Does being drunk sitting in a car count as a drink driving offence?

mushroom

Would it be a drink driving offence to be under the influence and sit in one's car in a hotel car park with a drink in the car without moving?

And if a Garda confiscated the car keys of such a person for 24 hours as punishment without breathalysing or charging the person on the spot, would there be a chance for any further legal recourse in the future via adult warning scheme or other offence? (say.. drunken disorderly/intoxicated in public?)

Kimbot

If you have the keys in the ignition you can be done for drink driving.

MagicMarker

jonny24ie wrote: »

If you have the keys in the ignition you can be done for drink driving.

I don't even think they need to be in the ignition.

I love Joan Burton

jonny24ie wrote: »

If you have the keys in the ignition you can be done for drink driving.

Put key cosyily snug under the tyre, get in back seat, guards (pigs) cant say a thing

mushroom

jonny24ie wrote: »

If you have the keys in the ignition you can be done for drink driving.

Wouldn't one be arrested/breathalysed/charged on the spot? Rather than later?

Traditional

yep once you are in control of a vehicle , even with the hand brake on , and sitting in the drivers seat ,the cops love that another conviction in the little black book , oh lovely have him in next time u can be done , climb into the back seat an snooze away !

ANXIOUS

Im pretty sure that there is a recent thread on this. I think the jist was that you could be charged. The right thing to do is have the key in the boot, and if the gardai ask your intention is to sleep it off and get a taxi home in the morning.

syklops

mushroom wrote: »

Would it be a drink driving offence to be under the influence and sit in one's car in a hotel car park with a drink in the car without moving?

It is considered an offence. IMO its a bit stupid as it punishes the person trying to do the right thing by not driving and trying to sleep it off, but thats the way it is.

mushroom wrote: »

And if a Garda confiscated the car keys of such a person for 24 hours as punishment without breathalysing or charging the person on the spot, would there be a chance for any further legal recourse in the future via adult warning scheme or other offence? (say.. drunken disorderly/intoxicated in public?)

In this case a guard is doing you a favour for taking your keys, because do you really want people(or your boss) knowing you failed a breathalyser test? And if/once you fail it, it cant be undone, and the guard would be breaking numerous laws by ignoring it.

Im not suggesting it is you, I am saying, if it was I in the position, I'd rather not have the car for a day, than a record somewhere saying that I failed a breathalyser.

mushroom

syklops wrote: »

In this case a guard is doing you a favour for taking your keys, because do you really want people(or your boss) knowing you failed a breathalyser test? And if/once you fail it, it cant be undone, and the guard would be breaking numerous laws by ignoring it.

So you would imagine then, that the taking of the keys would be the punishment and that would be the end of it? Can these type of offences be charged/proved after the fact (later)?

The Dagda

The Garda was doing you a favour when he took your car keys. Just go into the station and tell them a Garda left keys there for you to collect. There won't be any subsequent charges.

syklops

mushroom wrote: »

So you would imagine then, that the taking of the keys would be the punishment and that would be the end of it? Can these type of offences be charged/proved after the fact (later)?

Im not a guard btw.
That aside, the taking of the keys is not a punishment administered at the guards discretion, it is a preventative measure. It prevents the individual from a) driving the car and possibly injuring themselves or someone else and b) from another guard charging the same person for the same offense.

seamus

syklops wrote: »

That aside, the taking of the keys is not a punishment administered at the guards discretion, it is a preventative measure.

Correct, the offence is driving, or intending or attempting to drive a vehicle while under the influence.

It's only a punishment if you intended to drive the vehicle and were therefore guilty of the offence.
Otherwise, by taking the keys the Garda was making it impossible for the person to be found guilty of such an offence, since without the keys someone cannot intend to or attempt to drive the vehicle.

The Garda probably trusted the person's intentions, but knew that another Garda might not take the same view, so took the keys away to prevent another member from arresting the guy sleeping in his car.

If the Garda had wished to prosecute, he would have had to take him down to the station and breathalyse him.

The "fictional" person in this account would do well to thank the Garda personally for his actions.

mushroom

seamus wrote: »

The "fictional" person in this account would do well to thank the Garda personally for his actions.

The fictional person would do well to remember the garda's name.

Thank you all for the detailed and informative responses.

jblack

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Im pretty sure that there is a recent thread on this. I think the jist was that you could be charged. The right thing to do is have the key in the boot, and if the gardai ask your intention is to sleep it off and get a taxi home in the morning.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74132737&utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notify#post74132737

MagicSean

syklops wrote: »

It is considered an offence. IMO its a bit stupid as it punishes the person trying to do the right thing by not driving and trying to sleep it off, but thats the way it is.

The right thing to do is go home and come back sober to get your car. A person who sleeps in their car will most likely decide to drive too early the next morning.

syklops

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The right thing to do is go home and come back sober to get your car.

Well yes, but my problem with it is I cant imagine too many people prefer sleeping in their cars over as you say, going home. Most people IMO who end up in that situation, can't get home. Can't get a taxi, can't get a friend to pick them up, so sleeping in the car is the last resort. Instead of biting the bullet and driving home, they do the right thing and stay put and in some cases get bitten for it.

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

A person who sleeps in their car will most likely decide to drive too early the next morning.

If they decided not to drink while drunk, why would they decide to drive when still not capable but with a clearer mind?

I understand the reasoning, but it just seems unfair.

busman

mushroom wrote: »

The fictional person would do well to remember the garda's name.

Thank you all for the detailed and informative responses.

The fictional person would also do well to take this as a final warning and not get in the situation again! I'm sure you will be watched closely

Zambia

I would imagine in most cases if the Garda was of the impression they were just sleeping. The result would not be that bad. In light of the next morning driving. Mr average has 10 beer bottles between 8 and midnight. Mr average is in work at 9am its a 30 minute drive to work from the pub car park. When he wakes at about 7 in the car he possibly not be able to get back to sleep. He will not however be right to drive. He has about 3 standard drinks on board. If you were a betting man what odds would you give on Mr average driving.

BrianD

syklops wrote: »

Well yes, but my problem with it is I cant imagine too many people prefer sleeping in their cars over as you say, going home. Most people IMO who end up in that situation, can't get home. Can't get a taxi, can't get a friend to pick them up, so sleeping in the car is the last resort. Instead of biting the bullet and driving home, they do the right thing and stay put and in some cases get bitten for it.

Check into a hotel?

However, if they were in that situation, as somebody else said they would be well advised to leave the keys under the car.

If they decided not to drink while drunk, why would they decide to drive when still not capable but with a clearer mind?

I understand the reasoning, but it just seems unfair.

Most people can tell right from wrong when they are drunk. Even if they do something wrong, they know it's wrong, they just have less inhibitions about it.

If you have to sleep in a cold car and suffering from a hangover, the thing that you will want to do at the earliest opportunity is drive home. Especially if the car is a public place.

Sleeping in cars is a risky business. I know of one case where the occupant died after the car caught fire. He'd switched the engine on to run the heater and fell asleep. Somehow the car caught fire and he died.

Zambia

How long ago was that Brian? I think I know the case.

MapForJ

I love Joan Burton wrote: »

Put key cosyily snug under the tyre, get in back seat, guards (pigs) cant say a thing

some guards drive drunk themselves or are in the pub after closing time

NUTLEY BOY

If the hypothetical person in charge of the vehicle was in an hotel car park does that constitute a public place within the meaning of the Road Traffic Acts ?

If, on the facts, it is not a public place then most of the potential RTA offences can not apply.

Are there non-RTA laws that might be applied as where the garda acts to prevent a potential crime being committed ?

Incidentally, "I love Joan Burton", not all gardai are pigs. The real pigs are the articles that they are supposed to put up with during the course of constabulary duties

MagicSean

MapForJ wrote: »

some guards drive drunk themselves or are in the pub after closing time

Not really sure hoe that is relevant.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

If the hypothetical person in charge of the vehicle was in an hotel car park does that constitute a public place within the meaning of the Road Traffic Acts ?

If, on the facts, it is not a public place then most of the potential RTA offences can not apply.

Are there non-RTA laws that might be applied as where the garda acts to prevent a potential crime being committed ?

Incidentally, "I love Joan Burton", not all gardai are pigs. The real pigs are the articles that they are supposed to put up with during the course of constabulary duties

A hotel carpark would most likely come under the definition. But it really is dependant on the exact circumstances.

MapForJ

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Not really sure hoe that is relevant.

what i post does not have to have relevance for you

MagicSean

MapForJ wrote: »

what i post does not have to have relevance for you

It should have relevance to what is being discussed though. Otherwise it's just trolling.

MapForJ

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

It should have relevance to what is being discussed though. Otherwise it's just trolling.

just becasue it is not relevan to you does not mean it is not relevant. if you think its a troll then report it

Finnbar01

MapForJ wrote: »

some guards drive drunk themselves or are in the pub after closing time

If you know of gardaí doing this, you have a responsibility to report them.

Victor

syklops wrote: »

It is considered an offence. IMO its a bit stupid as it punishes the person trying to do the right thing by not driving and trying to sleep it off, but thats the way it is.

And what if the person wakes in a confused state and then decides to drive home?

blackdog2

Victor wrote: »

And what if the person wakes in a confused state and then decides to drive home?

I don't mean this as an anti-Garda remark,

but a Garda officer should not and cannot try to predict the behaviour of someone without a reason to believe that person is a serious and immediate risk to public safety.

ResearchWill

blackdog2 wrote: »

I don't mean this as an anti-Garda remark,

but a Garda officer should not and cannot try to predict the behaviour of someone without a reason to believe that person is a serious and immediate risk to public safety.

Due to the way section 50 of the RTA 1961 is drafted the person in the situation was more than likely committing an offence. The offence is being in charge of a MPV with the intention to drive. That intention has been inferred by the HC to include some time in the future, example found in car at 3 in te morning, an hour from where you work and you tell Garda you intended to drive in a few hours. Then according to HC you are committing an offence. It is important to note that intention is inferred by being in charge, the defendant must rebut that presumption, in other words prove he had no intention.

The Garda in this case very likely saved the guy from a ban, at the very least. By taking the keys, the person was no longer in charge, as Garda had in reality taken charge of the MPV.

If anyone has issue with section 50, then it is best to bring it to the attention of you TD and request that it be repealed or amended.

Bosco boy

ResearchWill wrote: »

blackdog2 wrote: »

I don't mean this as an anti-Garda remark,

but a Garda officer should not and cannot try to predict the behaviour of someone without a reason to believe that person is a serious and immediate risk to public safety.

Due to the way section 50 of the RTA 1961 is drafted the person in the situation was more than likely committing an offence. The offence is being in charge of a MPV with the intention to drive. That intention has been inferred by the HC to include some time in the future, example found in car at 3 in te morning, an hour from where you work and you tell Garda you intended to drive in a few hours. Then according to HC you are committing an offence. It is important to note that intention is inferred by being in charge, the defendant must rebut that presumption, in other words prove he had no intention.

The Garda in this case very likely saved the guy from a ban, at the very least. By taking the keys, the person was no longer in charge, as Garda had in reality taken charge of the MPV.

If anyone has issue with section 50, then it is best to bring it to the attention of you TD and request that it be repealed or amended.

I'm just being the devils advocate but what power has the Garda to take the keys, when not arresting the driver for the alleged offence. What if the driver called into the station the next day and reported the theft of his car keys?

MagicSean

Bosco boy wrote: »

I'm just being the devils advocate but what power has the Garda to take the keys, when not arresting the driver for the alleged offence. What if the driver called into the station the next day and reported the theft of his car keys?

Theft requires an act of dishonesty.

ResearchWill

Bosco boy wrote: »

I'm just being the devils advocate but what power has the Garda to take the keys, when not arresting the driver for the alleged offence. What if the driver called into the station the next day and reported the theft of his car keys?

In my opinion he has no authority to do so. I think there would be a valid defence by the Garda to any claim of theft, under section 4 of Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud offences) Act 2001. But my honest opinion after seeing many people charged under section 50 of the RTA in the exact circumstances described by the OP. It would be a nasty person who would complain the Garda.

Bosco boy

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Bosco boy wrote: »

I'm just being the devils advocate but what power has the Garda to take the keys, when not arresting the driver for the alleged offence. What if the driver called into the station the next day and reported the theft of his car keys?

Theft requires an act of dishonesty.

I agree and one of the ingredients is "to permanently deprive the owner thereof", but what legal power is there to take them?

MagicSean

Bosco boy wrote: »

I agree and one of the ingredients is "to permanently deprive the owner thereof", but what legal power is there to take them?

You don't need a legal power to do something if it is not illegal.

ResearchWill

Bosco boy wrote: »

I agree and one of the ingredients is "to permanently deprive the owner thereof", but what legal power is there to take them?

“depriving” means temporarily or permanently depriving.

But I do believe that the Garda would still have a valid defence, under section 4,


(4) If at the trial of a person for theft the court or jury, as the case may be has to consider whether the person believed—

(a) that he or she had not acted dishonestly, or

(b) that the owner of the property concerned had consented or would have consented to its appropriation, or

(c) that the owner could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps,

Important bit is the Garda had not act dishonestly.

Bosco boy

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Bosco boy wrote: »

I agree and one of the ingredients is "to permanently deprive the owner thereof", but what legal power is there to take them?

You don't need a legal power to do something if it is not illegal.

what If pal calls in the next day and makes a complaint that He was sitting in his car eating chips when a Garda came along and took his car keys and now he wants to know why?

ResearchWill

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

You don't need a legal power to do something if it is not illegal.

It is not illegal to stop a person on the street to ask him his name and address, but a Garda still requires a legal power to do just that.

ResearchWill

Bosco boy wrote: »

what If pal calls in the next day and makes a complaint that He was sitting in his car eating chips when a Garda came along and took his car keys and now he wants to know why?

Well then the pal makes a complaint, to Garda Ombudsman, Garda is investigated, possibly gets into trouble. In the future any Garda finds a guy breaking the law people will wonder why did he not give me a break, and let me off.

I suppose dammed if he does and dammed if he does not, for once I am kinda feeling sorry for a Garda, doing a guy a favour. No wonder more and more are playing just by the book.

Bosco boy

ResearchWill wrote: »

Bosco boy wrote: »

what If pal calls in the next day and makes a complaint that He was sitting in his car eating chips when a Garda came along and took his car keys and now he wants to know why?

Well then the pal makes a complaint, to Garda Ombudsman, Garda is investigated, possibly gets into trouble. In the future any Garda finds a guy breaking the law people will wonder why did he not give me a break, and let me off.

I suppose dammed if he does and dammed if he does not, for once I am kinda feeling sorry for a Garda, doing a guy a favour. No wonder more and more are playing just by the book.

spot on!

seamus

ResearchWill wrote: »

It is not illegal to stop a person on the street to ask him his name and address, but a Garda still requires a legal power to do just that.

Actually a Garda needs a legal power to demand a name and address. I can ask you all I like, but you don't have to answer me.

bath handle

I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of the guard to come up with a plausible explanation. Keys needed as evidence in a suspected crime, keys being used as a weapon, drunk unable to confirm ownership of the keys. A guard has extensive powers under the road traffic act to give directions to a driver.

Marcusm

ResearchWill wrote: »

Well then the pal makes a complaint, to Garda Ombudsman, Garda is investigated, possibly gets into trouble. In the future any Garda finds a guy breaking the law people will wonder why did he not give me a break, and let me off.

I suppose dammed if he does and dammed if he does not, for once I am kinda feeling sorry for a Garda, doing a guy a favour. No wonder more and more are playing just by the book.

I assume that the Garda made a request for the keys rather than a demand. The incapacity of the complainant would presumably be taken into account in considering any complaint. Again this is the sort of thing which should be covered in guidance for Garda or is it simply a matter of discretion. Would feel that the Gardawould be hard one by in the instance of a complaint.

mcgarrett

As a Garda on duty one night i observe John Smith a bit under the weather getting in the passenger side of his car.

I go over and during the course of the conversation he tells me it's his car and the keys are in his pocket but he intends to let back the seat and sleep for the night.

Just for arguments sake let's say he has no money for a taxi and no other way of getting home. He is stuck where he is but not drunk enough to be a danger to himself or others but he is clearly over the limit for driving.

Rather than arrest him I take his keys to ensure he does not drive.

I take them to protect him and other road users he may meet from injury or death in the event that his attempt to drive home causes an accident.

Part of the oath taken by a Garda is to protect life and property and the action taken by me may not be covered by written law but is well within the unwritten or common law.

Jo King

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1961

"20.—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána observes a mechanically propelled vehicle or combination of vehicles in a public place and he suspects that there is a defect affecting the vehicle or combination which is such that it is, when in use, a danger to the public or, in the case of a public service vehicle, there is a defect affecting it which is such that either it is a danger to the public or it is rendered unfit for the carriage of passengers, he may inspect and examine the vehicle or combination and, for the purpose of carrying out the inspection and examination, may do all such things and make all such requirements in relation to it as are reasonably necessary."

It seems reasonably clear that taking away the keys to forestall against the possibility of a vehicle being driven by a drunk driver is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I can't imagine any court convicting a guard who acted in good faith.

ResearchWill

Jo King wrote: »

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1961

"20.—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána observes a mechanically propelled vehicle or combination of vehicles in a public place and he suspects that there is a defect affecting the vehicle or combination which is such that it is, when in use, a danger to the public or, in the case of a public service vehicle, there is a defect affecting it which is such that either it is a danger to the public or it is rendered unfit for the carriage of passengers, he may inspect and examine the vehicle or combination and, for the purpose of carrying out the inspection and examination, may do all such things and make all such requirements in relation to it as are reasonably necessary."

It seems reasonably clear that taking away the keys to forestall against the possibility of a vehicle being driven by a drunk driver is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I can't imagine any court convicting a guard who acted in good faith.

For this section to apply there must be a defect to the car not the driver.

Bosco boy

Jo King wrote: »

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1961

"20.—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána observes a mechanically propelled vehicle or combination of vehicles in a public place and he suspects that there is a defect affecting the vehicle or combination which is such that it is, when in use, a danger to the public or, in the case of a public service vehicle, there is a defect affecting it which is such that either it is a danger to the public or it is rendered unfit for the carriage of passengers, he may inspect and examine the vehicle or combination and, for the purpose of carrying out the inspection and examination, may do all such things and make all such requirements in relation to it as are reasonably necessary."

It seems reasonably clear that taking away the keys to forestall against the possibility of a vehicle being driven by a drunk driver is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I can't imagine any court convicting a guard who acted in good faith.

a lot of law has come in since 1961

Jo King

Bosco boy wrote: »

a lot of law has come in since 1961

You don't say!

Victor

bath handle wrote: »

I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of the guard to come up with a plausible explanation. Keys needed as evidence in a suspected crime, keys being used as a weapon, drunk unable to confirm ownership of the keys.

But none of this would be true.

A guard has extensive powers under the road traffic act to give directions to a driver.

Those directions have to be reasonable and legal.

Jo King wrote: »

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1961

"20.—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána observes a mechanically propelled vehicle or combination of vehicles in a public place and he suspects that there is a defect affecting the vehicle or combination which is such that it is, when in use, a danger to the public or, in the case of a public service vehicle, there is a defect affecting it which is such that either it is a danger to the public or it is rendered unfit for the carriage of passengers, he may inspect and examine the vehicle or combination and, for the purpose of carrying out the inspection and examination, may do all such things and make all such requirements in relation to it as are reasonably necessary."

It seems reasonably clear that taking away the keys to forestall against the possibility of a vehicle being driven by a drunk driver is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I can't imagine any court convicting a guard who acted in good faith.

I agree witht he previous poster who said this applies only to the vehicle, not hte driver. I largely agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning.

Bosco boy wrote: »

a lot of law has come in since 1961

It is still the relevant law (as amended). Just because something is old, does not mean it is bad - gravity has worked for a long time, would you suggest that it stop, simply because it is old?

Bosco boy

Victor wrote: »

bath handle wrote: »

I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of the guard to come up with a plausible explanation. Keys needed as evidence in a suspected crime, keys being used as a weapon, drunk unable to confirm ownership of the keys.

But none of this would be true.

A guard has extensive powers under the road traffic act to give directions to a driver.

Those directions have to be reasonable and legal.

Jo King wrote: »

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1961

"20.—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána observes a mechanically propelled vehicle or combination of vehicles in a public place and he suspects that there is a defect affecting the vehicle or combination which is such that it is, when in use, a danger to the public or, in the case of a public service vehicle, there is a defect affecting it which is such that either it is a danger to the public or it is rendered unfit for the carriage of passengers, he may inspect and examine the vehicle or combination and, for the purpose of carrying out the inspection and examination, may do all such things and make all such requirements in relation to it as are reasonably necessary."

It seems reasonably clear that taking away the keys to forestall against the possibility of a vehicle being driven by a drunk driver is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I can't imagine any court convicting a guard who acted in good faith.

I agree witht he previous poster who said this applies only to the vehicle, not hte driver. I largely agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning.

Bosco boy wrote: »

a lot of law has come in since 1961

It is still the relevant law (as amended). Just because something is old, does not mean it is bad - gravity has worked for a long time, would you suggest that it stop, simply because it is old?

I didn't say it was bad but the relevant law to drunk in charge is section 50 of the RTA 1961 as amended on various occassions over the decades. My question was about that offence and the power to take the keys to prevent a breach.

james sherwin

jonny24ie wrote: »

If you have the keys in the ignition you can be done for drink driving.

Hi There.....

I have the same point of view in this regards...... If you have keys in the ignition then anyone can makeup his mind against you regarding the drink and drive offense....

Regards....
James Sherwin