What is the Garda policy on reports of drink driving??

meglome

So my neighbour arrives in last night so drunk he's having real trouble getting out of the car he's just been driven up in. The guy is absolutely hammered. I'm personally not against going down there today and having a direct word. Anyway while we were watching herself rings the Guards to ask what to do about it and is told that there is nothing they can do. Now perhaps I'm being naive here but I would have thought the least they would do is come around and warn the guy off. Is this normal? Thankfully it's been very rare to see anyone drive in that state, mostly in the US for me. What should the Guards be doing here?

(Not sure if this is the right place for this so feel free to move)

No Pants

Once he's left the car and safely in the house, they haven't observed him actually driving the car. If they call round, he probably won't answer the door. If he did, he should answer with a beer in his hand, just to muddy the waters.

Pro Hoc Vice

meglome wrote: »

So my neighbour arrives in last night so drunk he's having real trouble getting out of the car he's just been driven up in. The guy is absolutely hammered. I'm personally not against going down there today and having a direct word. Anyway while we were watching herself rings the Guards to ask what to do about it and is told that there is nothing they can do. Now perhaps I'm being naive here but I would have thought the least they would do is come around and warn the guy off. Is this normal? Thankfully it's been very rare to see anyone drive in that state, mostly in the US for me. What should the Guards be doing here?

(Not sure if this is the right place for this so feel free to move)

Because AGS know there is nothing they can do because of a little thing called the law. Intoxicated driving law is very complex and requires a number of proofs before the Court. To get a sample AGS must arrest or ask a person to accompany them to Garda station, to arrest they must observe the person driving in a public place and must take the sample within 3 hours of that observation. As the offence is not what is classed as a arrest-able offence a member of the public van not perform the arrest.

AGS should do what they always do and that is observe drivers on the public road and get the required evidence.

meglome

No Pants wrote: »

Once he's left the car and safely in the house, they haven't observed him actually driving the car. If they call round, he probably won't answer the door. If he did, he should answer with a beer in his hand, just to muddy the waters.

Sure I appreciate the guy probably won't make a threshold confession.

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Because AGS know there is nothing they can do because of a little thing called the law. Intoxicated driving law is very complex and requires a number of proofs before the Court. To get a sample AGS must arrest or ask a person to accompany them to Garda station, to arrest they must observe the person driving in a public place and must take the sample within 3 hours of that observation. As the offence is not what is classed as a arrest-able offence a member of the public van not perform the arrest.

AGS should do what they always do and that is observe drivers on the public road and get the required evidence.

As I said above perhaps I am being naive here but surely if a report comes in of someone in that state they should do something. A call to the door might just be the thing that puts the guy off doing it again, even if for a while. What would the UK cops do in that situation?

Pro Hoc Vice

meglome wrote: »

Sure I appreciate the guy probably won't make a threshold confession.



As I said above perhaps I am being naive here but surely if a report comes in of someone in that state they should do something. A call to the door might just be the thing that puts the guy off doing it again, even if for a while. What would the UK cops do in that situation?

They would do exactly the same. So you think AGS should turn up at someone's door, who they have no verifiable evidence has broken any law, whom they can not prosecute and they should have a chat?

For issues like public order, theft and many other crimes where the evidence of the person who say the event is enough to get a conviction that's fine, but for intoxicated driving it is not.

If a person reports a driver leaving a party or the pub AGS will look out for the car and will if they find the car stop it and gather the evidence needed for a conviction.

Zambia

meglome wrote: »

So my neighbour arrives in last night so drunk he's having real trouble getting out of the car he's just been driven up in. The guy is absolutely hammered. I'm personally not against going down there today and having a direct word. Anyway while we were watching herself rings the Guards to ask what to do about it and is told that there is nothing they can do. Now perhaps I'm being naive here but I would have thought the least they would do is come around and warn the guy off. Is this normal? Thankfully it's been very rare to see anyone drive in that state, mostly in the US for me. What should the Guards be doing here?

(Not sure if this is the right place for this so feel free to move)

Sadly not much they can do. Don't worry his day will come

coylemj

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So you think AGS should turn up at someone's door, who they have no verifiable evidence has broken any law, whom they can not prosecute and they should have a chat?

The other issue is that the Gardai are wary of getting such reports as some of then come from neighbours with an axe to grind about petty disputes, they call the Gardai expecting some kind of scene which they can gossip about the next day - 'did ye see the patrol car calling on the Murphys last night?'

The cops are not going to knock on someone's door when it will achieve nothing and often ends in a PFO response on the doorstep.

Gardai: Hello Mrs. Murphy, is your husband at home?
Mrs Murphy: Yes but he's gone to bed, what it's about?
Gardai: Oh, nothing. Good night so.

meglome

Sure I get it I really do but I can't help but be frustrated that nothing can be done here. The guy is driving a very large car drunk of out of his head... a lethal weapon as far as I'm concerned. Anyways I'll have a chat with him, he might not appreciate it but **** him.

Ken.

Say nothing to him. Chat to the cops and tell them what pub he normally drinks in and the route he'd take home. Guaranteed the cops will have a check point on the road in the next 2-3 weeks.

slimjimmc

+1
By approaching him you'll be marking yourself as #1 target for bad blood between you and him, and perhaps you and other neighbours too (some might view you as a 'snitch') if he get's caught anytime in the future. Just let the Gardaí watch out for him, if he makes a habit of DD he mightn't escape for long.

conorh91

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

They would do exactly the same. So you think AGS should turn up at someone's door, who they have no verifiable evidence has broken any law, whom they can not prosecute and they should have a chat?

I don't think there is a suggesting of the law of evidence or criminal procedure be corrupted. There is no question of a prosecution, just AGS making their presence felt where complaints are made.

AGS don't require "verifiable evidence" to make enquiries after a complaint has been made. I'm not aware of any legal bar to such pro-active engagement.

What the user is suggesting is akin to the new SAP style of community policing.

I suspect the lack of a response is a matter of resources as opposed to Garda non-interest.

Kimbot

Reminds me of an incident a few years ago. Was living with my sister and her family. It was during summer and only about 9.30 pm. We were chatting in the back garden when we heard a massive bang just over the wall. The house is a corner house so we look over the wall and there's a car up in the green with 4 now burst tyres. It was one of the neighbours and he was hammered driving the car. Guards arrived a few minutes later but his car was now in his garden and he was sound asleep in bed according to his wife. Guards just left and about 10 minutes later the clown was out in his garden drinking again with some neighbours. its a disgrace they cannot do anything about it but unless the guards catch them in control of the vehicle then they can do nothing.

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

I don't think there is a suggesting of the law of evidence or criminal procedure be corrupted. There is no question of a prosecution, just AGS making their presence felt where complaints are made.

AGS don't require "verifiable evidence" to make enquiries after a complaint has been made. I'm not aware of any legal bar to such pro-active engagement.

What the user is suggesting is akin to the new SAP style of community policing.

I suspect the lack of a response is a matter of resources as opposed to Garda non-interest.

My post made it clear that intoxicated driving is different to almost any other type of complaint. Example am assault situation AGS can of course respond and investigate and prosecute if necessary. Because of the proofs needed in intoxicated driving such an approach would at best be a waste of time.

conorh91

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

My post made it clear that intoxicated driving is different to almost any other type of complaint. Example am assault situation AGS can of course respond and investigate and prosecute if necessary. Because of the proofs needed in intoxicated driving such an approach would at best be a waste of time.

Again, the question of a prosecution does not arise in these circumstances.

But in between criminal prosecution and general lawlessness, there is a space that is filled by community policing. This consists of informal approaches, informal contacts, and other discreet activities that are in line with the new SAP program and are intended as preventative, prospective policing activities.

This is not much of a legal question, it's a policing question, and needs to be approached in that manner. I'm sure AGS were correct in not making an approach in this case if, indeed, that is what happened. But similarly, I'm sure it has been noted by the member who received the complaint and for whatever reason he has chosen not to act on it yet. Yet, in some drink-driving reports a member could make an approach, and he may be entirely correct in doing so.

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

Again, the question of a prosecution does not arise in these circumstances.

But in between criminal prosecution and general lawlessness, there is a space that is filled by community policing. This consists of informal approaches, informal contacts, and other discreet activities that are in line with the new SAP program and are intended as preventative, prospective policing activities.

This is not much of a legal question, it's a policing question, and needs to be approached in that manner. I'm sure AGS were correct in not making an approach in this case if, indeed, that is what happened. But similarly, I'm sure it has been noted by the member who received the complaint and for whatever reason he has chosen not to act on it yet. Yet, in some drink-driving reports a member could make an approach, and he may be entirely correct in doing so.

I personally think such community policing can work in say allegations of public order etc because a prosecution can come of it, in the case of intoxicated driving it would not work.

But it may have happened in this case for all any of us know, but as a person who does not drink drive if I was approached in such a way by AGS I would very nicely tell the member to pfo.

conorh91

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

But it may have happened in this case for all any of us know, but as a person who does not drink drive if I was approached in such a way by AGS I would very nicely tell the member to pfo.

You can choose to be rude if you want and it is a great endorsement of our police force that this is your right.

Personally, I think it is also a great endorsement of our police service that it can knock on doors, show its presence, and generally sticking its nose in like a nosey neighbour, even where it isn't always wanted. That's community policing.

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

You can choose to be rude if you want and it is a great endorsement of our police force that this is your right.

Personally, I think it is also a great endorsement of our police service that it can knock on doors, show its presence, and generally sticking its nose in like a nosey neighbour, even where it isn't always wanted. That's community policing.

And I disagree with that type of policing as it led to children being put into care up untill the late 1990's for no other reason than I'm being nosey. I still have to deal with the after effects of that on a professional basis.

I agree with the guardians of the peace policing as we don't have a police force, not I'm being nosey. Also please before the FO is bring polite.

I believe in the rule of law not the rule of AGS.

conorh91

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

And I disagree with that type of policing as it led to children being put into care up untill the late 1990's for no other reason than I'm being nosey. I still have to deal with the after effects of that on a professional basis.

There's no need to dramatize this or resort to the fallacy of the slippery slope.

We're talking about a Garda making an informal approach about a drink driving complaint, without prejudice. The children of Ireland should sleep safe.

clairek6

You actually only need to be caught in charge of a vehicle i.e with the engine running not physically driving it on a road

No Pants

clairek6 wrote: »

You actually only need to be caught in charge of a vehicle i.e with the engine running not physically driving it on a road

Actually, no. Intent to drive is enough.

clairek6

No Pants wrote: »

Actually, no. Intent to drive is enough.

Thats what I meant.

Pro Hoc Vice

clairek6 wrote: »

You actually only need to be caught in charge of a vehicle i.e with the engine running not physically driving it on a road

It does not even need the engine running.

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

There's no need to dramatize this or resort to the fallacy of the slippery slope.

We're talking about a Garda making an informal approach about a drink driving complaint, without prejudice. The children of Ireland should sleep safe.

No slippery slope just the reality of working outside the rule of law. I love how you ignored the rest of my post. As a person who has admitted to never having run a case I should expect no less.

source

clairek6 wrote: »

Thats what I meant.

Drunk in charge is a different offence to drink driving.

As for the informal word at the door, it doesn't work, and is a waste of time for an organisation that is already massively under resourced.

conorh91

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No slippery slope just the reality of working outside the rule of law.

The policing of the nature I describe is not contrary to the rule of law. While there may be elements of arbitrariness in such approaches, there is no question of penal sanction; it's a forward-looking process whereby Gardaí aim to prevent prosecutions before they ever arise, in as non-intrusive a way as possible.

I love how you ignored the rest of my post. As a person who has admitted to never having run a case I should expect no less.

"Admitted"?

I certainly volunteered that I have no knowledge, exposure or experience of the law, I simply have an opinion and that is what i am offering here. Please feel free to ignore it.

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

The policing of the nature I describe is not contrary to the rule of law. While there may be elements of arbitrariness in such approaches, there is no question of penal sanction; it's a forward-looking process whereby Gardaí aim to prevent prosecutions before they ever arise, in as non-intrusive a way as possible.

"Admitted"?

I certainly volunteered that I have no knowledge, exposure or experience of the law, I simply have an opinion and that is what i am offering here. Please feel free to ignore it.

The problem with the approach you advocate is that other than a very small % of the population most people do not understand the law, I for various reasons know the ins and outs of intoxicated driving law to know when a member is taking the piss. It's not in my opinion the role of AGS to set the moral tone. While I do admire much of what they do and in most cases it's right in this case it is not.

coylemj

I'm pretty sure that the OP's neighbour gets stick from his wife and children for drink driving, I really can't see that a 'chat' on the doorstep from the Gardai will make a blind bit of difference. He needs to be caught in the act, convicted and put off the road, that's the only way he will get the message.

Kimbot

Once the key is in the ignition that's when they can do you.
A few years ago I was out with a few friends and we were just parked up chatting away. I was sitting in the driver seat with my legs out the door. Because the keys were in the ignition, even though the engine etc wasn't running I was considered in charge of the car at that point. I didn't have my own car with me so licence wasn't at hand even tho the owner was there and had theirs etc I had to produce within the 10 days and my mate was considered my passenger. A bit mad but that's how they handle it.

lighterman

No Pants wrote: »

Actually, no. Intent to drive is enough.

Actually I think you're wrong. It's in charge of a vehicle.

Example: if I were to return to my car and drunk to go for asleep whilst parked on a public roadway and stick the keys in the ignition for the heating or radio doing so without having any intention to drive I can still be prosecuted.

On that note can anyone tell me if I could have been done for this.

Some years ago I returned to car drunk, put the keys under spare wheel in boot and slept in passenger seat.

Sorry for hijacking thread

Pro Hoc Vice

lighterman wrote: »

Actually I think you're wrong. It's in charge of a vehicle.

Example: if I were to return to my car and drunk to go for asleep whilst parked on a public roadway and stick the keys in the ignition for the heating or radio doing so without having any intention to drive I can still be prosecuted.

On that note can anyone tell me if I could have been done for this.

Some years ago I returned to car drunk, put the keys under spare wheel in boot and slept in passenger seat.

Sorry for hijacking thread

The offence is being in charge with the intention to drive, once the procution prove the first part of that "in charge" then it is presumed until the contrary is proven that the person intended to drive. If the defendant can prove no intention to drive then no conviction.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0025/sec0005.html#sec5

5.— (1) A person commits an offence if, when in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place with intent to drive or attempt to drive the vehicle (but not driving or attempting to drive it), he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

(8) In a prosecution for an offence under this section it shall be presumed that the defendant intended to drive or attempt to drive the vehicle concerned until he or she shows the contrary.

In answer to the question posed, it all depends when you do intend to drive the car, if the intention is to sleep in car and next morning go for a shower and feed and a days work before returning to car then no intention. If on the other hand you intend to sleep then wake up and drive that has been held to be intention to drive.