Gardai have started seizing handsets as well as issuing fines?

Comhrá

Is this true or just scaremongering by the Gardai? I've never heard of them seizing any offending driver's phone.

"Gardai have started seizing handsets as well as issuing fines."

http://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/gardai-issue-warning-after-woman-12556831

Gardai have issued a stark warning to motorists after a woman was caught eating a plate of chicken curry while driving.

The offence was just one of a spate of bizarre and dangerous practices observed by road traffic Gardai in the last week.

Officers from the traffic corps in Naas, Co Kildare pulled over a motorist who was shaving his face while driving on the M7 motorway.

And just days earlier the same garda unit stopped a multi-tasking driver who was watching a cricket match on his mobile phone while behind the wheel.

Garda Ronan Mannion said the woman had a full plate of chicken curry in front of her when stopped.

He added: “She had her knife and fork on the steering wheel.”

The male driver caught shaving in a traffic jam was pulled over and fined €80.

Naas-based Garda Mannion warned: “One little mistake is all it takes. Try to plan your journey ahead, rather than being distracted looking at Google maps.

“Pull in if you need to. Shave, brush your teeth, put on your make-up before driving.”

The Road Safety Authority also warned that driver distraction could be a contributory factor in more than 1,400 fatal and serious injury collisions each year.

RSA spokesperson Brian Farrell said: “When driving, the road should have your full attention. Driver distraction diverts attention from activities that are critical for safe driving.
Is this true or just scaremongering?

I've never heard of the Guards seizing any motorist's phone



“A distraction can be visual, manual or cognitive and can at times result in complete loss of control.

"Based on international evidence it is estimated that it could play a role in 20 to 30% of all road collisions in this country.”

Mobile phone use is still the biggest driver offence and Gardai have started seizing handsets as well as issuing fines.

The other five top dangerous driver distractions are using a tablet or laptop, sexual acts, putting on make-up, brushing your hair and eating.

Road deaths rose by 15% in 2016, and figures indicate that one in five drivers involved in a crash were not wearing a seat belt.

colm_mcm

http://m.herald.ie/news/gardai-cannot-enforce-law-on-drivers-texting-31565989.html

But there are still no plans to give gardai power to seize mobile phones to examine them.

This failure, said road safety campaigner Susan Gray, was "completely baffling".

Gardai have chosen instead to prosecute offenders for holding a mobile phone.

"We raised this and other issues with the Minister in January," said Ms Gray from the road safety group Parc (Public Against Road Carnage).

"We told him the law (on texting) is unworkable because gardai were never given the powers to seize or examine someone's mobile phone.

Comhrá

But there are still no plans to give gardai power to seize mobile phones to examine them.

This failure, said road safety campaigner Susan Gray, was "completely baffling".

Gardai have chosen instead to prosecute offenders for holding a mobile phone.

"We raised this and other issues with the Minister in January," said Ms Gray from the road safety group Parc (Public Against Road Carnage).

"We told him the law (on texting) is unworkable because gardai were never given the powers to seize or examine someone's mobile phone.
Greg Harkin – 29 September 2015 03:00 AM

That was 16 months ago. The link I quoted was today's.

http://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/gardai-issue-warning-after-woman-12556831

colm_mcm

Oh yeah, I read it earlier. But there hasn't been any change in law or new Garda powers since then?

Comhrá

colm_mcm wrote: »

Oh yeah, I read it earlier. But there hasn't been any change in law or new Garda powers since then?

Don't think so, but I was surprised to see the comment in my quoted story that the Guards said they had started seizing handsets?

Somehow I doubt it but why would they be saying that sort of thing? I suspect they're scaremongering.

colm_mcm

I suspect the article you posted is just rehashing the Garda twitter feed without much further work.

Shannon757

I see a lot of people on the phone while driving but I haven't seen a sexual act.

Samuel T. Cogley

They would have a power to seize the handset for evidence.

antodeco

Shannon757 wrote: »

I see a lot of people on the phone while driving but I haven't seen a sexual act.

That means you're the one giving the sexual acts!

colm_mcm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

They would have a power to seize the handset for evidence.

Where there hasn't been an accident? Since when?

Samuel T. Cogley

colm_mcm wrote: »

Where there hasn't been an accident? Since when?

If they're progressing a court prosecution then they have the power to gather evidence. Whether they're doing it where FPNs are being issued I don't know the article doesn't make that clear.

Perhaps they still have the power on the basis of the FPN being disputed.

gctest50

colm_mcm wrote: »

Where there hasn't been an accident? Since when?

Weaving all over the road, phone ?

Must be on drugs or OMG dealing drugs - off to the station with you for 3 days

tayto lover

A woman eating a plate of chicken curry while driving ??? I've heard it all now.

Samuel T. Cogley

Just did some quick digging there:

Criminal Justice Act 2006

7.—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána who is in—

(a) a public place, or

(b) any other place under a power of entry authorised by law or to which or in which he or she was expressly or impliedly invited or permitted to be,

finds or comes into possession of any thing, and he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that it is evidence of, or relating to, the commission of an arrestable offence, he or she may seize and retain the thing for use as evidence in any criminal proceedings for such period from the date of seizure as is reasonable or, if proceedings are commenced in which the thing so seized is required for use in evidence, until the conclusion of the proceedings, and thereafter the Police (Property) Act 1897 shall apply to the thing so seized in the same manner as that Act applies to property which has come into the possession of the Garda Síochána in the circumstances mentioned in that Act.

(2) If it is represented or appears to a member of the Garda Síochána proposing to seize or retain a document under this section that the document was, or may have been, made for the purpose of obtaining, giving or communicating legal advice from or by a barrister or solicitor, the member shall not seize or retain the document unless he or she suspects with reasonable cause that the document was not made, or is not intended, solely for any of the purposes aforesaid.

(3) The power under this section to seize and retain evidence is without prejudice to any other power conferred by statute or otherwise exercisable by a member of the Garda Síochána to seize and retain evidence of, or relating to, the commission or attempted commission of an offence.

So for example in the case of dangerous driving it's perfectly reasonable. I'm sure there are a few other changes that they could come up with that would be arrestable offenses.

This is assuming of course there's no new additional power or some common law power.

whiskeyman

tayto lover wrote: »

A woman eating a plate of chicken curry while driving ??? I've heard it all now.

She could have crashed and gone into a korma...

D3V!L

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Just did some quick digging there:

Criminal Justice Act 2006

7.—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána who is in—

(a) a public place, or

(b) any other place under a power of entry authorised by law or to which or in which he or she was expressly or impliedly invited or permitted to be,

finds or comes into possession of any thing, and he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that it is evidence of, or relating to, the commission of an arrestable offence, he or she may seize and retain the thing for use as evidence in any criminal proceedings for such period from the date of seizure as is reasonable or, if proceedings are commenced in which the thing so seized is required for use in evidence, until the conclusion of the proceedings, and thereafter the Police (Property) Act 1897 shall apply to the thing so seized in the same manner as that Act applies to property which has come into the possession of the Garda Síochána in the circumstances mentioned in that Act.

(2) If it is represented or appears to a member of the Garda Síochána proposing to seize or retain a document under this section that the document was, or may have been, made for the purpose of obtaining, giving or communicating legal advice from or by a barrister or solicitor, the member shall not seize or retain the document unless he or she suspects with reasonable cause that the document was not made, or is not intended, solely for any of the purposes aforesaid.

(3) The power under this section to seize and retain evidence is without prejudice to any other power conferred by statute or otherwise exercisable by a member of the Garda Síochána to seize and retain evidence of, or relating to, the commission or attempted commission of an offence.

So for example in the case of dangerous driving it's perfectly reasonable. I'm sure there are a few other changes that they could come up with that would be arrestable offenses.

This is assuming of course there's no new additional power or some common law power.

So yes, they can take your phone. About time I say

colm_mcm

The article I linked from 2015 makes no sense then.

SmartinMartin

That power only relates to an arrestable offence, ie and offence which carries a punishment of a minimum of 5 years imprisonment.

Samuel T. Cogley

D3V!L wrote: »

So yes, they can take your phone. About time I say

colm_mcm wrote: »

The article I linked from 2015 makes no sense then.

It's only for arrestable offences. You were right to call out my hasty assertion that they can gather evidence in all cases. I'm sure there's other creative charges that could be come up with and probably more powers than I'm aware of though.

My reading of it is they're only seizing phones where they're not issuing fines, so for example dangerous driving.

tayto lover

whiskeyman wrote: »

She could have crashed and gone into a korma...

Chow mein of her not to share it.

Special Circumstances

tayto lover wrote: »

Chow mein of her not to share it.

Saving it for her naan.

tayto lover

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Saving it for her naan.

I'm Foo Young to remember my naan.

GM228

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

So for example in the case of dangerous driving it's perfectly reasonable. I'm sure there are a few other changes that they could come up with that would be arrestable offenses.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

My reading of it is they're only seizing phones where they're not issuing fines, so for example dangerous driving.

Just a small point - dangerous driving isn't an arrestable offence, dangerous driving causing bodily harm or death however is.

Gardaí can't seize a phone from a vehicle otherwise bar a few situations under S8 or S9 of the Criminal Law Act 1976.

topmanamillion

Guards should be immediately given the power to take phones off drivers and smash them with their foot.
People on their phones are absolutely taking the p1ss. Its rare I go for even a short drive without seeing at least 5 people on their phones.
There is no way you can be concentrating on the road and talking/texting on a phone.

drunkmonkey

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

They would have a power to seize the handset for evidence.

They should in their ass, my phone is my lifeline to my businesses, family and friends taking it off me can put any of them in danger as the buck stops with me in a lot of cases. (There's 6 alarms linked to it)
If the want to have a look at the text or call times and there in the time I've been observed then they can take a picture for evidence but taking my actual phone is not going to happen unless they want to assume responsibility for my life and what happens from that moment on.

drunkmonkey

topmanamillion wrote: »

Guards should be immediately given the power to take phones off drivers and smash them with their foot.
People on their phones are absolutely taking the p1ss. Its rare I go for even a short drive without seeing at least 5 people on their phones.
There is no way you can be concentrating on the road and talking/texting on a phone.

A working car kit should be mandatory for anyone with a phone.

Samuel T. Cogley

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They should in their ass, my phone is my lifeline to my businesses, family and friends taking it off me can put any of them in danger as the buck stops with me in a lot of cases. (There's 6 alarms linked to it)
If the want to have a look at the text or call times and there in the time I've been observed then they can take a picture for evidence but taking my actual phone is not going to happen unless they want to assume responsibility for my life and what happens from that moment on.

Err... just don't use it when driving?

ironclaw

Question though, can they compel you to unlock your phone? Perhaps I'm watching too much CSI but isn't the onus on the State to prove you are guilty and by unlocking a phone you are being coerced into a potential confession?

Samuel T. Cogley

ironclaw wrote: »

Question though, can they compel you to unlock your phone? Perhaps I'm watching too much CSI but isn't the onus on the State to prove you are guilty and by unlocking a phone you are being coerced into a potential confession?

As much as I think the provision is unconstitutional, yes there is with a failure to do so resulting in up to six months. I'll see if I can dig it out.

Edit: S15 Criminal Justice Act 2011

GM228

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

As much as I think the provision is unconstitutional, yes there is with a failure to do so resulting in up to six months. I'll see if I can dig it out.

Edit: S15 Criminal Justice Act 2011

S15 requires a court order and is only applicable to certain arrestable offence relating to the banking/financial sector, company law, money laundering, terrorism, theft, fraud, bribery, corruption and criminal damage.

It's use is limited and can't be used for other offences such as motoring offences.

Special Circumstances

GM228 wrote: »

S15 requires a court order and is only applicable to certain arrestable offence relating to the banking/financial sector, company law, money laundering, terrorism, theft, fraud, bribery, corruption and criminal damage.

It's use is limited and can't be used for other offences such as motoring offences.

Ah here, next you'll be saying freezing bank accounts and seizing passports would be an over-reaction to crossing a solid white line :pac:

Samuel T. Cogley

GM228 wrote: »

S15 requires a court order and is only applicable to certain arrestable offence relating to the banking/financial sector, company law, money laundering, terrorism, theft, fraud, bribery, corruption and criminal damage.

It's use is limited and can't be used for other offences such as motoring offences.

Thanks for the correction and I was hoping you'd show up :pac:

Any thoughts on seizure for non-arrestable offences, or is this article the product of it happening on one or two relevant occasions and the writer jumping to a conclusion.

Del2005

ironclaw wrote: »

Question though, can they compel you to unlock your phone? Perhaps I'm watching too much CSI but isn't the onus on the State to prove you are guilty and by unlocking a phone you are being coerced into a potential confession?

Difference between CSI and road traffic offences is that for crimes which involve CSI you are innocent till proven guilty and IIRC you can't be forced to incriminate yourself. Driving is a privilege that can be revoked easily and it's up to you to prove you didn't use the phone, obviously if it's a serious enough offence it'll go back to the innocent till proven guilty and the Gardaí would be allowed to seize the phone as evidence.

daveharnett

drunkmonkey wrote: »

my phone is my lifeline to my businesses, family and friends

Lots of people feel their car/license is a "lifeline", they are much harder to replace than a phone, and they are seized/revoked all the time.

There seems to be broad consensus that it's OK for the state to take your stuff if you are using it to endanger the public.