nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?)

Find more posts tagged with

getting drunk

Quick Links

Comments

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