Random Breath Testing.

[Sgt Lobster]

In the UK we periodically get calls to introduce random breath testing and Australia is often quoted as an example of good practice in this area. In fact Australia seems a very popular destination for British police, especially bosses to study policing initiatives ! The US and Canada are also very popular !!

In the UK we do not strictly have the power to randomly breath test motorists. We can randomly stop cars, but to administer a breath test we need to suspect alcohol in the body, or the driver has committed a moving traffic offence or has been involved in a traffic collision.

How do things work in other jurisdictions ?





Lobster.

[PeteBroccolo]

In Canada, under the Criminal Code (go to http://www.justice.gc.ca and follow the links to "Acts" and eventually look at "Criminal Code" Sections 252 to 260) Peace Officers have authority to DEMAND that a person who is operating, or has the care and control of, a motorized land, water or air craft, provide a suitable sample of their breath into either an Approved Screening Device (if all we have is a suspicion of them drinking) or into an Approved Instrument (if we have signs of impairment), or that they provide a sample of blood (if incapable of providing a breath sample, in situations where there is evidence of impairment).

The ASD are simple, hand-held, electronic devices that we carry in the car, boat, ATV or plane. The AI are large instruments in either a mobile testing van or at the Detachment office or station house, operated by trained and designated Peace Officers. Blood samples are drawn by Physicians, or Nurses or Lab Technicians on a Doctor's authority.

Refusal to comply with these demands is a criminal offence. If a Doctor decides that drawing of blood will injure the "client" further, the Doctor can decline to do so, or to order it to be done, and the Doctor can NOT be prosecuted for Obstruction of a Peace Officer.

The results of the ASD and/or AI can also be used under Saskatchewan law to temporarily suspend a "client's" drivers licence, either for 24 hours (if they hold a normal driver's licence and their Blood-Alcohol-Concentration exceeds 40 mgs of alcohol per 100 ml of blood), or for 30 days (if they hold a Probationary Saskatchewan driver's licence due to having less than 2 years driving experience and their BAC exceeds ZERO) or for 24 hours, then they are allowed a 7 day permit to drive, then a further automatic administrative suspension for 90 days (if they are charged for Impaired or BAC Exceeding 80 mgs/100 ml) or for an indeterminate time period (if they had been previously convicted for Impaired or BAC Over, but took re-education and got their licence back Provisionally, meaning provided that their BAC not exceed ZERO).

[9-11]

In the US, a peace officer must have Probable Cause/Reasonable Suspicion to stop a vehicle. Even the US Supreme Court is not clear on which standard is needed. However, this equates to a cop needing to see a traffic or equipment violation to stop a vehicle. For example, weaving across lanes will be enough, as will having a head lamp out.

The USSC has alos held that "random breath testing" is constitutional as long as certain criteria are met. Thses include that the enforcement action is truely "random", that the sobriety checkpoints are advertized beforehand, and they are also signposted so drivers may turn off from them. Weird huh?

[Sgt Lobster]

From time to time we do mount drink drive check points usually as part of a national campaign.

Whilst we can randomly stop motorists we need to meet certain criteria to administer a roadside breath test using a hand held device. At a check point we would have to suspect alcohol in the drivers body or detect a moving traffic offence, which can be as simple as a defective headlight or brake light. Evidence of alcohol in the body can be obtained by questioning the driver or by other more obvious signs of impairment. You can also form suspicion from the evidence of a third party e.g a colleague has recently seen the vehicle being driven erratically.

If the screening test proves positive the driver gets arrested and taken to the custody office to undertake the station procedure. Likewise if they refuse or fail to provide a specimen and we suspect alcohol in their body they also get arrested. If they have refused to provide, and you are making the requirement because of a moving traffic offence and you do not suspect alcohol, then they cannot be arrested unless identity, address etc is in doubt. In this scenario the motorist would be reported for summons. This sometimes also happens when we attend road traffic collisons, because we have the power to breath test all drivers and many obviously haven't been drinking.

If the driver is obviously drunk, or unfit through drugs we would simply arrest them and take them to the custody office for further investigation. We don't normally do field sobriety testy but some officer have been trained to detect drugged drivers, as we do not have a satisfactory screening test for drugged drivers who are becoming an increasing menance on our roads.






Lobster.

[Sgt Lobster]

How do things work in Australia and NZ ?


Lobster.