Drunk drivers beware – 7 days in jail before your bail hearing

[mattrudlles]

The office has discretion on whether to pull you over. He doesn't have discretion on whether or not to arrest you should you be objectively and legally over the limit.

let me make this easy for you: he would have discretion WHERE the law is CHANGED. Understand?

 

[VooDooC]

My biggest concern is the abuse. Policeman A has beef with you, arrests you for drunk driving even though you're not drunk, you sit in jail for 7 ****ing days before you can apply for bail and in that time you get assaulted, raped, killed and there is nothing you can do about it until your 7 days are up.

 

[ArmatageShanks]

As much as I hate being on the roads this time of year, and that hatred will only increase when the hill people come down for the summer, my insurance will send someone to drive me home in my vehicle. I realise that doesn't protect me from them, but it protects them from me.

I quite like that option from insurance companies, although I just phone my girlfriend, "Oi come pick my drunk ass up from the pub!"

 

[bwana]

I quite like that option from insurance companies, although I just phone my girlfriend, "Oi come pick my drunk ass up from the pub!"

I would but having a girlfriend come pick me up would just be too awkward.

 

[quovadis]

let me make this easy for you: he would have discretion WHERE the law is CHANGED. Understand?

No.

 

[quovadis]

My biggest concern is the abuse. Policeman A has beef with you, arrests you for drunk driving even though you're not drunk, you sit in jail for 7 ****ing days before you can apply for bail and in that time you get assaulted, raped, killed and there is nothing you can do about it until your 7 days are up.

Which simply put is why it will fail any legal challenge.

 

[Eniigma]

let me make this easy for you: he would have discretion WHERE the law is CHANGED. Understand?

I get where you're coming from reading some of your posts, but you seem to forget that we don't live in a perfect world and nice neat little bubble like your experience.

Do you realise what a complete **** show it would be if the po-po had discretionary powers like you want to give them? Each time you have a sip of beer and get behind the wheel would be like a game of Russian roulette.... what type of cop are you going to get today? A reasonable one that thinks you're fine after a beer to keep going? A anally retentive hardass that's going to lock you for the beer spilt on you by your drunk ass mate even though you didn't touch the stuff? The dude that is after some pocket money ?

You idea is a like communism... sounds great on paper, an absolute nightmare in reality.

Bottom line is the po-po are there to enforce the laws, not make them or interpret them to suit their needs.

 

[mattrudlles]

I get where you're coming from reading some of your posts, but you seem to forget that we don't live in a perfect world and nice neat little bubble like your experience.

Do you realise what a complete **** show it would be if the po-po had discretionary powers like you want to give them? Each time you have a sip of beer and get behind the wheel would be like a game of Russian roulette.... what type of cop are you going to get today? A reasonable one that thinks you're fine after a beer to keep going? A anally retentive hardass that's going to lock you for the beer spilt on you by your drunk ass mate even though you didn't touch the stuff? The dude that is after some pocket money ?

You idea is a like communism... sounds great on paper, an absolute nightmare in reality.

Bottom line is the po-po are there to enforce the laws, not make them or interpret them to suit their needs.

The discretion would only kick in once you have been breathelised. They cannot effect the arrest or charge until that has been done. The discretion is solely on whether or not to lock you up for the night or not.

 

[VooDooC]

The discretion would only kick in once you have been breathelised. They cannot effect the arrest or charge until that has been done. The discretion is solely on whether or not to lock you up for the night or not.

Sure, they're only allowed to arrest you after being breathelised, but again that's in a perfect world where corrupt and vindictive cops do not exist. He can arrest you, have his buddies back him up, throw you in jail for 7 days where you get ****ed up and IF you survive that, then only can you charge for false arrest.

 

[quovadis]

The discretion would only kick in once you have been breathelised. They cannot effect the arrest or charge until that has been done. The discretion is solely on whether or not to lock you up for the night or not.

No, technically they can arrest you for suspicion of driving under the influence by administering a sobriety test. That would be followed up by a breathalyser and/or blood specimen taken. If a breathalyser sample shows a level in excess of the legal limit the law is clear and discretion is not an option.

We have two issues here, and technically drunk drivers are productive members of society who do not necessarily have accidents. Rather we should be concerned about those people who have had to many drinks.

And the legal determination of "technically drunk" and "had too many drinks" is the same legal limit. As already stated the "productive members of society" who do not necessarily have accidents is a ridiculous argument to make.

 

[mattrudlles]

Sure, they're only allowed to arrest you after being breathelised, but again that's in a perfect world where corrupt and vindictive cops do not exist. He can arrest you, have his buddies back him up, throw you in jail for 7 days where you get ****ed up and IF you survive that, then only can you charge for false arrest.

I don't support the new proposed amendment at all.

 

[mattrudlles]

No, technically they can arrest you for suspicion of driving under the influence by administering a sobriety test. That would be followed up by a breathalyser and/or blood specimen taken. If a breathalyser sample shows a level in excess of the legal limit the law is clear and discretion is not an option.



And the legal determination of "technically drunk" and "had too many drinks" is the same legal limit. As already stated the "productive members of society" who do not necessarily have accidents is a ridiculous argument to make.

And once again this is only in relation to the statutory DUI.

 

[Eniigma]

The discretion would only kick in once you have been breathelised. They cannot effect the arrest or charge until that has been done. The discretion is solely on whether or not to lock you up for the night or not.

Regardless of when it kicks in, it's a stupid idea.

Just look at this thread or these forums and the different opinions and interpetations of things and you want to give that power to people who have the power to lock you up or not....

 

[mattrudlles]

Regardless of when it kicks in, it's a stupid idea.

Just look at this thread or these forums and the different opinions and interpetations of things and you want to give that power to people who have the power to lock you up or not....

You understand right that it at least gives the opportunity for you not to be locked up? Whereas right now you will be locked up?

Don't resort to attacking the veracity of the idea without understanding what is being said. I am fully cognisant of the issues and the proposal goes to trying to alleviate those issues.

 

[quovadis]

And once again this is only in relation to the statutory DUI.

You're still missing the point. Whether it is a DUI or other crime. Discretion cannot be used in the objective determination of whether or not you have committed a crime and the resultant actions and procedure to be followed by a law enforcement officer.

 

[mattrudlles]

You're still missing the point. Whether it is a DUI or other crime. Discretion cannot be used in the objective determination of whether or not you have committed a crime and the resultant actions and procedure to be followed by a law enforcement officer.

I am not disputing that a crime has been committed but rather how it is handled after the fact. What is so difficult to understand?

 

[quovadis]

I am not disputing that a crime has been committed but rather how it is handled after the fact. What is so difficult to understand?

How it is handled after the fact is DEFINED BY LAW. So if that law is not followed the officer is in contravention too. What don't you understand?

 

[mattrudlles]

How it is handled after the fact is DEFINED BY LAW. So if that law is not followed the officer is in contravention too. What don't you understand?

The law OUGHT to provide for what I am saying. The officer would then be acting within his legal mandate. As I have said before in this thread.

And I don't support the proposed amendments for a 7 day waiting period. They are blatantly unconstitutional.

Spend some time reading the previous stuff please.

 

[Eniigma]

You understand right that it at least gives the opportunity for you not to be locked up? Whereas right now you will be locked up?

Don't resort to attacking the veracity of the idea without understanding what is being said. I am fully cognisant of the issues and the proposal goes to trying to alleviate those issues.

Dude I understand what you are saying.

I've also dealt with police applying their own interpertations to the law and what is required and getting a different answer from each one based on their own (lack of) understanding of the law.

 

[mattrudlles]

Dude I understand what you are saying.

I've also dealt with police applying their own interpertations to the law and what is required and getting a different answer from each one based on their own (lack of) understanding of the law.

Eish that is painful. Had that before as well. Police officer refused to commission an affidavit attached to an uncommissioned affidavit Said it had already been commissioned...