Driver left off with drink driving after being unlawfully handcuffed

AnneFrank

cursai wrote: »

Guard v kick in skull.

Every guard knows about it.


The guards aren't the courts training bags.

Good god this really is embarrassing.

cursai

AnneFrank wrote: »

Good god this really is embarrassing.

Who speaks in such a way. Is this a carry on film.

AnneFrank

cursai wrote: »

Who speaks in such a way. Is this a carry on film.

Yes it's a film on a public website for opinions in text.

cursai

AnneFrank wrote: »

Yes it's a film on a public website for opinions in text.

Kinda like that Facebook film Matron.

TheBoyConor

Nonsense.
What happens when the arrested person decides, "fcuk this" and decides to put their hands around the drivers neck causing the car to crash or worse.

In the USA you are cuffed nomatter what if you are being arrested, often when if you're not being arrested and just being "spoken to". Aul granny or not, you'll be cuffed.
One cop will nearly always have one hand on their gun ready to draw at a second notice and point it right in your face if you do much as think of giving any lip.

Gardai here are fast too soft.

elperello

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Nonsense.
What happens when the arrested person decides, "fcuk this" and decides to put their hands around the drivers neck causing the car to crash or worse.

In the USA you are cuffed nomatter what if you are being arrested, often when if you're not being arrested and just being "spoken to". Aul granny or not, you'll be cuffed.

Arrested ok.
"Spoken to" a tad over the top.
Land of the free and all that.

pah

Somebody is drunk and in the back of a squad car. I might be by myself. They may be contemplating the embarrassment or consequences of what has just happened them. No telling what they might do. I'm handcuffing them all day long for everybody's safety. If the judiciary want to act the gowl that's up to them.

TheBoyConor

elperello wrote:

Arrested ok. "Spoken to" a tad over the top. Land of the free and all that.

They do. Ever watch US cop reality tv shows? They cuff nearly everyone they talk to.
Some are even shot dead right on camera.

elperello

TheBoyConor wrote: »

They do. Ever watch US cop reality tv shows? They cuff nearly everyone they talk to.
Some are even shot dead right on camera.

No, I try to avoid those programmes.

I wouldn't like to live in a country where the police feel the need to handcuff someone to talk to them.

willowthewisp

Absolutely ridiculous the amount of people who get off with Drink driving on technicalities.

Gregor Samsa

The Garda should have followed procedure and known when it was appropriate to apply the handcuffs.

That said, the fact that handcuffs were applied after his arrest made no material difference to the fact he was illegally intoxicated while driving. So I don’t understand why the procedural issue of the handcuffs was allowed to nullify the prosecution of the charge. You think it would be fair to separate the issues - find him guilty (if appropriate) on the drink driving charge and still deal with the incorrect use of handcuffs in another way. But it seems it doesn’t work like that.

Skylinehead

Dtp1979 wrote: »

What can’t the judge be allowed to use common sense though? It’s ridiculous

Luckily the law and case precedence isn't based on someones arbitrary ideas of "common sense", they're much more solid than that.

Guy:Incognito

Nixonbot wrote: »

Luckily the law and case precedence isn't based on someones arbitrary ideas of "common sense", they're much more solid than that.

Well this one appears to be based on horse****. At the point the guy turns violent in the car and smacks the Gardai a few times in the head , I'm sure the judge will be there to help restrain him and let them know they can put the cuffs on now.

What harm is it doing to anyone being in handcuffs when they are arrested? Absolute best case scenario in every arrest the person doesn't kick off. Why take the risk with the ones that will. Literally all its doing is putting Gardai at risk of assault or worse for no reason other than a bit of comfort for someone arrested for breaking the law. Why should Gardai be put in any unessecary risk?

Skylinehead

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well this one appears to be based on horse****. At the point the guy turns violent in the car and smacks the Gardai a few times in the head , I'm sure the judge will be there to help restrain him and let them know they can put the cuffs on now.

What harm is it doing to anyone being in handcuffs when they are arrested? Absolute best case scenario in every arrest the person doesn't kick off. Why take the risk with the ones that will. Literally all its doing is putting Gardai at risk of assault or worse for no reason other than a bit of comfort for someone arrested for breaking the law. Why should Gardai be put in any unessecary risk?

Oh I'm not even talking about this case, just the general logic of a judge using "common sense".

elperello

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well this one appears to be based on horse****. At the point the guy turns violent in the car and smacks the Gardai a few times in the head , I'm sure the judge will be there to help restrain him and let them know they can put the cuffs on now.

What harm is it doing to anyone being in handcuffs when they are arrested? Absolute best case scenario in every arrest the person doesn't kick off. Why take the risk with the ones that will. Literally all its doing is putting Gardai at risk of assault or worse for no reason other than a bit of comfort for someone arrested for breaking the law. Why should Gardai be put in any unessecary risk?

I agree that a policy of handcuffing all arrested persons would be a simple way out of this problem.
However it is fair to point out that all arrested persons have not broken the law. That is for the courts to decide.

Guy:Incognito

elperello wrote: »

I.
However it is fair to point out that all arrested persons have not broken the law. That is for the courts to decide.

If that's the case the no one should be handcuffed . Try pulling the " I havnt been convicted therefore I've broken no law" line after going on a killing spree.

elperello

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If that's the case the no one should be handcuffed . Try pulling the " I havnt been convicted therefore I've broken no law" line after going on a killing spree.

I said I agreed that all arrested persons should be handcuffed.
That does not change the fact that the Gardai arrest and the courts decide guilt.

4ensic15

phutyle wrote: »

The Garda should have followed procedure and known when it was appropriate to apply the handcuffs.

That said, the fact that handcuffs were applied after his arrest made no material difference to the fact he was illegally intoxicated while driving. So I don’t understand why the procedural issue of the handcuffs was allowed to nullify the prosecution of the charge. You think it would be fair to separate the issues - find him guilty (if appropriate) on the drink driving charge and still deal with the incorrect use of handcuffs in another way. But it seems it doesn’t work like that.

The reason is that from the time the handcuffs were applied he was in unlawful detention. Under the constitution no one can be deprived of their liberty other than in accordance with law. the evidence to justify a conviction was obtained whilst he was in unlawful detention, therefore it was not admissible. No evidence, no conviction.

4ensic15

willowthewisp wrote: »

Absolutely ridiculous the amount of people who get off with Drink driving on technicalities.

Why don't the houses of the oireachtas do what they are supposed to do and draft offences to cover drink driving that don't have anomalies and contradictions in them. Why are guards not properly trained and educated so that they don't fall foul of defence tactics?

heroics

4ensic15 wrote: »

The reason is that from the time the handcuffs were applied he was in unlawful detention. Under the constitution no one can be deprived of their liberty other than in accordance with law. the evidence to justify a conviction was obtained whilst he was in unlawful detention, therefore it was not admissible. No evidence, no conviction.

The pr*ck was still 4 times over the limit and chose to drive. Probably out there doing it again. What happens if he kills someone next time.

4ensic15

heroics wrote: »

The pr*ck was still 4 times over the limit and chose to drive. Probably out there doing it again. What happens if he kills someone next time.

He will probably be charged with dangerous driving causing death and drink driving.

GreeBo

elperello wrote: »

I said I agreed that all arrested persons should be handcuffed.
That does not change the fact that the Gardai arrest and the courts decide guilt.

Exactly, so why does the fact of being handcuffed have any bearing on drink driving?

elperello

GreeBo wrote: »

Exactly, so why does the fact of being handcuffed have any bearing on drink driving?

It doesn't have any direct bearing on the committing of the offence.

If the law was to say that all persons taken into custody would be cuffed then everyone, Gardai, civilian staff and other emergency services would be better protected.

Our squad cars don't have a cage in the rear to isolate possibly volatile individuals.

Miike

Like it or lump it the arrest was made in an unlawful manner despite being on lawful grounds. The arrest needs to be lawful for the evidence to be admissible in court.

I'm not saying I agree with it, that's just the process.

The Guards knew what they were doing and the subject didn't pose any kind of threat or give any indication he is a threat. Anyone can become violent not just drunk people. I'd rather not be cuffed every time a Guard has a suspicion about me and can just jump to the conclusion I'm going to behave violently and put me in cuffs. Mechanical restraint shouldn't be used willy nilly.

Guy:Incognito

Miike wrote: »

.
. I'd rather not be cuffed every time a Guard has a suspicion about me and can just jump to the conclusion I'm going to behave violently and put me in cuffs. Mechanical restraint shouldn't be used willy nilly.

They weren't just having a chat with someone They were suspicious about, he was under arrest.

If you were a Gard would you be happy taking a chance with a drunk person you'd arrested by leaving them uncuffed in the seat behind you while you drove?

Miike

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

They weren't just having a chat with someone They were suspicious about, he was under arrest.

Being under arrest doesn't mean you need to be restrained with handcuffs. You can't just assume everyone and everything is going to violent and use mechanical restraint. We're humans and should be treated in a humane manner.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If you were a Gard would you be happy taking a chance with a drunk person you'd arrested by leaving them uncuffed in the seat behind you while you drove?

I work with volatile people professionally and the use of mechanical restraint is the very very very last resort. It's inhumane to allow carte blanche use of any kinds of mechanical restraint.

Guy:Incognito

Miike wrote: »

Being under arrest doesn't mean you need to be restrained with handcuffs. You can't just assume everyone and everything is going to violent and use mechanical restraint. We're humans and should be treated in a humane manner.

What's the big issue with be8ng handcuffed while under arrest? What are you afraid of? The safety of the Gardai should be people's main concern, not some arseholes drunk driver. The Gardai should be protected as much as possible while doing their jobs. If that involves them surfing whoever they feel they should while making arrests, people should go with that.

If the guy kicked off and punched the head off a female doctor or nurse while getting a blood sample taken I gurentee thered be uproar from people saying they should be protected. The people in the front line charged with doing the protection should be afforded the same.protection themselves.

Guy:Incognito

Miike wrote: »

.


I work with volatile people professionally and the use of mechanical restraint is the very very very last resort. It's inhumane to allow carte blanche use of any kinds of mechanical restraint.

Unless your job is as a member of the Gardai arresting criminals then it's not really the same though is it? If a lad being arrested while 4 times the drink drive limit is likely to do something stupid like attack some0ne or try to escape, it's most likely going to be somewhere between arrest and the cell.

How about we let the person actually dealing with the criminals make the decision on what's best for their own safety? It's easy for a judge to sit in a court room nice and safe and say what the Gardai should be doing.

Miike

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If the guy kicked off and punched the head off a female doctor or nurse while getting a blood sample taken I gurentee thered be uproar from people saying they should be protected. The people in the front line charged with doing the protection should be afforded the same.protection themselves.

This happens morning, noon and night in every hospital around the country, so if you fancy causing uproar be my guest. It doesn't warrant treating everyone like animals because there's a few people out there who wish to cause harm.

Guy:Incognito

Miike wrote: »

This happens morning, noon and night in every hospital around the country, so if you fancy causing uproar be my guest. .

The roles are different though. There's a reasonable assumption that a percentage of criminals will lash put at the people that are stopping them performing their criminal acts. Patients in hospitals don't have a Garda assigned to escort them around and its not feasable for them to. Obviously no one should be attacked at work but at some stage a lot are. The Gardai have the means and the reason to be suspicious about the people they are dealing with so in the interest of reducing attacks, they should be allowed restrain prisoners imo.

Peintre Celebre

4ensic15 wrote: »

The reason is that from the time the handcuffs were applied he was in unlawful detention. Under the constitution no one can be deprived of their liberty other than in accordance with law. the evidence to justify a conviction was obtained whilst he was in unlawful detention, therefore it was not admissible. No evidence, no conviction.

He was not detained so it could not be an unlawful detention..he was already deprived of his liberty he was arrested.. handcuffs are considered a use of force and so may need to be justified it isnt that his detention was unlawful. There is a difference

Miike

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The roles are different though. There's a reasonable assumption that a percentage of criminals will lash put at the people that are stopping them performing their criminal acts. Patients in hospitals don't have a Garda assigned to escort them around and its not feasable for them to. Obviously no one should be attacked at work but at some stage a lot are. The Gardai have the means and the reason to be suspicious about the people they are dealing with so in the interest of reducing attacks, they should be allowed restrain prisoners imo.

Nurses and doctors have the means and a reason to be suspicious too but ultimately it comes down to treating people as people and using restraint only as required and not on a willy nilly basis. Nurses and doctors have VERY rigid guidelines to adhere to around the use of restraint I don't see why AGS should be any different. Without going into too much details, I deal with extremely volatile people and more often than not Gaurds are involved but we can not assume everyone's out to do harm.

I can see where you are coming from completely, I get it. But I also think its important to protect and vindicate the basics of being human and not jumping to conclusions about everyone. If the gaurd had any reason other than "he was drinking" then I'd be all for cuffing him but you can't just assume everyone who's drunk is going to puck the head off you! at least, in my opinion.

Thanks for having a respectful discussion about it by the way, it's rarity when people don't feel the need to call you a blithering idiot because they don't agree with your opinion.

McCrack

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Unless your job is as a member of the Gardai arresting criminals then it's not really the same though is it? If a lad being arrested while 4 times the drink drive limit is likely to do something stupid like attack some0ne or try to escape, it's most likely going to be somewhere between arrest and the cell.

How about we let the person actually dealing with the criminals make the decision on what's best for their own safety? It's easy for a judge to sit in a court room nice and safe and say what the Gardai should be doing.

This post is an example of armchair expert

The vast majority of people arrested for drink driving are compliant

A guard is not precluded from placing handcuffs on a person if after assessing the situation there is good reason to

Having a few drinks on board in and of itself is not enough reason to put handcuffs on drink driver. We are not living in America thankfully

If I am putting an arrested person in the back of a car that I will be driving, then they will be wearing handcuffs.
I care about my safety, my passengers safety & the safety of other road users.
When the Supreme Court judgement was made I decided I would still handcuff prisoners. & every other Garda should continue to do so until such a time as they either make cages in cars as protection, or change procedure.

It's all very easy for a court to say someone is not violent, but you have no idea how quickly a drunk person can change. Laughing & joking one minute, kicking the head of the driver the next.
It happens & it has happened many times. I believe in human rights, but I believe in safety first.

McCrack

bubblypop wrote: »

If I am putting an arrested person in the back of a car that I will be driving, then they will be wearing handcuffs.
I care about my safety, my passengers safety & the safety of other road users.
When the Supreme Court judgement was made I decided I would still handcuff prisoners. & every other Garda should continue to do so until such a time as they either make cages in cars as protection, or change procedure.

It's all very easy for a court to say someone is not violent, but you have no idea how quickly a drunk person can change. Laughing & joking one minute, kicking the head of the driver the next.
It happens & it has happened many times. I believe in human rights, but I believe in safety first.

Drink drivers too and is your observer sitting in the car as well?

McCrack

McCrack wrote: »

Drink drivers too and is your observer sitting in the car as well?

Drink drivers yes.
& I would hope there would be an observer yes.

McCrack

bubblypop wrote: »

Drink drivers yes.
& I would hope there would be an observer yes.

Well you make your decisions. I won't put it any further.

4ensic15

Peintre Celebre wrote: »

He was not detained so it could not be an unlawful detention..he was already deprived of his liberty he was arrested.. handcuffs are considered a use of force and so may need to be justified it isnt that his detention was unlawful. There is a difference

Being under arrest means a person is detained. When the handcuffs were put on it meant the detention was unlawful. If the detention becomes unlawful at any point the evidence gathered is inadmissible.

Mint Sauce

Am starting to wonder reading this, whats the point in issuing the Guards with cuffs, if their use is going to be questioned, or even have a case thrown out where the detainee has clearly broken the law.

Yes yes yes, I have read about on here about the detention being unlawful, and precident, and have even studied a very little about precident my self, but its still a fcuking ass, that a guy who was four times over, has got off scout free because a Guard cuffed someone who he had arrested. Yes he had his rights, and I assume they were read to him when he was arrested, but what about all the rights of others that night he removed when he got behind the wheel.

Guy:Incognito

McCrack wrote: »

This post is an example of armchair expert

The vast majority of people arrested for drink driving are compliant

A guard is not precluded from placing handcuffs on a person if after assessing the situation there is good reason to

Having a few drinks on board in and of itself is not enough reason to put handcuffs on drink driver. We are not living in America thankfully

I'm an armchair expert because I think the individual Garda should be allowed to use cuffs as they see fit? Surely that's the opposite. I don't do the job and so recognise that I don't know what it's like on the ground. So I defer to the person in the position.


Putting handcuffs on someone after they've punched you doesn't make the damage go away.

4ensic15

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I'm an armchair expert because I think the individual Garda should be allowed to use cuffs as they see fit? .

The individual guard can put on handcuffs as he sees fit. He has to justify why he saw fit. The problem in the case is that the justification offered was not sufficient.

elperello

I can see how there is reluctance to go the orange jump suit and shackles route.
I shudder when I see the over the top approach adopted in the US to defendants not even convicted of any crime.

How would people feel if there was a list of crimes which if you were arrested on suspicion of cuffs could be used automatically?
I'm thinking murder, assault, firearms and knife offences, offences involving drugs or alcohol etc.

RobbieMD

Miike wrote: »

Nurses and doctors have the means and a reason to be suspicious too but ultimately it comes down to treating people as people and using restraint only as required and not on a willy nilly basis. Nurses and doctors have VERY rigid guidelines to adhere to around the use of restraint I don't see why AGS should be any different. Without going into too much details, I deal with extremely volatile people and more often than not Gaurds are involved but we can not assume everyone's out to do harm.

I can see where you are coming from completely, I get it. But I also think its important to protect and vindicate the basics of being human and not jumping to conclusions about everyone. If the gaurd had any reason other than "he was drinking" then I'd be all for cuffing him but you can't just assume everyone who's drunk is going to puck the head off you! at least, in my opinion.

Thanks for having a respectful discussion about it by the way, it's rarity when people don't feel the need to call you a blithering idiot because they don't agree with your opinion.

Twice you've said "willy nilly" a the basis for using handcuffs. I don't see it as being willy nilly. If it was then we'd read about it everyday in the papers. There is a massive difference between using restraints in a hospital setting and using handcuffs on a prisoner on the side of a road. Most likely it was two Gardai dealing with the prisoner. The hospital is full of staff to assist and security staff, should a patient get violent. What happens if a drunk driver grabs the driver of the patrol car?

What's the next precedant to come though. What if a drunk driver objects to being placed in a cell? After all he's not guilty of anything or a criminal and we can't be assuming he'll get violent. Maybe he should be just left to sit on a chair in the doctors room to wait? Maybe we can have more drunk drivers get off because they were treated inhumanly and put in a cell.

I've seen judges order people be placed in cuffs for contempt, they weren't violent but they did shout at the judge. people saying judges live in a different world, are 100% correct. They quiver when a defendant gets violent and the first person they look for is the court Garda.

Miike

RobbieMD wrote: »

Twice you've said "willy nilly" a the basis for using handcuffs. I don't see it as being willy nilly. If it was then we'd read about it everyday in the papers. There is a massive difference between using restraints in a hospital setting and using handcuffs on a prisoner on the side of a road. Most likely it was two Gardai dealing with the prisoner. The hospital is full of staff to assist and security staff, should a patient get violent. What happens if a drunk driver grabs the driver of the patrol car?

Someone else brought up doctors/nurses, I'm just carrying their argument forward, in my reply to them. I still don't agree that everyone should be put in mechanical restraint regardless. If there is a genuine chance that a drunk driver 'grabs the driver of the patrol car' then I would imagine that would come to the surface in the gaurds risk assessment for the use of mechanical restraint. The case we're discussing it's very clearly documented that the man was completely compliant with the arrest and the use of handcuffs was deemed excessive off the back of that.

RobbieMD wrote: »

What's the next precedant to come though. What if a drunk driver objects to being placed in a cell? After all he's not guilty of anything or a criminal and we can't be assuming he'll get violent. Maybe he should be just left to sit on a chair in the doctors room to wait? Maybe we can have more drunk drivers get off because they were treated inhumanly and put in a cell.

Are you suggesting that I believe refusal to comply with a Guard is acceptable and not a reason to restrain someone? If was the case that the gentlemen arrested for drink driving refused to comply, I think that's definitely an indicator that he might become combative or is unpredictable in nature so the use of handcuffs would be deemed necessary. Or are you trying to disqualify what I'm saying by appealing to extremes?

RobbieMD wrote: »

I've seen judges order people be placed in cuffs for contempt, they weren't violent but they did shout at the judge. people saying judges live in a different world, are 100% correct. They quiver when a defendant gets violent and the first person they look for is the court Garda.

You think shouting at a judge isn't indicative that someone might become combative or otherwise pose a threat?

Conor84

I can see both sides of this. Ive been arrested a few times over the years and always got handcuffed. I woilg have been drinking those nights so understood why the cuffs went on and just took it as part of being arrested.

One time I was being brought to court the morning after being arrested. I was totally sober, had been co-operative all the time I was in the station and was going to court in one of those vans with a cage in the back so could not be a threat t to the Guards even if I wanted to be. Yet still got cuffed that time and so was the other lad going to court.

I think Guards do use handcuffs too much like that but just thought that was the way it was and never thought that a case would get thrown out over something like that.

lawred2

h3000 wrote: »

What a load of **** :mad:


https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/342751/suspected-limerick-drink-driver-was-handcuffed-unlawfully-by-garda.html

Why couldn't those things have been dealt as two separate incidents?

One surely does not cancel the other out?

Moronic judgement

Avatar MIA

Try_harder wrote: »

The rich dont have the laws apply to them. They get a good brief and get off on a technicality

Rich people drive a Ford Focus now? Or are you trying to shoehorn your prejudice into the thread?

Miike

lawred2 wrote: »

Why couldn't those things have been dealt as two separate incidents?

One surely does not cancel the other out?

Moronic judgement

The evidence is not deemed asmissable if it was attained unlawfully. In this case the unlawlful arrest even though it was on lawful grounds.

I agree though, it's bananas that for something as clear cut as drinking driving that this makes the evidence deemed 'invalid'.

The DPP v Cullen case makes for very interesting reading

AnneFrank

Do you think the guard should be disciplined for his massive f up?

Miike

AnneFrank wrote: »

Do you think the guard should be disciplined for his massive f up?

I don't think it's a massive f up. It's a normal f up... at a stretch.
What would disciplining the gaurd achieve?