My brother was arrested last night!!!
22 January 2008, 02:13 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enitely depenfds how the stereo is connected up - If it after the ignition swith, then yes,m you need to have the ignition turned on - But it is enbtirely possible to have the stereo, in effect, connected directly to the battery.
22 January 2008, 02:29 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Manchester ish
Posts: 18,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, that sounds like our current legislature 
The thing that bugs me is subsection 3,
(3) The court may, in determining whether there was such a likelihood as is mentioned in subsection
(2) above, disregard any injury to him and any damage to the vehicle.
Which suggests that, even if the guy had two broken legs in plaster and the car had a wheel missing, they could still convict him. Or am I misinterpreting it
Lucky for OP that running out of petrol is not "damage"
The thing that bugs me is subsection 3,
(3) The court may, in determining whether there was such a likelihood as is mentioned in subsection
(2) above, disregard any injury to him and any damage to the vehicle.
Which suggests that, even if the guy had two broken legs in plaster and the car had a wheel missing, they could still convict him. Or am I misinterpreting it
Lucky for OP that running out of petrol is not "damage"
22 January 2008, 03:05 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
Yeah, that sounds like our current legislature
The thing that bugs me is subsection 3,
(3) The court may, in determining whether there was such a likelihood as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, disregard any injury to him and any damage to the vehicle.
Which suggests that, even if the guy had two broken legs in plaster and the car had a wheel missing, they could still convict him. Or am I misinterpreting it
Lucky for OP that running out of petrol is not "damage"
The thing that bugs me is subsection 3,
(3) The court may, in determining whether there was such a likelihood as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, disregard any injury to him and any damage to the vehicle.
Which suggests that, even if the guy had two broken legs in plaster and the car had a wheel missing, they could still convict him. Or am I misinterpreting it
Lucky for OP that running out of petrol is not "damage"
In other words, if the Court doesn't believe the injury or damage was in itself grounds for the vehicle not to be driven, the Court has the option to disregard it.
2 legs in plaster and missing wheels is likely to be taken into account. Although I've done some daft things when pished, so trying to drive a three wheeled car in 2 leg plasters may well be seen as a challenge rather than an impossibility aftre a few
22 January 2008, 04:10 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes put a complaint in and should be without hesitation, about the stupid arresting officer ( human rights spring to mind ). The ar**h*le police officer, made that up about your brother just to mess everything up for him and the copper looks good in the story ( bulls**t will not make you a winner officer ). I suppose he/she did similar about his friends maybe.
Nathan.
Nathan.
22 January 2008, 04:27 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could of put your VW, on his driveway in the driving seat and you be in a sober state with them Stephb1986. Or all of us with a vehicle for that matter.
Nathan.
Nathan.
Last edited by ScooByer Trade; 22 January 2008 at 04:30 PM. Reason: standing up.
22 January 2008, 05:06 PM
#71
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Injury was probably self inflicted and very hard to prove the officer inflicted it. Again, from my experience.
Saying that, I have never known anyone's wrists to bleed from cuffs, even when they've been lifted by them. Broken wrist yes, but never to bleed. Wrists are very hard to cut as cuffs aren't so sharp.
22 January 2008, 05:33 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Couch Spud
Posts: 9,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the answers on the radio thing
Obviously none of my cars have ever been blessed with that function, keys in ignition for the radio to come on
YOu learn something new everyday
Obviously none of my cars have ever been blessed with that function, keys in ignition for the radio to come on
YOu learn something new everyday
22 January 2008, 06:00 PM
#73
BANNED
Thread Starter
It will go to court IMO, on what was listed on the 1st post. Cut and dry drunk in charge from my experience.
Injury was probably self inflicted and very hard to prove the officer inflicted it. Again, from my experience.
Saying that, I have never known anyone's wrists to bleed from cuffs, even when they've been lifted by them. Broken wrist yes, but never to bleed. Wrists are very hard to cut as cuffs aren't so sharp.
Injury was probably self inflicted and very hard to prove the officer inflicted it. Again, from my experience.
Saying that, I have never known anyone's wrists to bleed from cuffs, even when they've been lifted by them. Broken wrist yes, but never to bleed. Wrists are very hard to cut as cuffs aren't so sharp.
Cheers for you'r views and advice everyone, nice to read different opinions on the situation, appreciate it
22 January 2008, 06:06 PM
#74
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see.
As I said, I've never known anyone to cut their wrists on cuffs - even 20st blokes who have been lifted by them just end up with marks but no blood.
As I said, I've never known anyone to cut their wrists on cuffs - even 20st blokes who have been lifted by them just end up with marks but no blood.
22 January 2008, 09:34 PM
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, crimes do not need victims these days to be defined as such - if it can raise cash then it's fair game as far as modern gov't is concerned.
Unfortunately, as the law appears to be an ***, I agree with most posters that he will be found guilty, as you are deemed in charge of the vehicle if you have keys on your person.
dnc
Unfortunately, as the law appears to be an ***, I agree with most posters that he will be found guilty, as you are deemed in charge of the vehicle if you have keys on your person.
dnc
25 January 2008, 06:26 PM
#78
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical post from a copper to encourage pleading guilty to a very winable case. The authorities want you to plead guilty so they can punish people even when they have little evidence a good soliciter can get you off. A girl who works for me was in a much worse situation and forced the CPS to drop the case and this was for the same offence.
25 January 2008, 06:32 PM
#79
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: No longer Japan !
Posts: 1,742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or he could be giving a straight answer to a straight question !
If faced with a situation where I had to take shelter in my car for my own safety when probably over the limit, after ensuring no policeman was in sight I would unlock the doors and then place the keys on top of a wheel before getting in. No keys = not in charge of the vehicle.
P.S. don't blame me if this doesn't work and only try this if you are desperate for the safety of the vehicle for some reason.
If faced with a situation where I had to take shelter in my car for my own safety when probably over the limit, after ensuring no policeman was in sight I would unlock the doors and then place the keys on top of a wheel before getting in. No keys = not in charge of the vehicle.
P.S. don't blame me if this doesn't work and only try this if you are desperate for the safety of the vehicle for some reason.
26 January 2008, 12:16 AM
#80
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical post from a copper to encourage pleading guilty to a very winable case. The authorities want you to plead guilty so they can punish people even when they have little evidence a good soliciter can get you off. A girl who works for me was in a much worse situation and forced the CPS to drop the case and this was for the same offence.
I couldn't care less either way. Just like I don't care if people I arrest/summons/process get found guilty or not if charged.
Just in my experience most people lose when they contest and get a heavier penalty.
26 January 2008, 05:52 AM
#81
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say with a lenient judge in a very good mood he may get off, but you have to make the option available to him. Your brother needs to collect as much information he can, an independent witness would go a long way (a mate got off a charge like this when sleeping in his car outside a pub after falling out with his mrs but he was equipped to sleep in the car. The pub landlords statement to back up his story was the casting vote)
I remember reading a story of a lad getting picked up from the pub by his mrs, on the way home she stopped at the roadside and nipped into the shop leaving the engine running police turned up and he was regarded as drunk in charge of the vehicle. Your brother needs to take this very seriously but the case can be fought. Good luck to him
I remember reading a story of a lad getting picked up from the pub by his mrs, on the way home she stopped at the roadside and nipped into the shop leaving the engine running police turned up and he was regarded as drunk in charge of the vehicle. Your brother needs to take this very seriously but the case can be fought. Good luck to him
26 January 2008, 09:39 AM
#82
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having experience of defending many cases like these, based only on what you put in your initial post, this is a winnable case.
The statutory defence has been outlined so I won't repeat it, but in essence, the Court have to be satisfied that there was no intention from the driver, of driving the vehicle whilst still over the limit. Now ordinarily this can be difficult to prove as most people would say well, I intended to just sleep it off and then drive home in the morning/later etc.....Magistrates (and this can only be tried in the Magistrates Court) don't usually accept that...quite rightly as you yourself can never be certain as to whether you're still over the limit.
However, in this case, given that the vehicle had no petrol, Magistrates MAY accept that there was no intention to drive whilst over the legal limit. What may cause difficulties is if your brother and his friends decided to push the car the 3/4 mile back - if he was then controlling the vehicle usuing the steering wheel then he is in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle, hence guilty.
My advice would be to instruc a solicitor....he may not get legal aid but this should definately be defended, I would ask either way, the solicitor to instruct junior counsel who defend alot of road traffic offences, on a fixed fee basis. Their knowledge will undoubtedly assist and will also be MUCH cheaper than paying solicitors rates for the trial itself.
Where did this happen, out of interest?
The statutory defence has been outlined so I won't repeat it, but in essence, the Court have to be satisfied that there was no intention from the driver, of driving the vehicle whilst still over the limit. Now ordinarily this can be difficult to prove as most people would say well, I intended to just sleep it off and then drive home in the morning/later etc.....Magistrates (and this can only be tried in the Magistrates Court) don't usually accept that...quite rightly as you yourself can never be certain as to whether you're still over the limit.
However, in this case, given that the vehicle had no petrol, Magistrates MAY accept that there was no intention to drive whilst over the legal limit. What may cause difficulties is if your brother and his friends decided to push the car the 3/4 mile back - if he was then controlling the vehicle usuing the steering wheel then he is in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle, hence guilty.
My advice would be to instruc a solicitor....he may not get legal aid but this should definately be defended, I would ask either way, the solicitor to instruct junior counsel who defend alot of road traffic offences, on a fixed fee basis. Their knowledge will undoubtedly assist and will also be MUCH cheaper than paying solicitors rates for the trial itself.
Where did this happen, out of interest?
26 January 2008, 10:28 AM
#83
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: on my lake ;)
Posts: 1,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last night my brother and two mates was walking from the pub. Down the
road where his house, his car was parked (he ran out of petrol that afternoon
).It started pouring down with rain so he and his mates decided to jump
in the car until it calmed a bit, so my brother puts the radio on as they were
chatting. Next thing the police pulled up, knock on the window.
Police man: What do you think you are doing
My brother: listening to some music waiting for the rain to calm down
Police man:You have been drinking
My brother:Yes im pissed why?
Police man:Get out of the car.
At this point my brother is getting out of the car while the copper puts the back of his hand against the bonnet to check if it was worm.
Police man: Have you been driving this tonight
My brother: off course not, i can barely stand for crying out loud.
Then the copper did a breath test on him, and off course he was over the limit, twice over the limit in fact.
Then he did a search on him and found his keys.
Police man: aha so what are these doing on you then
My brother: because my house keys are stuck to them, and i need them.
Police man: Right you are under arrest
My brother: You what, here take the keys and try and start it up your self, and then you can see it wont because there is no petrol in it!
Police man: no thanks sunshine. Can you turn round so i can put on the handcuffs.
My brother has a nasty cut on his wrist, and he asked the copper not to put them on too tight.
But plod wouldnt listen so my brother was screaming with pain, and his 2 mates even pleaded with plod to slacken them, but again he didnt want to know.
From the village to the police station which is 7 miles, my brother was pleading and begging them to slacken them but to no avail, and he could feel some thing warm in his hand.
At the station when they took them off my brother looked at his wrist and it was pissing blood, thanks to the cuffs.
My brother was worried if he was gonna be done for drink driving when he didnt even put the key in the ignition. But no he was arrested under Section 5,1b, which is
Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit
(b) is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place.
after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence.
So in my brother's eyes he has been arrested for sitting in a stationary car sheltering from the rain.
So my question to you guys is, what is he looking at? a hefty fine or a bann etc etc?? As the coppers at the station wouldnt answer him.
And should he report the plod who put on the handcuffs? What do you think??
road where his house, his car was parked (he ran out of petrol that afternoon
).It started pouring down with rain so he and his mates decided to jumpin the car until it calmed a bit, so my brother puts the radio on as they were
chatting. Next thing the police pulled up, knock on the window.
Police man: What do you think you are doing
My brother: listening to some music waiting for the rain to calm down
Police man:You have been drinking
My brother:Yes im pissed why?
Police man:Get out of the car.
At this point my brother is getting out of the car while the copper puts the back of his hand against the bonnet to check if it was worm.
Police man: Have you been driving this tonight
My brother: off course not, i can barely stand for crying out loud.
Then the copper did a breath test on him, and off course he was over the limit, twice over the limit in fact.
Then he did a search on him and found his keys.
Police man: aha so what are these doing on you then
My brother: because my house keys are stuck to them, and i need them.
Police man: Right you are under arrest
My brother: You what, here take the keys and try and start it up your self, and then you can see it wont because there is no petrol in it!
Police man: no thanks sunshine. Can you turn round so i can put on the handcuffs.
My brother has a nasty cut on his wrist, and he asked the copper not to put them on too tight.
But plod wouldnt listen so my brother was screaming with pain, and his 2 mates even pleaded with plod to slacken them, but again he didnt want to know.
From the village to the police station which is 7 miles, my brother was pleading and begging them to slacken them but to no avail, and he could feel some thing warm in his hand.
At the station when they took them off my brother looked at his wrist and it was pissing blood, thanks to the cuffs.
My brother was worried if he was gonna be done for drink driving when he didnt even put the key in the ignition. But no he was arrested under Section 5,1b, which is
Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit
(b) is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place.
after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence.
So in my brother's eyes he has been arrested for sitting in a stationary car sheltering from the rain.
So my question to you guys is, what is he looking at? a hefty fine or a bann etc etc?? As the coppers at the station wouldnt answer him.
And should he report the plod who put on the handcuffs? What do you think??
FACT 1.....THE ENGINE WAS COLD.....POLICEMAN EASY TO FIND OUT (HELLO)
FACT 2.....CAR OUT OF PETROL.....POLICEMAN AGAIN MMMM TURN KEY EASY TO FIND OUT AGAIN!!!! DOHHHH
INSURANCE PAPERS IN THE CAR!!!!!!!!!!
so from start to finish this lot could of been wraped up in under 5 mins (FACT)with the police office having a little word and letting them all go (end of!!!)
but this is the bull$hit uk money money money police office having a bad day!! 1 year ban!!! fine,DD on licence for 10 years...and the police wonder why people hate them!! mmmmmmmmmmmmmm i wonder???? tell your bro to fight it all the way,hope he gets a good out come
police officers out there you guys do a great job,i know you only got a 1.9% pay rise this year but (COME ON!!!!)just because you feel like you've been 5hitted on does'nt mean you should **** on the people.(be safe out there,but play fair to
)
26 January 2008, 10:58 AM
#84
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: West London
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've read all the posts on here and to be honest I don't know what the fuss is about.
He was pissed up, sat behind the wheel with the keys in his "pocket" allegedly - he's been reported for that offence. How is any of that unfair?
He was pissed up, sat behind the wheel with the keys in his "pocket" allegedly - he's been reported for that offence. How is any of that unfair?
26 January 2008, 11:45 AM
#85
I've not read all the posts so I don't know if this has already been said.
I'm wondering why the policeman searched him.
Surely a traffic offence doesn't give him the probable cause to have him searched unless he believes another crime is also being committed. I can't see him being allowed to search him just for the car keys. I think his rights have been violated.
A similar thing happened to me in 1993. I was just getting my jacket out of my motorcycle pannier after a (only 4 pints) pub session, I didn't even have the ignition key on me, only the pannier key and my house key. I contested it in court against my lawyers advice, and lost because the two policeman lied in court in order to get a conviction. The courts will always take the word of two corroborating (more like collaborating) policemen over an individual.
So I must have been mistaken because we all know a policeman doesn't tell lies, right?
I'm wondering why the policeman searched him.
Surely a traffic offence doesn't give him the probable cause to have him searched unless he believes another crime is also being committed. I can't see him being allowed to search him just for the car keys. I think his rights have been violated.
A similar thing happened to me in 1993. I was just getting my jacket out of my motorcycle pannier after a (only 4 pints) pub session, I didn't even have the ignition key on me, only the pannier key and my house key. I contested it in court against my lawyers advice, and lost because the two policeman lied in court in order to get a conviction. The courts will always take the word of two corroborating (more like collaborating) policemen over an individual.
So I must have been mistaken because we all know a policeman doesn't tell lies, right?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
alcazar
Non Scooby Related
25
11 September 2015 08:45 PM