Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 26/11/09 at 08:46 PM |
|
|
Bloody Police !
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! 
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
|
|
Steve G
|
| posted on 26/11/09 at 09:30 PM |
|
|
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???
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 26/11/09 at 09:52 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 26/11/09 at 11:49 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Confused but excited.
I told him to sue the pratts for wrongful arrest.
What makes you think he's been wrongfully arrested? As long as there was probable cause to believe he was involved in a crime (and it sounds
like there was) and he was arrested correctly (i.e. cautioned, advised of rights etc.) then he was not wrongfully arrested.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 08:09 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 08:36 AM |
|
|
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.
Don't confuse arrested with charged, arrest is just a way to officially question a suspect and gather evidence (one way or the other),
it's considered unfair to interrogate a person you know is drunk so they will always wait until the morning before starting, but they need an
accurate blood alcohol count as soon as possible.
I'd expect it was dropped after they found good evidence the car had been stolen (broken steering lock, smashed window glass by the parking
spot, independent witness etc.)
Think about how many drunk drivers that crashed on the way home could find people who'd 'driven them home from the pub' to avoid
losing their license. Would you be happy with that situation? What kind of evidence would be compelling in that case?
Don't get too worried about the letter, it's not a personal thing, but a solicitor drafted thing that everyone will get in any situation
where you were arrested but not charged. It will be worded to keep their options open if they find more evidence.
[Edited on 27/11/09 by iank]
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 08:51 AM |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 11:06 AM |
|
|
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.
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 12:28 PM |
|
|
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 
|
|
|
tony9876
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 02:54 PM |
|
|
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).
|
|
|
quinnj3
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 03:28 PM |
|
|
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.
my aim is to build my own locost wether it takes me a week or 10 years to get started, i'm sure i will sometime
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 03:48 PM |
|
|
quote:
This means that the police have no evidence of drink driving as it is compromised
Not quite true. Things are compromised a bit but they can back date so to speak from the amount you've had and the time you say you started
drinking.
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)?
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.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 04:23 PM |
|
|
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.
This is the one part of the system I have a beef with. If you are not charged then I think any DNA records should be destroyed. Currently they can
be kept for up to 6 years.
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 04:27 PM |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
Minicooper
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 04:35 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 04:45 PM |
|
|
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).
Yes, let's just accept that poo happens and that people will get away with it. That way the police can avoid bothering people in their homes
and generally be a more polite and friendly bunch. That would be much warmer and fluffier for everybody. We must consider the human right of
criminals to be criminals, afterall. Could be a job waiting for you in Brussels 
[Edited on 27/11/09 by Liam]
|
|
|
Minicooper
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 05:04 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
tony9876
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 08:01 PM |
|
|
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
Not really fair is it!
Think I would like the job in Brussels but thing my hatred of nanny states and social workers may go against me.
If it was the middle of the afternoon and he was invited in for a voluntary chat, not a problem but arresting and putting you in a cell at 2 am
deserves a little more evidence i think.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 08:43 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 10:19 PM |
|
|
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
So totally out of order. A request for a sample and letting him go afterwards was all that was needed. A permanent record for an innocent man? No,
that's too much.
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 11:18 PM |
|
|
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.]
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 27/11/09 at 11:24 PM |
|
|
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?
The same as everyone else's probably. Like the rest of you, I am also human, with all the frailties that that entails, including being
protective of my sons even though they are over forty.
But, there has to be better cause than just one officer's suspicion, before you arrest someone. Like at least breathalising him for a start.
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 28/11/09 at 05:25 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 28/11/09 at 05:47 PM |
|
|
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.
cool ... so which one do you look like?
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 28/11/09 at 05:51 PM |
|
|
 P1ss off
|
|
|
