Why is random breath testing 'unconstitutional'?

Alun

OK, just seem another bit on the news about this, and they're now talking of holding a bl00dy referendum for <deity>'s sake to decide on whether random breath testing should be allowed.

So, can any of you constitutional lawyers out there tell me what exactly the problem is? Seems like there's some disagreement amongst the various parties concerned as to whether there even is a problem at all/

leeroybrown

I'm no lawyer but to my knowledge the primary problem (as hilighted by the AG) is that given the small number of tests that will be taken in proportion to the driving population there is an issue that a test might not be purely 'random' but a deterministic check on an individual. There are constitutional implications to this.

I think there is also a secondary issue there too.

69 mustang

leeroybrown wrote:

I'm no lawyer but to my knowledge the primary problem (as hilighted by the AG) is that given the small number of tests that will be taken in proportion to the driving population there is an issue that a test might not be purely 'random' but a deterministic check on an individual. There are constitutional implications to this.

I think there is also a secondary issue there too.

Secondary issue anyone.
It will cost the government more money than it will make them.:D

grimloch

I thought it was unconstitutional as it goes against the "innocent until proven guilty" thing we have. By being checked you are assumed as being guilty.

I heard that at some stage to give a really specific source to my information.

69 mustang

grimloch wrote:

I thought it was unconstitutional as it goes against the "innocent until proven guilty" thing we have. By being checked you are assumed as being guilty.

I heard that at some stage to give a really specific source to my information.

We breath all the time it should make no difference in front of a black box or a bag.
Now braking our neutrality laws now that's unconstitutional.;)
(but it makes money):)

colm_mcm

if you're searched in an airport, are you presumed guilty? If people have nothing to hide they won't mind blowing in a bag

stratos

I think it has to do with the fact the guards must have a reason to detain you.
They can't just go around stopping people because they don't like the look of them.
Or because you fit into a demographic that causes trouble.
Also have you seen the taxes they are getting from drink sales ?

unkel

I don't understand either. What's the difference between our constitution and the constitution of other countries in Europe where random breath testing is in place?

leeroybrown wrote:

there is an issue that a test might not be purely 'random' but a deterministic check on an individual

1. Most random tests I've been "the tested" in, were funnel type operations where every driver on a certain road in a certain direction was guided into bays where they were breath tested simultaneously. Like a supermarket check out really

2. What's wrong with a Garda stopping a driver at random / on purpose / because the Garda doesn't like the driver, etc. and breath testing him / her? Surely this is the same as a Garda stopping a driver to check driving license, insurance or tax?

I know at present it seems that a Garda must have "formed the opinion" that a driver is over the limit to perform a breath test

stratos

I have never seen a funnel type breath test/road block in Ireland.
We don't have the resources to test people in large numbers.
It's okay for people who live in cities and large urban areas to go on about drink driving, where there are buses nitelinks and taxis.
The people who live in rural regions don't have these services.
then again they've got rte oh well....

Lump Basher

Why don't they just make a 10 yr standard jail penalty for ANYONE caught drink-driving? Then less people will do it, and if they get caught and moan about the punishment being too harsh - "hey, what's the probelm - we told you EXACTLY what the punishment was beforehand, and you conciously made the choice yourself - deal with the consequences".

stratos

er 'cause everyone outside dublin galway and cork would be in jail on monday next:D

Atomic Pineapple

Lump Basher wrote:

Why don't they just make a 10 yr standard jail penalty for ANYONE caught drink-driving? Then less people will do it, and if they get caught and moan about the punishment being too harsh - "hey, what's the probelm - we told you EXACTLY what the punishment was beforehand, and you conciously made the choice yourself - deal with the consequences".

Damn right, punishment is too light and chances of getting caught so small that people take the risk.

wavin

Lump Basher wrote:

Why don't they just make a 10 yr standard jail penalty for ANYONE caught drink-driving?

not enough prison space
costs a lot of money to put someone in jail for 10 years
...

stratos

anyway laws are not enforced in Ireland.
You can have all the laws you want if your police force is underfunded.
The points system proved this , the carnage slowed down for a while until we realised you won't be caught !

unkel

stratos wrote:

I have never seen a funnel type breath test/road block in Ireland

No one has because random testing is not carried out yet in Ireland - the whole point of this thread

The checks I referred to that I was in were not in this country

stratos wrote:

The people who live in rural regions don't have these services

Surely you are not saying that drinking 20 pints in a rural pub and driving home should be tolerated?

jimmycrackcorm

Lump Basher wrote:

Why don't they just make a 10 yr standard jail penalty for ANYONE caught drink-driving? Then less people will do it, and if they get caught and moan about the punishment being too harsh - "hey, what's the probelm - we told you EXACTLY what the punishment was beforehand, and you conciously made the choice yourself - deal with the consequences".

Have you any idea how many publicans are td's or td's related to publicans? Remeber how mcdowells cafe bar idea was shelved under the weight of the drinks lobbying.

Random breath testing is a bit strange in that for the most part it will have absolutely zero effect. I mean if they can't enforce any current checkpoints then how are they going to be any better with this one?

Constitutionally it has to be approved to allow any garda who doesn't like you follow you and stop you for no reason and harass you without any reason. That's why I'd vote no.

IU began to slow down to the speed limits because of the number of speed traps that used to be on the N2 - they're more or less gone now but I've gotten used to driving at 130kph now.

leeroybrown

stratos wrote:

It's okay for people who live in cities and large urban areas to go on about drink driving, where there are buses nitelinks and taxis.
The people who live in rural regions don't have these services.

I've lived in small rural towns in the past and it affected my quality of life. I couldn't go to the cinema easily and that there were no large shopping centres. There was (and still is) complete lack of any broadband. There were loads of things that were difficult/awkward including socialising. I still don't think it makes it ok to drive home pissed from the pub. And with our current drink drivng limits it still doesn't forbid someone from driving into town for a couple of slow pints and a cup of coffee or two.

I've seen one guy (with passengers) who had no nightlink/taxi driving so drunk that he drove his car straight into a wall when attempting to parallel park in a space that wouldn't even fit his car. He then got out to check the damage with his girlfriend/wife giving out to him for his damaging their car. Why did he have to do that to socialise.

leeroybrown

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

Have you any idea how many publicans are td's or td's related to publicans? Remeber how mcdowells cafe bar idea was shelved under the weight of the drinks lobbying.

The vintners have always been the strongest lobby group in the Dail.

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

Random breath testing is a bit strange in that for the most part it will have absolutely zero effect. I mean if they can't enforce any current checkpoints then how are they going to be any better with this one?

Constitutionally it has to be approved to allow any garda who doesn't like you follow you and stop you for no reason and harass you without any reason. That's why I'd vote no.

I wouldn't necessarily say that it will have no effect. Currently they do need a valid reason to stop a driver. My father was recently followed for about 2 miles by a squad car at pub closing time. They followed him (sober) all the way from town out to his house and waited until he had entered his house before turning and heading back. Had there been random breath testing he would certainly have been checked.

To my knowledge, t ypically Garda checkpoints are run by Gardai from outside the area in which the checkpoint is placed to avoid conflicts/problems. That said there might be a limited problem.