Random breath testing hits legal roadblock

TheNog

SteveC wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance but what is MAT?

In the Road Traffic Law there is no such thing as a MAT checkpoint per se. It is called Mandatory Alcohol Testing.

Dont mean to be splitting hairs but MAT is what the media began calling it so now everyone else does but in a court it must be refered to as above. The correct term must be used in court as the law is very specific so if it a Mandatory Alcohol Testing checkpoint is called a MAT checkpoint by a prosecuting Garda in court it could technically be thrown out. That's how detailed the wording must be given by the Garda when prosecuting drunk drivers.

Seems a bit OT but when a person is contesting a drunk driving charge the solicitor will pick up on any word that wasn't used by the Garda and hammer it home till the case is thrown out. In giving evidence a Garda must also say where the person was arrested and the Garda must say it was "a public place" e.g. " Main St, a public place". I have heard a few years ago cases were thrown out because the GArda did not say those three words.

kmart6 wrote: »

What a fucking joke!!!!:mad:

It is no joke and believe me the prosecuting Garda was probably just as angry at losing the case as you apparently are. A mistake was made sure but life goes on and we can only learn from our mistakes.

Alfasudcrazy

peasant wrote: »

The question is though ...why on earth didn't they ?

Its the age ol 'Irish solution to an Irish problem' - Nod & a wink - ya know youeself etc. There is no will at Government level to get tough with drink driving - Why?. Because Dail Eireann is full of Publican or publican related TD's.

Steve

Chief--- wrote: »

Wrong

I stand corrected, sorry Chief.:)

TheNog wrote: »

In the Road Traffic Law there is no such thing as a MAT checkpoint per se. It is called Mandatory Alcohol Testing.

Dont mean to be splitting hairs but MAT is what the media began calling it so now everyone else does but in a court it must be refered to as above. The correct term must be used in court as the law is very specific so if it a Mandatory Alcohol Testing checkpoint is called a MAT checkpoint by a prosecuting Garda in court it could technically be thrown out. That's how detailed the wording must be given by the Garda when prosecuting drunk drivers.

Jebus - I never realised it was that pedantic.
Having read the 2006 act, the only legally defined word is "checkpoint" (although 'Mandatory Alcohol Testing' is mentioned in the arrangement) so I would have assumed you'd refer to it as a 'checkpoint established under S4 of the RTA2006'....

....I wouldn't know though.

Biro

TheNog wrote: »

Seems a bit OT but when a person is contesting a drunk driving charge the solicitor will pick up on any word that wasn't used by the Garda and hammer it home till the case is thrown out. In giving evidence a Garda must also say where the person was arrested and the Garda must say it was "a public place" e.g. " Main St, a public place". I have heard a few years ago cases were thrown out because the GArda did not say those three words.

To be fair though, that's a classic example of a group of people so caught up in the circle of their work/life that the circle now doesn't let any light in.
Think about it. A Garda not saying "a public place" can lead to someone getting off the hook for breaking the law. And everyone blames the Guards for not clamping down or cleaning up the streets or whatever.
If you were busting your ass doing your job every day and then some smart ass solicitor renders your work useless because you forgot to mention something that is as pointless to the case as the colour of shirt the person was wearing, then you'd loose the will to bother your hole.
Politics and the Law are rotten to the core. The Get out of Jail Free card in monopoly is closer to real life than we thought when we were playing it!

TheNog

SteveC wrote: »

Jebus - I never realised it was that pedantic.
Having read the 2006 act, the only legally defined word is "checkpoint" (although 'Mandatory Alcohol Testing' is mentioned in the arrangement) so I would have assumed you'd refer to it as a 'checkpoint established under S4 of the RTA2006'....

....I wouldn't know though.

That is true, Road traffic law is scrutinsied to the extreme especially if that driver relies on the licence for their job. Up until a couple of years ago the percentage of drunk driving cases contested were higher than murder cases.
I'd imagine the percentage has fallen though with the foreigners especially the eastern europeans (not being racist) but they admit to drink driving straight away. In actual fact they are brilliant cos they literally fall out of the car, fall into the cuffs and then fall into the back of the patrol car. I havent seen a foreigner contest a drunk driving charge at all. All the foreigners I have caught were very polite and sometimes a bit of craic too. It is usually the Irish fellas and girls that give the abuse, deny everything, make complaints against the arresting Garda and every other Garda they come into contact with just to be awkward.

Biro wrote: »

To be fair though, that's a classic example of a group of people so caught up in the circle of their work/life that the circle now doesn't let any light in.
Think about it. A Garda not saying "a public place" can lead to someone getting off the hook for breaking the law. And everyone blames the Guards for not clamping down or cleaning up the streets or whatever.
If you were busting your ass doing your job every day and then some smart ass solicitor renders your work useless because you forgot to mention something that is as pointless to the case as the colour of shirt the person was wearing, then you'd loose the will to bother your hole.
Politics and the Law are rotten to the core. The Get out of Jail Free card in monopoly is closer to real life than we thought when we were playing it!

Agreed but with careful planning and taking of notes it is very hard for solicitor to get a driver off the hook anymore. In the year I am in the job I have not seen a driver get off but have seen some hairy cases.

TheNog

Zube wrote: »

If the Government/Dáil wanted to allow any guard to randomly breath test anyone they liked anywhere, they could have written the law that way. They didn't. The law lays out the conditions under which a random breath test is allowed, and the guards didn't follow them.

Case dismissed.

peasant wrote: »

The question is though ...why on earth didn't they ?

I think there is some confusion here with breath testing at the roadside. The roadside breath test is conducted with an alcolyser which reads either a Pass/Fail only (will not determine concentration of alcohol). The alcolyser is used in two situations:

1/ a MAT checkpoint where a Garda must have written permission from an Inspector or other officer of higher rank and that permission will have times, dates and places where the MAT checkpoints take place.
2/ if a Garda observes a driver of a vehicle and smells drink but does not have all the necessary proofs to form an opinion.

To explain the process to you a little bit more in depth, if I see a fella driving all over the road and stop him and smell drink and he has slurred speech then I must say to him " I have formed the opinion you have consumed an intoxicant to such as extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a mechanically propelled vehicle etc"

However if I use the alcolyser then my wording has to change to "I am of the opinion that you have consumed an intoxicant to such as extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a mechanically propelled vehicle etc"

See the difference? If you use the alcolyser on a driver then you haven't formed an opinion yourself but rather used the device (which failed) to be of the opinion. If you used the device and said in court "I formed the opinion" the solicitor will argue that if you formed your opinion then why did you use the alcolyser??? The solicitor will then argue you used the device outside of the law and the charge would probably then be dismissed. I would look stupid and my Super will want to tear me a new one!!!!!!

Hope I explained it well so you will get the idea

Alfasudcrazy wrote: »

Its the age ol 'Irish solution to an Irish problem' - Nod & a wink - ya know youeself etc. There is no will at Government level to get tough with drink driving - Why?. Because Dail Eireann is full of Publican or publican related TD's.

The drink driving laws were toughened up last March to increase the maximum allowed disqualification from 2 years to 4 years for a first offence and 6 years for a second and subsequent offences. The maximum fines were increased also from €2,500 to €5,000. For those who failed or refused to provide two specimens of breath, the penalty is now an automatic 4 years disqualified and/or €5,000 fine. I cant remember what it was before March 08.

Our man in Havana

So there is no requirement to give a sample if you are involved in an accident? I was asked to blow after being in a minor accident last year.

TheNog

Bond-007 wrote: »

So there is no requirement to give a sample if you are involved in an accident? I was asked to blow after being in a minor accident last year.

A requirement can be made of the driver to provide a sample of breath after a traffic collision. This would fall into situation no. 2 in my post above.