A Question For Andrew.

I'm sure if we filled a space hopper until it was really tight we'd be goodfor ages. A little teamwork and we'd be on the road in no time,of course I realise I'm advocating drink driving which I don't, and I'm sure Justin doesn't either. we're just trying to outthink the cheats so measures can be taken, you know, Batman like and all that, pacing in front of our PCs punching our fists and wringing our gloved hands at the devilish fiends on our roads.

All very cute answers but I was hoping Andrew would elucidate as only he can.

Elucinations young Miss, are you implying that Mr Pack has been on the waccy baccy?

Sorry George - day off yesterday. I don't do criminal law, so I'm not absolutely certain of the initial premise - i.e that the police can only use breathalysers in connection with drink-driving. I think others above have come close - the offence that the person is charged with is the disorder, not the drunkenness. Being inebrieated is not an offence, provided you are not causing a nuisance. So the police would approach and assess the situation - if they felt the person was drunk, they'd charge drunk and disorderly, if not breach of the peace. (In practice, breach of the peace starts with the police advising that someone calms down and clears off, whereas they do usually pinch you for d&d) It must be part of the actus reus (the physical act of the crime) that the person is drunk and the evidence on that would be for the police to prove. Simply smelling of drink, being unsteady and having slurred speech would probably do the job. Another important key is that the test for d&d would be that the person to objective persons seeing him would appear drunk, not just over the limit. That presupposes a level of intoxication that doesn't usually come with driving offences. Hope that helps George. I did try Smith and Hogan, the criminal bible, but d &d is too small fry to be discussed within it.

Sorry George - day off yesterday. I don't do criminal law, so I'm not absolutely certain of the initial premise - i.e that the police can only use breathalysers in connection with drink-driving. I think others above have come close - the offence that the person is charged with is the disorder, not the drunkenness. Being inebrieated is not an offence, provided you are not causing a nuisance. So the police would approach and assess the situation - if they felt the person was drunk, they'd charge drunk and disorderly, if not breach of the peace. (In practice, breach of the peace starts with the police advising that someone calms down and clears off, whereas they do usually pinch you for d&d) It must be part of the actus reus (the physical act of the crime) that the person is drunk and the evidence on that would be for the police to prove. Simply smelling of drink, being unsteady and having slurred speech would probably do the job. Another important key is that the test for d&d would be that the person to objective persons seeing him would appear drunk, not just over the limit. That presupposes a level of intoxication that doesn't usually come with driving offences. Hope that helps George. I did try Smith and Hogan, the cri

And what about a set of old-fashioned bellows for Ohio? I have only ever seen bellows in the Beano (mostly in Little Plum or the Three Bears), but I'm sure someone here must have seen a pair in real life.

Doesn't it have to be breath? I'm assuming that just moving air won't cut it although I can't think why. Exhaled air probably has a lower Oxygen and higher Carbon Dioxide content as well as a higher temperature but I'm just guessing here (no sh1t). If not then you could just use a hair dryer or an air compressor or something. I'd love a pair of those bellows you see in films etc.

Aha...as I thought upthread then...you can't be arrested for most driving offences, only for DRINKING and driving. Therefore the need for the test. With drunk and dis, the primary arrestable offence is non-drink related. The drunkenness is of little significance. See, Missi: cute, but right. Next!

There's a way around everything, I suppose, but having a breathalyzer installed in your car is a good reminder of what went wrong in the first place. Moreover, if you get caught a second time, whtherk you have subverted the system somehow or not, you'd be in for a lengthy prison term. Being in prison is of course another way to prevent drunk driving, at least for that one person. Death is the final option. It works every time, but it is irreversible.

Andrew, it was a police sergeant that told the court that the law only allows the use of the breathalyser in driving related instances, so I assume he knows what he's talking about. Having sat through a week of listening to three defence barristers haggle over the minutest of detail (including the difference between 1yd and 1mtr when a person is rushing towards you) I assumed (probably wrongly) that any charge has to be qualified by some kind of proof of offence, i.e. that the term 'drunk' can only be applied when backed up by some quantifiable test result. It was just curiosity on my part that caused me to ask. Thanks for taking the time to give the best answer available.

They run over the suspect first.

Quick as a flash, as usual.

If they arrest him, then they probably draw blood and analyze the sample. I think the breathalyzer is only a tentative test. it gives the officer enough cause to arrest the person, then the blood sample is taken later. Just guessing, though.

*ahem* is there a reason why you want to know this, sir? We have reason to believe that a person not entirely dissimilar to a compilation of faces found upon the police computer last Wednesday which slightly resembles the face seen on the "abc tales rogues gallery" who witnesses said they had seen "lying in a somnolent posture in the gutter" at approximately twenty-three forty-five hours, and was earlier recorded on video in Oddbins purchasing an alcoholic beverage whilst walking in what was described as a staggering gait and was later said to have insulted an officer of the law in a loud voice announcing that he was a poet and it was quite impossible that he could be arrested because the alcohol ingested was purely for the benefit of giving a richer sound when reading out said poetry at a nearby establishment where a certain group of poets were eagerly awaiting his latest work. Could that be the reason you ask?

No.

Dunno, George but have I ever told you the police station in my town is located in Pig Lane? well, it amuses me anyway. I'll get me coat and fall out the door mesen

Is it a case of 'How many drinks? Tuff, you're under arrest!' Pig Lane! I bet the local feds get stick over that too.

I think Justyn's right. Usually a drunk and disorderly has done enough to be arrested in the first place: causing a public nuisance, disturbing the peace, assault perhaps. What's the driver done apart from drive a wee bit fast? Not enough to arrest someone usually.

Speaking of breathalyzers......in my home State of Ohio, there is a law which requires installation of a breathalyzer in the car of anyone convicted of drunk driving. Naturally, this only applies AFTER geting his driver's license back, which could take several years in some cases. The breathalyzer is hooked up to the ignition so that you have to blow into it and pass the test before your car will start. No, blowing into it does not actually start the car, a key does that. When I mentioned this to someone a year or so ago, they said: So what! They can always get someone else to blow into the breathalyzer for them. Yeah, true enough, but what sober person in their right mind would actually do that?

You could fill a balloon before you set off and keep it in the boot

Not unless it was a very strong balloon with a huge pressure capability. These things take a tremendous puff to operate.

Am now having visions of Ely and Justin setting off on a road trip with a balloon full of breath, trying to leave the pub and filter the air into the breathalizer while slightly drunk and disorganised. Cheech and chong do national lampoon in poland.