my own car it had been damaged ??.i did get a phone call saying they would not be taking the matter further nice one c,c .. once more thanks
I too was expecting Scouse to hit us hard with a lengthy knowledgable write up and was surprised Sid beat him to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwyn Nicholas
Scouse,.....you are slipping. Come on lad, fine pair of shoulders, show em off, show em off!
I'm actually interested in how you got the broken foot Sid... the version according to St Scouse!
i think that what rich went through is totaly unacceptable.why, if there was no evidence of drink was he put through this ordeal. he does'nt say if he was alone, but if he had passengers with him this this would make it even worse.
whilst i do not condone d/d i think that what happened here is wrong, not only is it upsetting for the person concerned it is a total waste of police time and resources also there is absolutely no need for officers to behave in the way described.
it might be of advantage, as suggested in an earlier post, that people with serious conditions that leave them unable to provide breath tests,should be provided with some form of identification to highlight their condition.this may not stop them being arrested but would at least explain to the arresting officer that the reason was genuine. it might indicate to the officer that the preson should be treated with some degree of consideration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwyn Nicholas
Egypt fell over sober honest!!!
camel droppings
oops :winker:my previous message should have read :-:biggrin:
i assume you either triped over or slipped on camel droppings :wideeyed::err::no::biggrin:
We now have the answer why Scouse has been beaten to the oracle by Sid.
Sid's laid up with a broken foot and Scouse is helping North Wales Police in covering the duties for Sid's absence on sick leave!
For once Scouse is our hero!!!!!!!
Just think of the O/T!!!!