So got stopped by the gardai today ................

Irish Guitarist

It could have been worse. He could have asked you what your religion was.

zenno

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Time for you to read up on the actual law - especially if you are a professional driver.



ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 2006

Same law. Just exemptions are made for Gardai.

well yeh...the thing is that the garda communications device has the mobile phone built into it and obviously they have to pick it up in a simular way to talk through it. but they don't text on it like most other people and thats were the main problem is, texting while driving. some taxi men/women still use their left hand a good bit picking up the mic from the holder and driving with their right hand and changing gears with the mic still in their hand and then talking into it. look all i'm saying is the main problem i can see is texters. how can you concentrate on the road/people/idiots crossing without looking/kids on bikes/and everything else while you are texting?. you can't simple as that same goes for talking into it while driving. even me as a smart ass most times here understands the problems that can happen by using a mobile while driving i've been there but i turn the annoying thing off when i first get in the car.

mudokon

Bosco boy wrote: »

there's an exemption for emergency services so they can take calls to go to accidents/incidents involving in many cases fools like yourself!

Isn't that why they have radios so the Gardai nearest to the accident can respond rather than phoning each Garda car individually?

Rocky_Dennis

I got pulled in for having my phone in my hand while i was driving. Had a missed call and literally picked up my phone to see who it was, guard on a bike pulled me in and i got 2 penalty points and a €60 fine. I thought you had to have the phone up to your ear to get fined :mad:

Noreen1

I know of a lady who was charged with using a mobile phone while driving last month.(It wasn't me.)

The thing is, she pulled over to the side of the road to answer the phone.

The garda who charged her acknowledged that she wasn't actually driving whilst using her phone, but insisted that since she didn't remove her keys from the ignition, then she cold legally still be charged.:eek:

It sounds unreasonable. Does anyone know whether the garda in question was within her rights?

Noreen

mudokon

Noreen1 wrote: »

I know of a lady who was charged with using a mobile phone while driving last month.(It wasn't me.)

The thing is, she pulled over to the side of the road to answer the phone.

The garda who charged her acknowledged that she wasn't actually driving whilst using her phone, but insisted that since she didn't remove her keys from the ignition, then she cold legally still be charged.:eek:

It sounds unreasonable. Does anyone know whether the garda in question was within her rights?

Noreen

I'd say they could be right if the keys were still in the ignition and the engine was running. A different scenario below but the same principles could be applied. I've highlighted some relevant passages.

:Supreme Court
‘In charge of a vehicle’
Counsel for the Defendant, understandably, did not really take issue with the submission on behalf of the D.P.P. that the Defendant, on the facts of this case may be considered at all material times to have been in charge of the vehicle. He focussed his submissions on the contention that since the Defendant was asleep when found by the garda there could have been no intent to drive. However, since the first question as posed by the learned High Court Judge raises the question of whether the Defendant may be found to have been ‘in charge’ of the vehicle and having regard to the facts of the case as a whole I think I should make some limited reference to this point.

The notion of ‘in charge’ of a vehicle is a very general one and will fall to be applied in a wide variety of circumstances or combination of circumstances. There is no statutory definition. The words of the section must be given their ordinary and natural meaning and the term “in charge” of a vehicle must be applied in a common sense way. Interestingly, there are no authorities on the interpretation of this phrase, which would seem to indicate that the courts which have to apply this section, in particular the District Court, have not found any substantial difficulty in applying its terms. Nor is there a reported decision on ‘being in charge’ of a carriage while drunk contrary to the Licensing Act 1872. That said it must also be said that the application of the section in question to a person found asleep in the motor vehicle was raised in a previous Case Stated but which, for various reasons was not proceeded with to final decision.

Evidently, a great deal depends on the facts of the particular case and for that reason I do not think it wise nor indeed possible to prescribe a set of criteria which would provide an answer in all cases for the question, “Was the Defendant in charge of the motor vehicle.?” The English authorities which relate to this issue are at best of a limited value since the relevant English statute has quite a different structure to that of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended, although the particular citation relied upon by the D.P.P. from D.P.P. -v- Watkins (cited above), is helpful. In that case it was also acknowledged that “... no hard and fast all-embracing test can be propounded as to the meaning of the phrase, in charge” In the circumstances I think it is appropriate to confine myself to making just a few observations on the general notion of “in charge” of a vehicle and then deal with the particular facts of the case as set out in the case stated. Being in charge of a vehicle has connotations of having possession or control or being in a position to exercise possession or control. Since the offence is one of being in charge with intent to drive there must be some proximity or close connection between the circumstances in which a Defendant is found to ‘be in charge’ and the vehicle itself. A person does not have to be in a vehicle in order to be in charge of it. On the other hand if he was in his home watching television this would normally be too remote to regard such a person, on any common sense view, in charge of a motor vehicle parked outside, within the meaning of the section.

I turn to consider the factual circumstances of this case. Where a person is found alone in a car, occupying the drivers seat, with the keys of the car in the ignition (leaving aside for the moment the question of such a person being asleep) it seems to me that prima-facie he may be considered to be in charge of the motor car. Of course I do not mean to say that all these ingredients are essential since in particular circumstances a person may be “in charge” even if he does not have the keys or if he is outside the motor car but in the circumstances which I have indicated prima-facie that would be the case. In this case all those circumstances were present and more.

The car was parked on the hard shoulder of the Navan Road with its lights on and the ignition key was turned “two clicks” towards the ignition. The Defendant was alone in the car. His evidence was that he had fallen asleep involuntarily and was asleep when found by the garda. On those facts the Plaintiff was clearly in possession of the car at the time when the garda member found him. I take the view that he was ‘in charge’ of it within the meaning of the section.

If a driver on a long journey pulls into a lay-by and takes a nap before continuing his journey I not think that he can be considered to have ceased to being in charge of the car during the period when he was asleep. The fact that in this case the Defendant fell asleep involuntarily does not, to my mind, alter the position. Nor is there any evidence, in the words of D.P.P. -v- Watkins as cited above that, having entered the car he had “relinquished his charge”. On the facts set out in the case stated the Circuit Judge is entitled to hold that the Defendant was in charge of the motor car when Garda Kinneen arrived on the scene.

Link

Wibbs

Noreen1 wrote: »

I know of a lady who was charged with using a mobile phone while driving last month.(It wasn't me.)

The thing is, she pulled over to the side of the road to answer the phone.

The garda who charged her acknowledged that she wasn't actually driving whilst using her phone, but insisted that since she didn't remove her keys from the ignition, then she cold legally still be charged.:eek:

It sounds unreasonable. Does anyone know whether the garda in question was within her rights?

Noreen

That sounds a bit suspect alright? I'd get a solicitor on that one, then again if it goes to court... There are far more numpty judges than there are Guards.

I had similar to the OP over a year ago. Stopped, two guards get out, one on either side of the car. Accused of using my phone. Slight problem there Ted. It was sitting back in my house at the time. One of them was a complete fool, kept saying "we saw you, we saw you". I. Have. No. Phone. :rolleyes: On two occasions I've been stopped in bus lanes. Once outside of the bus lane hours and the second the bus lane had "Lane not in use" signs up. The outside lane hours copper was a moron. Just couldn't accept the concept of time. After being polite and nice as long as I could be I had had enough and suggested he go back to that part in school that clearly he was asleep for where they told you "and the big hand is pointing at..."

The second guy was so different and more like most Guards I've dealt with. I pointed out the not in use signs and he laughed and started waving his fingers saying "you are getting sleeeeepy, when you wake up you will remember nothing of this"

angelfire9

mudokon wrote: »

Isn't that why they have radios so the Gardai nearest to the accident can respond rather than phoning each Garda car individually?

Tetra radios were only introduced in West Clare in the last few months prior to that the ones they had (analogue I THINK) had bad coverage in several areas and were not considered secure lines

Even with the Tetras there are circumstances where Gardai will opt to use the mobile rather than the radio to contact each other or the station for example:
In the case of a fatal RTA they will use the mobile rather than broadcast the deceased's name over the airwaves

heybaby

The gardai are purely and simply civil servants in uniform, and possess all the same bad habits and sense of entitlement that many other public servants are guilty of.

The difference with gardai is they have the weight of the state behind them, which makes it very difficult if, as in this case, you have the misfortune to encounter one who is clearly in need of taking down a peg or two.

I would make a complaint to the garda ombudsman if you feel agrieved, why should you be intimidated just because they have a badge.

mudokon

angelfire9 wrote: »

Tetra radios were only introduced in West Clare in the last few months prior to that the ones they had (analogue I THINK) had bad coverage in several areas and were not considered secure lines

Even with the Tetras there are circumstances where Gardai will opt to use the mobile rather than the radio to contact each other or the station for example:
In the case of a fatal RTA they will use the mobile rather than broadcast the deceased's name over the airwaves

Fair enough, I'm no expert on Garda communication techonology and was thinking more in terms of urban areas. In terms of response times it would seem more reliable for radios to be used where available as there are more Gardai notified at one time.

Of course there are valid uses of mobile phones for Gardai especially where there is sensitive information involved and rightly so. Normally this information isn't ascertained until they have arrived at the scene in the case of fatal RTA's.

M5

I cant remember the last time I saw a garda car where the driver was not on the phone




*they may be exempt though

slimjimmc

mudokon wrote: »

I'd say they could be right if the keys were still in the ignition and the engine was running. A different scenario below but the same principles could be applied. I've highlighted some relevant passages.

Link

The thing is it's not illegal to hold a mobile phone while in charge of a vehicle; the law merely says you must not hold a phone while driving, which is not the same as being in charge. To illustrate the difference between the two: there is a specific offence of being in charge of a vehicle while intoxicated and there is a different offence of driving a vehicle while intoxicated.

From what I can gather to be driving you have to be moving or be stopped in the flow of traffic e.g. at lights, a junction, heavy traffic. I think that Garda was confused or just winding up her.

Horse_box

This happend to me a few days ago aswel, the garda was adamant I was on the phone. I calmly told him I wasn't and then I remembered to show him the call log

He was absolutely bulling when he saw that there hadn't been any calls in the last hour. TBH after him seeing the call register I was expecting an apology but he literally flung my license on to the passenger seat and said ''off with ya''. I was so close to giving him the reaction he wanted but thought better of it and bit my tongue

This is the sort of petty ****e that gives the garda a bad name

mudokon

slimjimmc wrote: »

The thing is it's not illegal to hold a mobile phone while in charge of a vehicle; the law merely says you must not hold a phone while driving, which is not the same as being in charge. To illustrate the difference between the two: there is a specific offence of being in charge of a vehicle while intoxicated and there is a different offence of driving a vehicle while intoxicated.

From what I can gather to be driving you have to be moving or be stopped in the flow of traffic e.g. at lights, a junction, heavy traffic. I think that Garda was confused or just winding up her.

I understand that & hopefully I'm wrong but the reason I posted that was in Noreen1's post she said that the woman had been charged. If she was charged then the Gard involved was of the opinion that an offence had been commited.

Maybe the woman in question answered the phone moments before the car came to a stand still, I don't know. As Wibbs stated the only thing to do is get professional legal advice.

tinkerbell

There was an ex-garda on Newstalk there about two weeks ago and they asked him about the things around driving with a phone. He said that if the vehicle is MOVING then you are not allowed hold your phone. He quoted the paragraph in whatever traffic act that comes from. Anyway he gave the impression that you can have the phone if you are stopped in traffic ... e.g what happens if you are stopped in traffic for say 30 mins coz there is an accident up ahead, and nobody is moving at all? Can you hold the phone in your hand then and if traffic starts moving you put the phone down before you start to move your vehicle again? I have a handsfree anyway built into my car so if a garda stopped me and tried to say I was using the phone illegally I would be showing him my ultra cool carkit and tell him that he could feck off with his wild accusations!

MagicSean

tinkerbell wrote: »

There was an ex-garda on Newstalk there about two weeks ago and they asked him about the things around driving with a phone. He said that if the vehicle is MOVING then you are not allowed hold your phone. He quoted the paragraph in whatever traffic act that comes from. Anyway he gave the impression that you can have the phone if you are stopped in traffic ... e.g what happens if you are stopped in traffic for say 30 mins coz there is an accident up ahead, and nobody is moving at all? Can you hold the phone in your hand then and if traffic starts moving you put the phone down before you start to move your vehicle again? I have a handsfree anyway built into my car so if a garda stopped me and tried to say I was using the phone illegally I would be showing him my ultra cool carkit and tell him that he could feck off with his wild accusations!

The problem is that even when you are stopped in traffic you need to be aware of whats happening around you.

2 stroke

Slightly off topic but I often see Gardai eating icecream cones while driving. During this summer I had to swerve to avoid one. When I reported the incident to the local station, I was informed that eating icecream while driving wasn't an offence.

slimjimmc

mudokon wrote: »

I understand that & hopefully I'm wrong but the reason I posted that was in Noreen1's post she said that the woman had been charged. If she was charged then the Gard involved was of the opinion that an offence had been commited.

Maybe the woman in question answered the phone moments before the car came to a stand still, I don't know. As Wibbs stated the only thing to do is get professional legal advice.

Yeah that's what I was thinking too and is a more likely scenario, imo.

tinkerbell wrote: »

There was an ex-garda on Newstalk there about two weeks ago and they asked him about the things around driving with a phone. He said that if the vehicle is MOVING then you are not allowed hold your phone. He quoted the paragraph in whatever traffic act that comes from. Anyway he gave the impression that you can have the phone if you are stopped in traffic ... e.g what happens if you are stopped in traffic for say 30 mins coz there is an accident up ahead, and nobody is moving at all? Can you hold the phone in your hand then and if traffic starts moving you put the phone down before you start to move your vehicle again? I have a handsfree anyway built into my car so if a garda stopped me and tried to say I was using the phone illegally I would be showing him my ultra cool carkit and tell him that he could feck off with his wild accusations!

From what I can tell technically you're still driving because you're still in the traffic lane, so you are making yourself vulnerable by doing that.

maninasia

Gyalist wrote: »

There was a Garda crackdown a few weeks ago on vans that were being used privately without paying the higher rate of motor tax. Maybe they assumed that the van was being used privately because it didn't have any logos on it.

I guess they need a 'reason' to pull you over, so claiming to see a mobile phone is a handy one.

ToxicPaddy

I think the whole accusing you of being on a mobile phone is an excuse to pull you over and check you out.. I got accused of it before, but the thing was I didnt even have a phone with me.. I left it at home that morning, only discovered when I got to work and was actually heading home to collect it on my lunch break.. I was very polite about it all and didn't rise up to his accusations, even though he kept trying to get me to..

He demanded my license, checked the car, tyres, tax, insurance, NCT etc.. everything was in order and displayed correctly, I was expecting him to ask me to get out so he could search me or the car.. didnt bother me, I had nothing to hide.

The Garda in question got very very thick with me for no reason and was being a complete a*shole to the point where I was ready to demand his name and badge number and go straight to the station to make an official complaint about him, but I was running short on time and had to get back to work..

Everyone has a bad day on the job, but some guys just take it too far.. :rolleyes:

Johnny Utah

Johro wrote: »

It kinda is.. They do this (and much worse) fairly often, serious attitude like they just caught you f#cking a kitten.
A lot of guards think that when they put on the uniform it gives them the right to treat you like a scumbag, and you'd better be polite when answering them.
They were worse in the eighties/nineties, especially rural guards who regularly just stopped people with 'What's your name?, Where ya going?, Whatfor?, Where'd ya come from?' and for no apparent reason other than a bit of intimidation.
I don't know about you, but I don't like being treated like a criminal when I'm just going about my normal business.

Not entitled to ask these questions for routine checkpoints.

HavingCrack wrote: »

He was looking for a reaction from you i.e. calling him a liar. You did the right thing and didn't fall for his bait. I don't know if you've any grounds for making a complaint against him, probably not I'd imagine.

Agreed on both counts.

Geansai Rua

They dont seem to need a reason..

I got pulled over about two weeks ago.

I was just after picking my brother up from his friends house. About half 10.
This car followed me for about three miles right up behind me with full lights on.
I pulled in, they turned their flashing lights on, (the car was unmarked)
and four gardai stopped and got out of the car. Accused me of not having my full lights on?? Like WTF??
Checked everything! Seat belts, tax, insurance, license, my tyres! Everything!

The four of them were well pissed off when they couldnt do me for anything!
Mwah ha ha!..

laugh

Maybe they are looking for an excuse to see if there is a smell of drink/hash?

Mike 1972

Johro wrote: »

in the eighties/nineties, especially rural guards who regularly just stopped people with 'What's your name?, Where ya going?, Whatfor?, Where'd ya come from?' and for no apparent reason .

Used to get this the odd time (mostly while driving to/from/near the border) didnt really bother me as It was quickly established that I wasnt whoever/whatever they were looking for and they were reasonably civil/courteous about it. If it was happening on a daily basis I might have got pi$$ed off after a while though. Never looked into whether "theyre allowed ask that" or not because it wasnt really an issue.

2 stroke wrote: »

I was informed that eating icecream while driving wasn't an offence.

It isint but not being in proper control of a vehicle is a somewhat different matter.

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

It could have been worse. He could have asked you what your religion was.

I was asked my "race" once by a PSNI officer while giving a statement regarding a break in.:mad:

Noreen1

mudokon wrote: »

I understand that & hopefully I'm wrong but the reason I posted that was in Noreen1's post she said that the woman had been charged. If she was charged then the Gard involved was of the opinion that an offence had been commited.

Maybe the woman in question answered the phone moments before the car came to a stand still, I don't know. As Wibbs stated the only thing to do is get professional legal advice.

The lady in question is a very careful driver. She said she pulled over before taking the call, and I would tend to believe her. She protested to the garda in question, and was told that since she hadn't removed the keys from the ignition, the garda was within her rights to charge her.

The Garda in question has earned herself some very unflattering nicknames since joining the local station recently - particularly from younger drivers, since she seems to have a particular penchant for checking the roadworthiness of a vehicle - and isn't averse to stopping drivers who are just going about their business for the purpose of checking their cars,including searching the car.

I haven't had the pleasure of making her acquaintance yet, but I'm pretty sure it wont be long! :D

Noreen

Mike 1972

If one found themselves (wrongly) charged for this declined to pay fines/tickets and found themselves up in court would they be able to apply for discovery of their phone records in order to prove they were not on the phone at/around the time the offence was alleged to have taken place ?

Would it make any difference if ones phone was contract/bill or prepay ?

sdanseo

I'd always be the first to defend the Gardaí in a situation like this, but if the OP hasn't lied in the transcript of the conversation then that Garda sounds like a total plonker.

Wertz

Was coming through Rathmines village a few weeks back with a guy I do some work for...he answered his phone at the traffic lights outside the centra, just as a foot patrol garda was coming out of the shop lol....he sticks his hand up, pulls him in and asks him why he was on the phone.
Asks for license (NI reg van, UK license) and then tells him "cos he's in a good mood he'll let him off this once"...yeah nothign to do with it being pointless to bother trying to issue points or a fine.

Every second car I pass someone is on the phone, be it motorway, backroad or town traffic...does my head in, but people seem to think it's fine, no bother, sure what harm am I doing.
Some clown nearly took my front wing off pulling into a forecourt thursady because he was trying to drvie and change gear with one hand whilst talking on the phone...then gives me dirty looks when I let a roar at him to look what he's at...

MagicSean

Mike 1972 wrote: »

If one found themselves (wrongly) charged for this declined to pay fines/tickets and found themselves up in court would they be able to apply for discovery of their phone records in order to prove they were not on the phone at/around the time the offence was alleged to have taken place ?

Would it make any difference if ones phone was contract/bill or prepay ?

No point. The offence is holding a phone. I once stopped a fella and it turned out he was chewing his phone.

Mike 1972

k_mac wrote: »

chewing his phone.

?