Breathalyzer vs Sobriety testing

savagecabbages

Are the US the only country to use sobriety tests when determining if a driver is unfit to drive?

I know a breathalyser is prob faster, but it only catches a drunk driver where the sobriety testing (walk the line, alphabet etc.) is designed to catch somebody under the influence of other substances than alcohol, which is becoming an increasing problem in Ireland.

What are the advantages of each method? Is one better than the other?
I'm clueless on the matter, so maybe a few more well informed posters can broaden my knowledge

Locust

Personally i'd very rarely use an breathalyzer/alcometer. My 'sobriety test' is simply a conversation with them on the roadside. Its not rocket science, we all know when someone has drink on them, when you have even a short chat and you smell drink/cannabis, or know if there eyes are like saucepans and acting weird, something is up and they shouldn't be driving.

I always thought it funny in the cops shows, watching US cops holding a clipboards and filling out a questionnaire, 'touch your nose' 'stand on one leg' etc.... and obviously they are pissed but they run through the whole thing. Its obvious that they are drunk just arrest them.
If its your opinion that they are drunk then thats enough. The alcometer is just an aid, to reinforce your opinion. I suppose one advantage of the other method is if you had a test sheet showing a sobriety test of things that they could not complete it would be stronger evidence for court that they were drunk and incapable.

goldie fish

In the past, the use of a sobriety test, such as the "bag" could weaken your case. Solicitors would jump on you wondering why did you need to do the test if you had already formed the opinon etc

Hooch

goldie fish wrote: »

In the past, the use of a sobriety test, such as the "bag" could weaken your case. Solicitors would jump on you wondering why did you need to do the test if you had already formed the opinon etc

With very strong case law now there to back you that scenario is gone. Defence briefs wont even raise the issue.

goldie fish

nice guy always wrote: »

With very strong case law now there to back you that scenario is gone. Defence briefs wont even raise the issue.

Yeah, i think the bag was the problem. You couldn't form an opinion with it, it merely confirmed your suspicion. The Alcholizer(blow into tube on roadside) has legislation that allows you to form the opinion with it.
Random Breath testing etc.

savagecabbages

cheers for the info.

So somebody doesn't need to fail a test to be arrested on suspicion and taken to the station for the evidential test?

what about drug drivers? is it blood testing in their case?

goldie fish

savagecabbages wrote: »

cheers for the info.

So somebody doesn't need to fail a test to be arrested on suspicion and taken to the station for the evidential test?

what about drug drivers? is it blood testing in their case?

You planning a party?

savagecabbages

I'm not planning anything, i'm just curious as to what powers there (if any) in this state to stop drug driving?

Hooch

savagecabbages wrote: »

I'm not planning anything, i'm just curious as to what powers there (if any) in this state to stop drug driving?

The Power to stop ANY vehicle for no reason whatsoever is Section 109 RTA.

People confuse an arrest for drunken driving as just drink driving. You are being arrested as you are intoxicated. It can be drink, drugs or a combination of both.

There is separate legislation for sole drug specific driving which can be envoked (Section 14) but rarely is.

Reloc8

Largely the problem with sobriety tests is that there is no lawful authority to compel a person to do them. Trying to make them do them is likely to lead to an argument that they are unlawfully detained. That's the problem when it comes to using them as diagnostic/investigative tools for the purpose of grounding an opinion.

What did use to be used back in the days pre-apparatus was observations as opposed to tests - in drink driving cases usually by a doctor. He didn't have the authority to carry out tests, but he could observe the accused whilst in custody and form his opinion as a medical man. This was relied upon as proof sufficient to convict.

There's also a case out there whose name escapes me which notes with regret that experienced members are not entirely unqualified when it comes to assessing levels of drunkeness.

The point about the observation (or sobriety tests) is that if used as evidence to convict you as a prosecuting member are more or less wide open to the point that one man's opinion as to someone being locked is different to another. That's ok when it comes to opinion for arrest - where bona fide suspicion is all that's required - but not in most cases when it comes to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Further, if you do somebody based on their incapacity only, they can defend by establishing a doubt as to whether they are a better driver when pissed, more or less.

Using the test as diagnostic for opinion forming has the problem noted above - and I don't think the High Court would find that you could detain someone roadside to watch them stand on one leg on Finn/McNiece grounds) And anyway, wouldn't all of ye be well able to decide if someone has jar on them just by asking for the licence/insurance or some other polite enquiry etc ?

So the apparatus based arrest and prosecution has the disadvantages of all the technical side needing to be done right, but the advantage of taking the above variables out of the equation - i.e. capacity to drive is no longer in issue once the opinion is formed. Its all about the proof of concentration, and no one can say they were convicted just because some garda has a fierce sensitive nose for whiskey/takes an unduly harsh view of what is 'unfit to drive' - all they have to do to drive home is pass the intoxilyser.

savagecabbages

cheers. all good clear info guys.

I suppose what i was wondering at the start was what exactly the US style tests were checking for, was it drink + drugs or just drink??

I was of the understanding that the breathalyser had to be used + failed, or the pantomime US tests failed to justify an arrest... which isn't the case!

I've seen eye charts used (on tv) in other countries to compare pupil dilation etc.
do we have any specific drug related methods here in Ireland?
And if someone is caught driving a car under the influence of a drug, does the penalty differ much from just being under the influence of said drug?
do we get many drug-driving related arrests or convictions here?

Maybe its not as big a problem as I think, what do you guys think?

meathstevie

Another finer point a lot of people don't seem to understand is that what is commonly known as drink driving is driving with an alcohol level in your body above a certain value.

There is no such limit for driving while unfit; it could be one glass of wine and being dog tired causing you to swerve all over the road, it could be prescription drugs making you drowsy and uncoordinated, it can be controlled substances or misuse of non controlled substances like solvent sniffing etc etc.

I don't know the finer points of the legislation in the Republic of Ireland but in Northern Ireland excess alcohol only refers to motorvehicles ( cars, road bikes, buses, lorries etc ) when you're driving a mechanically propelled vehicle ( agri quads, diggers, tractors, ride on lawnmowers, minibikes, scramblers, etc ) pissed as a fart the offence is driving while unfit.