Drink Driving,how can this be legal?????

JohnThomas09

Hey guys just wondering how the following can be legal:

My brother was breathlysed for Drink Drivng two weeks ago,he failed the Random Breathtester and was brought to the nearset Garda station.When he arrived at the Garda station the machine for testing his breath wasnt working so they asked him to provide a urine sample.They then said they would send it off for examination and would contact him.Now here's the part that confuses me,they brought him back to where his car was parked and handed him his keys.He then got into his car and drove home.Obviously if they had arrested him for being unfit for driving due to alcohol consumption,how could they then let him drive home.God forbid he had went down the road further and maybe killed another road user.How could they let him drive??

My name is URL

wtf

Your brother is a tit for drink driving, and the Gardai are retarded if what you say is true. Which I doubt to be perfectly honest

If it is true, and the sample comes back positive the case will be thrown out of court on technicalities

SV

Absolute bóllocks* is all that is.




*as in the worst lie I've ever heard.

thomond2006

Eh, this is the Gardai we're talking about here.

Rabies

moved.
The motoring heads will give a better response.

JohnThomas09

My name is URL wrote: »

wtf

Your brother is a tit for drink driving, and the Gardai are retarded if what you say is true. Which I doubt to be perfectly honest

definetely agree my brother is an eejet.But im can tell you that the guard did let him drive home because the night it happened i offered to collect my brother from the station and he said the guards were leaving him home.They then asked him where he lived(which is around five miles from where his car was).so they left him to the car and handed him back his keys.What are the legalities with this.

MagicMarker

JohnThomas09 wrote: »

definetely agree my brother is an eejet.But im can tell you that the guard did let him drive home because the night it happened i offered to collect my brother from the station and he said the guards were leaving him home.They then asked him where he lived(which is around five miles from where his car was).so they left him to the car and handed him back his keys.What are the legalities with this.

Handing your brother car keys wasn't illegal. Your brother driving home was.

JohnThomas09

SV wrote: »

Absolute bóllocks* is all that is.




*as in the worst lie I've ever heard.

its the truth why would i make this up.They handed him back his keys when he got back to his car.

JohnThomas09

MagicMarker wrote: »

Handing your brother car keys wasn't illegal. Your brother driving home was.

I know Drink Driving is illegal but how can letting someone that you have arrested for Drink driving continue on his journey home.

Gary ITR

Rabies wrote: »

moved.
The motoring heads will give a better response.

I'd have thought the ES guys would know better

Mods if you don't want it feel free to lock/delete

JohnThomas09

Onkle wrote: »

I'd have thought the ES guys would know better

Mods if you don't want it feel free to lock/delete

if i have put this thread on the wrong forum please feel free to move it.

confused-dazed

ahhhhhh come on folks look at what went on in traffic blues F.F.S. similar things were happening. the guards made a mockery of us and as a nation. if that was aired in europe we'd be the laughing stock of the continent.

TheNog

JohnThomas09 wrote: »

Hey guys just wondering how the following can be legal:

My brother was breathlysed for Drink Drivng two weeks ago,he failed the Random Breathtester and was brought to the nearset Garda station.When he arrived at the Garda station the machine for testing his breath wasnt working so they asked him to provide a urine sample.They then said they would send it off for examination and would contact him.Now here's the part that confuses me,they brought him back to where his car was parked and handed him his keys.He then got into his car and drove home.Obviously if they had arrested him for being unfit for driving due to alcohol consumption,how could they then let him drive home.God forbid he had went down the road further and maybe killed another road user.How could they let him drive??

OP,

Within Traffic laws wording is extremely important. A missed word or misinterpretation of a sentence within an Act especially when its Drunk Driving can result in a Drunk Driving case being thrown out of Court. The reason why this is so is because in the last number of years drink driving cases are one of the most contested cases in court, almost on par with Murder cases. I say this to you first so you can understand what I am about to say about your brothers case.

So with in your brothers case. Your brother even after failing the Alcoholyser was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. This means the suspicion is not that he consumed alcohol but it means the was a suspicion he may be over the limit. The only way of finding for definite that he was over the limit is to either breathlyise him at the station (in this case the machine broke down) or have him provide blood/urine. The breathlyiser would have given a result within a few minutes and if he was over, he would have been charged and bailed for Drunk Driving. If your brother actually passed the breathlyser he would have been given his keys back and there is nothing in Traffic Law to prevent your brother from continuing on his journey.
In this case Gardai did not have evidence your brother was over the limit or not because the urine sample had not been tested. Therefore there was nothing Gardai to do to stop your brother from driving.

To those who call us "retarded", "a mockery" and "its the Gardai we are talking about"...why dont you ask questions about why this happened as the OP did rather than assuming you know Traffic Laws which ye clearly dont.

JohnThomas09

TheNog wrote: »

OP,

Within Traffic laws wording is extremely important. A missed word or misinterpretation of a sentence within an Act especially when its Drunk Driving can result in a Drunk Driving case being thrown out of Court. The reason why this is so is because in the last number of years drink driving cases are one of the most contested cases in court, almost on par with Murder cases. I say this to you first so you can understand what I am about to say about your brothers case.

So with in your brothers case. Your brother even after failing the Alcoholyser was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. This means the suspicion is not that he consumed alcohol but it means the was a suspicion he may be over the limit. The only way of finding for definite that he was over the limit is to either breathlyise him at the station (in this case the machine broke down) or have him provide blood/urine. The breathlyiser would have given a result within a few minutes and if he was over, he would have been charged and bailed for Drunk Driving. If your brother actually passed the breathlyser he would have been given his keys back and there is nothing in Traffic Law to prevent your brother from continuing on his journey.
In this case Gardai did not have evidence your brother was over the limit or not because the urine sample had not been tested. Therefore there was nothing Gardai to do to stop your brother from driving.

To those who call us "retarded", "a mockery" and "its the Gardai we are talking about"...why dont you ask questions about why this happened as the OP did rather than assuming you know Traffic Laws which ye clearly dont.

Thanks TheNog,i think you the only person who understood why i posted this thread.I know understand why they gave him his keys back,they hadn't proven that he had been over the limit.I still think it was Garda
Negligence,just say he had drove down the road and knocked down a pedistrian and they were killed.Then what postion would the guards be in not to mention the postion my brother would be in.My Common sense would tell me:The reason its againist the law to Drink Drive is because is because Alcohol impairs your reactions,now when he failed the roadside sample that immediately told them that his senses where impaired yet they still felt confident enough to let him drive.I think they slipped up big time here.

TheNog

JohnThomas09 wrote: »

Thanks TheNog,i think you the only person who understood why i posted this thread.I know understand why they gave him his keys back,they hadn't proven that he had been over the limit.I still think it was Garda
Negligence,just say he had drove down the road and knocked down a pedistrian and they were killed.Then what postion would the guards be in not to mention the postion my brother would be in.My Common sense would tell me:The reason its againist the law to Drink Drive is because is because Alcohol impairs your reactions,now when he failed the roadside sample that immediately told them that his senses where impaired yet they still felt confident enough to let him drive.I think they slipped up big time here.

I know where you are coming from. You are using common sense but unfortunately some laws do not include common sense in them. Remember we must operate within the parameters of the law. The arresting Garda did not have evidence your brother was over the limit so therefore had no authority whatsoever to prevent your brother from driving again that night.

My name is URL

TheNog wrote: »

To those who call us "retarded", "a mockery" and "its the Gardai we are talking about"...why dont you ask questions about why this happened as the OP did rather than assuming you know Traffic Laws which ye clearly dont.

So the Gardai cannot hold someone on suspicion of drink driving then? Even if they suspect he was drunk or over the limit?

Despite what may jeopardize a case, do you not think the Gardai in question were wrong to allow him to drive home at that time?

The OP said they were going to leave him home until he said he lived a few miles away, so tbh the Gardai were just lazy and actually endangered the lives of people by allowing him to drive, it's common sense regardless of protocol :rolleyes:

timmywex

My name is URL wrote: »

So the Gardai cannot hold someone on suspicion of drink driving then? Even if they suspect he was drunk or over the limit?

Despite what may jeopardize a case, do you not think the Gardai in question were wrong to allow him to drive home at that time?

The OP said they were going to leave him home until he said he lived a few miles away, so tbh the Gardai were just lazy and actually endangered the lives of people by allowing him to drive, it's common sense regardless of protocol :rolleyes:

Common sense but i doubt the arresting gardai would like to be disciplined/arrested/fired/charged or otherwise for breaking the laws of the country, if the person wanted to drive home, aint much they can do as the nog has already said. There's only so much power the gards have, people forget that sometimes

My name is URL

timmywex wrote: »

Common sense but i doubt the arresting gardai would like to be disciplined/arrested/fired/charged or otherwise for breaking the laws of the country, if the person wanted to drive home, aint much they can do as the nog has already said. There's only so much power the gards have, people forget that sometimes

Sure, I wasn't implying they should be held responsible or punished. I just thought it odd that they offered to leave the guy home first, and then on hearing he lived a few miles away, opted to drop him back to his car so he could drive himself home, even though they had every reason to believe he was intoxicated.

I know it's not the job of the Gardai to provide a taxi service for people and so on, but they could have easily ordered one to collect the guy at the station or asked a family member to come for him.

I know they can't be doing that for every person they arrest because they have better things to be doing, but a bit of discretion in situations like that isn't a bad idea.

timmywex

My name is URL wrote: »

Sure, I wasn't implying they should be held responsible or punished. I just thought it odd that they offered to leave the guy home first, and then on hearing he lived a few miles away, opted to drop him back to his car so he could drive himself home, even though they had every reason to believe he was intoxicated.

I know it's not the job of the Gardai to provide a taxi service for people and so on, but they could have easily ordered one to collect the guy at the station or asked a family member to come for him.

I know they can't be doing that for every person they arrest because they have better things to be doing, but a bit of discretion in situations like that isn't a bad idea.

I agree but i wouldnt be suprised if the person arrested asked to be brought to his car so it wouldnt need collecting the next day. Things often become distorted on the internet, they may have offered and then their offer being refused rather than changing their minds!

donvito99

thomond2006 wrote: »

Eh, this is the Gardai we're talking about here.

Eh...and. Some blatent stereotyping here.

Mr Jinx

My name is URL wrote: »

So the Gardai cannot hold someone on suspicion of drink driving then? Even if they suspect he was drunk or over the limit?

Despite what may jeopardize a case, do you not think the Gardai in question were wrong to allow him to drive home at that time?

The OP said they were going to leave him home until he said he lived a few miles away, so tbh the Gardai were just lazy and actually endangered the lives of people by allowing him to drive, it's common sense regardless of protocol :rolleyes:

Were you in the back seat with the OP's brother ? your hearing this info 2nd or 3rd hand. Very easy to call the Gardai involved lazy on a message board when you dont know the full facts. Even the OP wasnt there, so dont think we can take his version of events as 100% either.

TheNog

My name is URL wrote: »

So the Gardai cannot hold someone on suspicion of drink driving then? Even if they suspect he was drunk or over the limit?

Gardai can arrest someone on suspicion of drunk driving and then only detain that person until either samples of breath or a sample of blood/urine are taken. If that person fails the breath test they are then charged on the offence and bailed to appear at court and are then released from custody. The arrested person cannot be lawfully detained any longer than that.

Despite what may jeopardize a case, do you not think the Gardai in question were wrong to allow him to drive home at that time?

As I said before somtimes the law doesnt include common sense and in this case Gardai had no authority to prevent the driver from continuing his journey.

The OP said they were going to leave him home until he said he lived a few miles away, so tbh the Gardai were just lazy and actually endangered the lives of people by allowing him to drive, it's common sense regardless of protocol :rolleyes:

If you can point me to the power given to Gardai in the Traffic Acts which would allow us to stop a driver from continuing his journey then I will accept your arguement.

If you cant then I guess you will have to accept what I have said earlier.

hick

I know of a case where an person was stopped on the way home from a pub failed a breathalyser test and and the test in the Garda station and was charged with driving while intoxicated and handed the keys back to his car.

He left the station some time later walked to his car, got in and drove home, he was subsequently stopped by the same officer again, tested, failed, brought to the same station and charged for the second time that night with the same offence.


Now Nog I appreciate your point on legislation, but do you not think the Garda would be better off driving him back to his house or having a relative pick the offender up rather than letting them back out with the keys to the vehicle, or at the very least retain the keys to the vehicle where they can picked up again at a later stage. The example of the above and the OP are as much the short sightedness/lunacy of the Garda or probably more so the Sergeant on duty as the fool that committed the offence in the first instance.

Britt Reid

I have read with interest the various posts on this thread

Could I just point out to everyone that Section 16 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 empowers Gardai to detain a person arrested for drink driving at a station for up to 6 hours AFTER HE / SHE HAS PROVIDED A SAMPLE if the Garda in charge of the Garda station is of opinion that he / she is a danger to others

The member is even empowered to release the arrested person into the custody of a responsible adult if that adult attends the station.

I can't believe a Garda would have brought a person back to his car and gave him back the keys. When I read it I was speechless. I think they acted very irresponsibly if it happened that way - and I'm a Garda myself

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0007/sec0016.html

djtechnics1210

"if the member of the Garda Síochána for the time being in charge of the station is of opinion that the person is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be a threat to the safety of himself or others, be detained in custody for such period (not exceeding 6 hours from the time of his arrest or, as the case may be, from the time he was required to accompany a member to the station) as the member of the Garda Síochána so in charge considers necessary."

M.I.C / S.H.O may not have been able to form the opinion that the person was a threat to the safety of themselves or others and as such did not need to be detained.

It is unclear if the person involved in the case has yet received a summons.
It could well happen that the person was under the limit and if that is the case then the MIC /SHO was spot on not to use section 16.

I have seen people that looked and acted absolutely locked.. but when blood/urine came back they were actually under the limit.
Its very hard to make a call on intoxication when the intoxylizer cannot be used for an accurate reading.

On a side note i have not been involved but have witnessed first hand where a drunk drivers car keys were retained as member believed he would drive again.

Couple of days later......... legal action from pal
It unfortunately doesnt state anywhere in the drink/drug driving legislation that you can retain a persons car keys.

TheNog

hick wrote: »

I know of a case where an person was stopped on the way home from a pub failed a breathalyser test and and the test in the Garda station and was charged with driving while intoxicated and handed the keys back to his car.

He left the station some time later walked to his car, got in and drove home, he was subsequently stopped by the same officer again, tested, failed, brought to the same station and charged for the second time that night with the same offence.


Now Nog I appreciate your point on legislation, but do you not think the Garda would be better off driving him back to his house

Two things with this point:

1. Gardai do not have to bring a person home after being arrested - we are after all not a taxi service

2. if the person was brought home and is now not under arrest, that person is not covered for insurance if the patrol car was involved in a collision

or having a relative pick the offender up rather than letting them back out with the keys to the vehicle,

Most drunk drivers I have come across do not want a relatve or friend notified they have been arrested so what can we do then. The Member in Charge cannot notify a friend or relative against the prisoners wishes due to confidentiality reasons.

or at the very least retain the keys to the vehicle where they can picked up again at a later stage.

Im going to say this for the last time and hopefully it will finally sink in, Gardai cannot do what they want, Gardai do not create the Road Traffic Laws and lastly (and finally) Gardai must operate within the powers given to them under the Road Traffic Laws. These powers DO NOT include retaining the keys of car from a drunk driver

The example of the above and the OP are as much the short sightedness/lunacy of the Garda or probably more so the Sergeant on duty as the fool that committed the offence in the first instance.

As I have been trying to say all along

djtechnics1210 wrote: »

On a side note i have not been involved but have witnessed first hand where a drunk drivers car keys were retained as member believed he would drive again.

Couple of days later......... legal action from pal
It unfortunately doesnt state anywhere in the drink/drug driving legislation that you can retain a persons car keys.

hick

again point taken on rules and regulations, but also refer you to post above section 16 of the 1994 RTA where a person can be retained for up to and not exceeding 6 hours

I have first hand expieriance with the Garda Disicpleinary Board and I can assure you a member is not going to be sanctioned for retaining key in order to prevent a further minor or major incident from occuring.

The point about not being a taxi service is endemic of the issue

TheNog

hick wrote: »

again point taken on rules and regulations, but also refer you to post above section 16 of the 1994 RTA where a person can be retained for up to and not exceeding 6 hours

Yes Section 16 could be used but no one here knows how drunk the OPs brother actually was and if he was deemed be so drunk then Im sure there is no way he have been brought back to his car and given his keys back.

Eru

All the people complaining about this case should write to the dpp and their local TD and demand that Gardai be given the power to arrest and detain people to prevent them from possible commiting crimes in the future.

You should then immediately state that we should also have the power to seize any and all items from people on the basis that the item may be used in a crime in the future.

Of course that would also allow us to arrest YOU based on the possibility that you may drink drive and also seize YOUR car on the basis that you may drink drive in it.

Until then its called false imprisonment and theft.

Shield

...or just source some of those precogs from "Minority Report" and drop them into your nearest Garda station.

My name is URL

I'm drunk now, if I get into my car and drive out to town will it be illegal if I don't get caught? Should I be encouraged to do it if I know the station's breathalyzer is broken?

Why does legislation matter in these cases?

tbh I doubt the person that could be killed by a drunk driver would care about what the law says, it's an ass

if a person has the opportunity to prevent an accident then they should take it, whether it's a garda or a barman

all it takes is a phonecall ffs

stop hiding behind sentences and make decisions for yourselves, when you need to

cushtac

My name is URL wrote: »

Why does legislation matter in these cases?

Legislation matters in all cases & must be adhered to. unless a Garda wants to end up in court themselves.

My name is URL wrote: »

tbh I doubt the person that could be killed by a drunk driver would care about what the law says, it's an ass

Funnily enough the Gardaí, as enforcers of the law, have to care about what the law says.

Shield

Tell you what:

You try arguing that point of view when you're giving evidence in the witness box.

"Well your Honour, the law is an ass so I took the law into my own hands and I did what I thought was right because legislation shouldn't matter in these cases..."

Apart from losing your job, read what Eru said below: you could be criminally liable for theft and false imprisonment.

Mod hat on:

You're around boards long enough to know what trolling is - and you're borderline trolling by asking questions that have been answered, and making silly statements like: "Why does legislation matter?"

Knock it off ok?

Back on topic...

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm drunk now, if I get into my car and drive out to town will it be illegal if I don't get caught? Should I be encouraged to do it if I know the station's breathalyzer is broken?

Why does legislation matter in these cases?

tbh I doubt the person that could be killed by a drunk driver would care about what the law says, it's an ass

if a person has the opportunity to prevent an accident then they should take it, whether it's a garda or a barman

all it takes is a phonecall ffs

stop hiding behind sentences and make decisions for yourselves, when you need to

Terrontress

Interestingly, my cousin was over the limit and was stopped in Ranelagh. He failed the breath test and was taken to the police station. He was put in a cell for 90 minutes.

Then they took him out and gave him the proper calibrated breathalyser and still was over. The Sergeant then said that the machine had a potential variance of 20% so knocked 20% off his reading and hey presto he was under the limit.

He had had 3 double gins immediately prior to driving.

He thinks it is because he has a foreign license and the Gardai did not want to go to the hassle of the paperwork to have to inform an overseas force.

TheNog

Terrontress wrote: »

Interestingly, my cousin was over the limit and was stopped in Ranelagh. He failed the breath test and was taken to the police station. He was put in a cell for 90 minutes.

Then they took him out and gave him the proper calibrated breathalyser and still was over. The Sergeant then said that the machine had a potential variance of 20% so knocked 20% off his reading and hey presto he was under the limit.

He had had 3 double gins immediately prior to driving.

He thinks it is because he has a foreign license and the Gardai did not want to go to the hassle of the paperwork to have to inform an overseas force.

Terrontress wrote: »

Interestingly, my cousin was over the limit and was stopped in Ranelagh. He failed the breath test and was taken to the police station. He was put in a cell for 90 minutes.

Then they took him out and gave him the proper calibrated breathalyser and still was over. The Sergeant then said that the machine had a potential variance of 20% so knocked 20% off his reading and hey presto he was under the limit.

He had had 3 double gins immediately prior to driving.

He thinks it is because he has a foreign license and the Gardai did not want to go to the hassle of the paperwork to have to inform an overseas force.

Your cousin is wrong. The 17.5% is deducted at the machine so if you are under 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath you are under the legal limit. Its not a case of the Sergeant knocking off 17.5% just for the hell of it.

Having a foreign licence has no bearing on it either.

Terrontress

TheNog wrote: »

Your cousin is wrong. The 17.5% is deducted at the machine so if you are under 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath you are under the legal limit. Its not a case of the Sergeant knocking off 17.5% just for the hell of it.

Having a foreign licence has no bearing on it either.

But the fact that they gave him so much time to sober up. He reckons by the time they gave him a lift to the station, left him in a cell for a while it was a good two hours by the time they actually had him on the meter in the station.

And given the amount he claims to have been drinking he thinks he was over the limit and now thinks he can get away with being over the limit as long as he is not really drunk.

TheNog

Terrontress wrote: »

But the fact that they gave him so much time to sober up. He reckons by the time they gave him a lift to the station, left him in a cell for a while it was a good two hours by the time they actually had him on the meter in the station.

And given the amount he claims to have been drinking he thinks he was over the limit and now thinks he can get away with being over the limit as long as he is not really drunk.

I am presuming the reason why he was in the cell for 90 minutes was because a qualified operator of the Intoxilyser was not immediately available.

Your cousin is very wrong and Im sure will face being caught over the limit.

bo-bo

Terrontress wrote: »

Interestingly, my cousin was over the limit and was stopped in Ranelagh. He failed the breath test and was taken to the police station. He was put in a cell for 90 minutes.

Then they took him out and gave him the proper calibrated breathalyser and still was over. The Sergeant then said that the machine had a potential variance of 20% so knocked 20% off his reading and hey presto he was under the limit.

He had had 3 double gins immediately prior to driving.

He thinks it is because he has a foreign license and the Gardai did not want to go to the hassle of the paperwork to have to inform an overseas force.

while i don't doubt for one minute that is what you were told i think the reality may have become lost in translation.

overall the intoxilyser is far less accurate than a blood or urine sample and the hand held even more so. ive seen numerous roadside fails pass at the station. again, nothing to do with how the gardai executed their duties.

Trojan911

JohnThomas09 wrote: »

how could they then let him drive home.God forbid he had went down the road further and maybe killed another road user.How could they let him drive??

Simply because nothing has been proven at that stage. The roadside breathalyser is only an indication that the person may be over the limit. The urine sample will be conclusive when it returns. He may even be under the limit.

As for handing back the keys, we used to seize them in the Met and tell the punter to collect them next morning for the very reason you have asked. We were overruled and had to give them back after charge.

If we felt the slightest inkling that the punter was going to drive again after charge we sent the unmarked car up to the location and on a few occasions the punter was duly brought back before the custody skipper and charged again with drink/drive but this time his/her bail was refused on the grounds that he would re offend and it was court in the morning for him/her.

McCrack

Terrontress wrote: »

But the fact that they gave him so much time to sober up. He reckons by the time they gave him a lift to the station, left him in a cell for a while it was a good two hours by the time they actually had him on the meter in the station.

And given the amount he claims to have been drinking he thinks he was over the limit and now thinks he can get away with being over the limit as long as he is not really drunk.

I've learned to take second hand info with a pinch of salt. In legal speak it's called hearsay.

deadwood

Terrontress wrote: »

The Sergeant then said that the machine had a potential variance of 20% so knocked 20% off his reading and hey presto he was under the limit.

I didn't realise we did sales.

Enough "my friend said etc.." yarns, please? Some people actually take what they read here as fact.

Terrontress

deadwood wrote: »

Enough "my friend said etc.." yarns, please? Some people actually take what they read here as fact.

Well, your colleague has said 17.5% is knocked off so there is a grain o truth in there somewhere!

opti76

Terrontress wrote: »

Well, your colleague has said 17.5% is knocked off so there is a grain o truth in there somewhere!

its done automatically by the machine not the garda operating

Terrontress

opti76 wrote: »

its done automatically by the machine not the garda operating

And is the suspect told this or could he have had an additional 20% knocked off?

Mr Jinx

Terrontress wrote: »

And is the suspect told this or could he have had an additional 20% knocked off?

Did he try haggling ? if not it was prob just the 17%.

djtechnics1210

Terrontress wrote: »

And is the suspect told this or could he have had an additional 20% knocked off?

That would mean a total of 37.5% off his total reading :rolleyes:

jsilke

"innocent until proven guilty" me thinks.........

Terrontress

djtechnics1210 wrote: »

That would mean a total of 37.5% off his total reading :rolleyes:

Well if they didn't want to go through the bother of having his licensed revoked in a different country, and the paperwork which that entails then it is understandable.

I know those with experience on here are saying it is not likely but he is adamant.

I will ask him for more details when I next see him.

Either way, he was over the limit, not by a small margin, was detected as such and was let go.

Hooch

Terrontress wrote: »

Well if they didn't want to go through the bother of having his licensed revoked in a different country, and the paperwork which that entails then it is understandable.

I know those with experience on here are saying it is not likely but he is adamant.

I will ask him for more details when I next see him.

Either way, he was over the limit, not by a small margin, was detected as such and was let go.

There is no paperwork with a judge placing someone off the road. It doesnt matter what country they are from or where their licence origionated from. A disqualification is placed on them by the judge and it is up to AGS to enforce and detect any breaches of this disqualification.

What hes saying is totally inaccurate, although I was not there I can say with 100% certainty that 1- He was under the limit and hense thats why he would not be prosecuted and 2- the percentage taken off is 17.5% for breath. Its an inbuilt err for the side of the suspect, it cannot be changed by anybody. Also, just for info, blood/urine has an err of 8%......

TheNog

Terrontress wrote: »

Well if they didn't want to go through the bother of having his licensed revoked in a different country, and the paperwork which that entails then it is understandable.

Where did you hear that?

If a person is convicted and disqualified for drunk driving that conviction and disqualification applies to this country only. It doesnt apply to any other country no matter where your driving licence comes from.

deadwood

Terrontress wrote: »

Well, your colleague has said 17.5% is knocked off so there is a grain o truth in there somewhere!

I think that part has been explained.

I can see the scenario: " let's see now sonny jim, with the 17.5% knocked off, that's the standard rate, by the way, subject to terms and conditions, you're still over the limit.
I'll have to talk to the boss, but we might be able to knock another bit off since you're a regular....

That'll be cash, right?

Oh, by the way, keep this one to yerself. I don't want every genius on boards trying to muscle in on this one!""