Got a call from my eldest lad last night.
He was woken up after 1 0'clock in the morning, by two police officers knocking on his door.
They asked him to identify himself and asked him where his car was.
He told them "Here, around the corner, on the drive".
Except that it wasn't.
One officer smelled beer on his breath and asked him "Have you had been drinking?"
He told them that he had had two pints earlier on. (He never has more than two when he has work the following day and ALWAYS gets a taxi to and from the pub).
He was promptly cautioned and arrested for drink driving.
(The police had found his car crashed)
He spent a night in the cells and was released the following morning, despite explaining that he hadn't ben out in his car and there were witnesses including the taxi drivers.
Today the cheeky b*st*rds sent him a letter stating that the matter had been dropped and they would not pursue the matter. Not even a bloody apology!
I told him to sue the pratts for wrongful arrest.
He has been sweating blood in case he lost his license and thus his job.
What arseholes!

I can understand him being arrested.......... but why did it take so long to get confirmation from the taxi drivers or did they hold him even though they had the evidence all night??

Just hope they are putting as much effort into finding the scum who nicked and crashed his car now???

You're obviously annoyed but you have to look at it from an outside, independent view. You have several posts now showing your dislike for the police and tbh not based on anything inparticular.
Think about it. You find a crashed vehicle that has or hasn't been reported but either way the driver has fled, so you look up the owner and go to their address to find that they've been drinking.
Now it's reasonable to suspect that as the vehicle hasn't been reported stolen and you're faced with an intoxicated driver that they may have been driving it. There's no other reason currently presenting themselves for the car to be there at the time you find it.
No one likes a drink driver right? So the driver is arrested on suspicion of drink driving. This is done so that they can be taken back and tested on the machine to see how much alcohol is in their body. To preserve the evidence should the person be charged. It simply isn't enough to leave them to return to bed and turn up the day after as the evidence would be lost.
Whilst the person is in custody they await until they're sober and then are interviewed to obtain their version of events and then in most cases bailed whilst their story is checked up.
In all it's not too unreasonable but yes I understand frustrating but you need to look at things independently.
I know you'll think I'm talking out of my arse because of what I do for a living but I'm not pro on everything. There's plenty of officers in the media of late that have done the wrong thing and got what's coming to them. Fair's fair. Just thought I'd try and rationalise things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Confused but excited.
I told him to sue the pratts for wrongful arrest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mistergrumpy
You find a crashed vehicle that has or hasn't been reported but either way the driver has fled, so you look up the owner and go to their address to find that they've been drinking.
Now it's reasonable to suspect that as the vehicle hasn't been reported stolen and you're faced with an intoxicated driver that they may have been driving it. There's no other reason currently presenting themselves for the car to be there at the time you find it ... the driver is arrested on suspicion of drink driving...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by smart51

quote:

---

Originally posted by mistergrumpy
You find a crashed vehicle that has or hasn't been reported but either way the driver has fled, so you look up the owner and go to their address to find that they've been drinking.
Now it's reasonable to suspect that as the vehicle hasn't been reported stolen and you're faced with an intoxicated driver that they may have been driving it. There's no other reason currently presenting themselves for the car to be there at the time you find it ... the driver is arrested on suspicion of drink driving...

---

Pretty thin evidence for suspicion of drink driving. I'd be livid. Having a drink or two in your own home is not a crime and should not make you susceptible to arrest. Neither should not noticing that your car, parked down the street, had been stolen. I don't check mine from evening to morning. I'd only report it at 7:20 the next day when I tried to go to work. To ARREST someone on such grounds is too weak IMHO.

---

Mr Confused but rather excited, let me run this past you.

The police come round to your house to tell you that your son is in intensive care after being hit by a car but the driver is nowhere to be found. The police then tell you they went to the registered keeper's address, who smelt of beer but left him alone as he said he was did not drive the car that night.

Just curious as to what your reaction would be then?

tbh I'm with mistergrumpy, the police don't seem to have done anything wrong by arresting him on suspicion, one crashed car & owner smelling of drink…seems worth checking that out I’d say

An apology or thank you for his cooperation and patience however would have hurt no one and would certainly have smoothed things over.

Interesting - initially it did seem an over reaction. When you get the professional view of procedure it seems perfectly reasonable and appropriate response.

Makes you think - must be a pain in the arse job being a copper as 90% of the public is probably giving you grief

Out of interest if you are arrested even if not charged does that appear on a police record (think it does but not sure)?

I personally think more evidence is required to take someone from their home at 2 in the morning and keep them locked up all night. Is it worth locking 100 innocent people up to assume some are guilty?

Sometimes people get away with things and this is a fact of life. If caught running from the scene or if a witness gives an acceptable description then arrest away but if at home sometime later with no witnesses the odds of a conviction are very slim so arrest not justified in my opinion anyway (which usually counts for FA).

I can see how your son is annoyed but I think it was reasonable that the police took him in for a sample and questioning. They probably could not have arrested him anyway unless there were witnesses to the crash.

I've heard of a few stories locally where people have been drink driving and when the police have tried to stop them they race home, try to get into their house as quickly as possible and answer the door with a bottle of whiskey in their hand. This means that the police have no evidence of drink driving as it is compromised but could still lead to arrest for other offenses. I don't condone this kind of thing but just thought it added to this thread a little.

quote:

---

This means that the police have no evidence of drink driving as it is compromised

---

quote:

---

Out of interest if you are arrested even if not charged does that appear on a police record (think it does but not sure)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mistergrumpy
Controversial bit now. When you are arrested you're photo, fingerprints and DNA is taken so whether you're charged or not, you're details have still been taken. I'll be honest and say I'm not what happens to DNA and dabs after that but you are still on a record as is your photo.

---

I kind of agree but there's the argument that if you've done nowt what are you worried about but then again if you've done nowt why are they kept?

quote:

---

Originally posted by tony9876
Out of interest if you are arrested even if not charged does that appear on a police record (think it does but not sure)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tony9876
I personally think more evidence is required to take someone from their home at 2 in the morning and keep them locked up all night. Is it worth locking 100 innocent people up to assume some are guilty?

Sometimes people get away with things and this is a fact of life. If caught running from the scene or if a witness gives an acceptable description then arrest away but if at home sometime later with no witnesses the odds of a conviction are very slim so arrest not justified in my opinion anyway (which usually counts for FA).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tony9876
Out of interest if you are arrested even if not charged does that appear on a police record (think it does but not sure)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minicooper

quote:

---

Originally posted by tony9876
Out of interest if you are arrested even if not charged does that appear on a police record (think it does but not sure)?

---

Yes, and also it will show up on an enhanced disclose or enhanced CRB checks, so you may not get the job you apply for depending on the employers reaction

Cheers
David

---

i think that as no one was injured, they should've quickly whipped him down for a proper breath test, but then sent him home. They have his full details, car registered and insured to him, there is no need to keep him in overnight. They can secure the evidence and resolve it another day, since in this instance there was always a good chance that the poor lad was innocent, and indeed a victim already.

Interesting to know if there was any sign of theft damage to the car? I assume it must be undamaged ignition-wise or they wouldn't have thought he was driving it.

And the apology was essential IMHO, no excuse for alienating people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minicooper

quote:

---

Originally posted by tony9876
Out of interest if you are arrested even if not charged does that appear on a police record (think it does but not sure)?

---

Yes, and also it will show up on an enhanced disclose or enhanced CRB checks, so you may not get the job you apply for depending on the employers reaction

---

mistergrumpy, I do not dislike the police as such. I have met some police officers whom I hold in the highest regard. I have reason to dislike some police officers for specifice reasons that I did not think pertinent to specify on here.

Such as: When a local nutter threatened to kill my disabled wife for looking out of our lounge window (I was late coming home).
She phoned the police and asked for help.
It took them 1/2 an hour to respond and when they turned up, (as I arrived home) and found out who it was they couldn't get away fast enough, saying that it was my wife's word against his.
When I called them spineless, they threatened to arrest me and then rapidly changed their minds as I said "Yes please, I can't wait to see what a judge will make of this."

Such as: Reporting breaking and entering and criminal damage, only to be told it was a civil matter.

Such as: Reorting a councillor for fraudulently obtaining over £4K of public money and presenting the evidence, only to be told "iIt's not worth it for £4K, add another nought then maybe."

Such as : Arresting someone for illegal possession of a firearm,for bringing a shotgun that they had found and brought into a police station for safe disposal.

Nor do I think you are talking out of your arse.
I do understand your position and your point of view.
I do however think the officers over reacted.

[Edited on 27/11/09 by Confused but excited.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 02GF74
Mr Confused but rather excited, let me run this past you.

The police come round to your house to tell you that your son is in intensive care after being hit by a car but the driver is nowhere to be found. The police then tell you they went to the registered keeper's address, who smelt of beer but left him alone as he said he was did not drive the car that night.

Just curious as to what your reaction would be then?

---

Cool. Glad you're not taking my comments personally and you've obviously had some bad experiences, incidentally as have I and this was a big factor to joining the police. So that people don't have to experience what I did but anyway I can't defend another officer who I've never met. I can, though, as I have already commented on another thread, say to your last comment of the man arrested for handing a shotgun in. There ARE two sides to every story.
In response to your question about why your son wasn't breathalised before being taken. He had already said he had been drinking and I don't know what machines they have near you and I know what I see on the telly but they're quite old programmes now. We use a smaller machine in a yellow pouch. It merely says pass or fail and with his admission would remove the necessity to use the machine and in either case for proper evidence on a properly calibrated machine the person has to use the machine in the station where 2 readings are taken and the lowest of the two used.
So a "roadside sample of breath" would have been pointless. It would have shown fail but not by how much and could be questioned in court regards its reliability. Plus the fact that they are like hens teeth to come across. Not all officers or vehicles have them like on telly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mistergrumpy
you've obviously had some bad experiences, incidentally as have I and this was a big factor to joining the police.

---

P1ss off

If I said the police in question were based in Runcorn...............
Even blues from other forces in the area don't like them.
I had already assumed you were of the other breed mate, having read your post on here.
I'm glad you didn't take my remarks personally either.

Boy am I glad I live in Scotland!

An Arrest or Charge without conviction will not show up on a background check.

Similarly, if you have been Arrested or Charged and subsequently not found guilty then your fingerprints, photograph's, DNA samples, etc. will all be destroyed.