P-Plater goes DUI twice in one night

Solidarity said :

Why should the cops detain his car anyway? He is responsible for his own actions. They would have had thier eyes on his car like a hawk from the word go anyway, hence why he got caught again.

Logic would dictate that anyone with a reading of .135 is not in any fit condition to make sound judgements and therefore not fully responsible for their actions!

Why should the cops detain his car anyway? He is responsible for his own actions. They would have had thier eyes on his car like a hawk from the word go anyway, hence why he got caught again.

outtatowner said :

Correct. Police have no power to detain a person for just being intoxicated. Only exception in this case may be if Police believed the person could not take care of themselves. But they would have to blow a lot higher than 0.123. Again, don’t blame Police, blame legislation

So, did the police have a suspicion that the person in question might drive a car again that night? Because if they did, they would have been right, and I would suggest that fits your criteria of “only exception in this case may be if Police believed the person could not take care of themselves”, since driving drunk clearly isn’t taking care of yourself.

Having said that, this is clearly an issue for law makers to change. As has been said, you can impound a well maintained car for doing a burnout at the hands of sober driver on a quiet backstreet, but you can’t for a pissed dickhead in the centre of Civic.

Correct. Police have no power to detain a person for just being intoxicated. Only exception in this case may be if Police believed the person could not take care of themselves. But they would have to blow a lot higher than 0.123. Again, don’t blame Police, blame legislation

Well that amazes me and and as for the legislators they get a massive fail! I believe anyone caught drink driving or drug driving for that matter should be detained until they sober up.No chance of being caught an hour later and then having to face the magistrate to cop harsher punishment.
Now that is the height of stupidity!!

bundah said :

outtatowner said :

bundah said :

It’s plainly obvious that releasing him shortly after he was charged was the height of stupidity!

Another example of pointing the blame in the wrong direction. I can assure you that if legislation allowed Police to detain these morons, they would.

Are you seriously telling me that police have no power to detain a drink driver until they sober up?

Correct. Police have no power to detain a person for just being intoxicated. Only exception in this case may be if Police believed the person could not take care of themselves. But they would have to blow a lot higher than 0.123. Again, don’t blame Police, blame legislation

snoopydoc said :

buzz819 said :

snoopydoc said :

Okay… I’ll be the first to ask the stupid question…

The kid was taken to the Police station for formal blood ethanol measurement, which demonstrated he was indeed quite intoxicated, had his _provisional_ license suspended, and someone was bright enough to not only (a) not impound the vehicle, but (b) give him the keys back when he was released?

Awesome.

This comes up every time;

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1977-17/current/pdf/1977-17.pdf

There’s some light reading, come up with the part in it where it says Police can legally impound the vehicle and confiscate his keys. I’ll give you a hint, it’s not there, what the Police would be doing is in fact stealing the items from the person.

Thanks for the info, buzz. I had more or less assumed that they were probably restricted by legislation in this area, but it strikes me as one of those times when the imaginary “For f**k’s sake!” clause should be invoked on the basis that it would obviously make sense to physically restrict these idiots’ ability to get back behind the wheel of a car, particularly during the period where they are still clearly intoxicated.

It’s interesting that multiple jurisdictions now empower Police to impound vehicle for driving like a hoon, but they can’t do it for proven drunk driving.

Oh seriously, they can’t close that loophole? It just reinforces the perception that road safety legislation is about revenue raising and not about actual road safety.

outtatowner said :

bundah said :

It’s plainly obvious that releasing him shortly after he was charged was the height of stupidity!

Another example of pointing the blame in the wrong direction. I can assure you that if legislation allowed Police to detain these morons, they would.

Are you seriously telling me that police have no power to detain a drink driver until they sober up?

bundah said :

It’s plainly obvious that releasing him shortly after he was charged was the height of stupidity!

Another example of pointing the blame in the wrong direction. I can assure you that if legislation allowed Police to detain these morons, they would.

and would it be too f***ing hard to have a flow chart for this crap in the legislation?

section 47(b) should include alcohol and RBT, not just drugs, people in custody or hospitals.

poetix said :

buzz819 said :

….Not only would they pay the court fees, but also cop the $3 a day impound fee.

I wonder if next time I’m going away, the police could impound my car rather than my having to pay for parking at Sydney airport? With the amount I would save I could fly to Sydney instead of driving. And have a night there in a good hotel. And a meal at Rockpool. Catch a performance of the ballet. Buy a modest flat. In other words, $3 a day is pretty reasonable.

You’re not wrong. Some friends of mine went overseas for a year and the quote they got to put their car in a storage facility (with minimal security) was well above that.

buzz819 said :

….Not only would they pay the court fees, but also cop the $3 a day impound fee.

I wonder if next time I’m going away, the police could impound my car rather than my having to pay for parking at Sydney airport? With the amount I would save I could fly to Sydney instead of driving. And have a night there in a good hotel. And a meal at Rockpool. Catch a performance of the ballet. Buy a modest flat. In other words, $3 a day is pretty reasonable.

Getting booked twice in a night seems to be more common now. I’m sure the police have a feeling for these types. Upon release they probably shadowed him, and picked him up when he got behind the wheel again. It’s there way of making sure these people get a double-dose of judiciary.

snoopydoc said :

buzz819 said :

snoopydoc said :

Okay… I’ll be the first to ask the stupid question…

The kid was taken to the Police station for formal blood ethanol measurement, which demonstrated he was indeed quite intoxicated, had his _provisional_ license suspended, and someone was bright enough to not only (a) not impound the vehicle, but (b) give him the keys back when he was released?

Awesome.

This comes up every time;

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1977-17/current/pdf/1977-17.pdf

There’s some light reading, come up with the part in it where it says Police can legally impound the vehicle and confiscate his keys. I’ll give you a hint, it’s not there, what the Police would be doing is in fact stealing the items from the person.

Thanks for the info, buzz. I had more or less assumed that they were probably restricted by legislation in this area, but it strikes me as one of those times when the imaginary “For f**k’s sake!” clause should be invoked on the basis that it would obviously make sense to physically restrict these idiots’ ability to get back behind the wheel of a car, particularly during the period where they are still clearly intoxicated.

It’s interesting that multiple jurisdictions now empower Police to impound vehicle for driving like a hoon, but they can’t do it for proven drunk driving.

It is, I think you would see a marked reduction in recidivist offenders if you could impound their cars for the same amount of time that their licence is suspended. Not only would they pay the court fees, but also cop the $3 a day impound fee.

buzz819 said :

snoopydoc said :

Okay… I’ll be the first to ask the stupid question…

The kid was taken to the Police station for formal blood ethanol measurement, which demonstrated he was indeed quite intoxicated, had his _provisional_ license suspended, and someone was bright enough to not only (a) not impound the vehicle, but (b) give him the keys back when he was released?

Awesome.

This comes up every time;

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1977-17/current/pdf/1977-17.pdf

There’s some light reading, come up with the part in it where it says Police can legally impound the vehicle and confiscate his keys. I’ll give you a hint, it’s not there, what the Police would be doing is in fact stealing the items from the person.

Thanks for the info, buzz. I had more or less assumed that they were probably restricted by legislation in this area, but it strikes me as one of those times when the imaginary “For f**k’s sake!” clause should be invoked on the basis that it would obviously make sense to physically restrict these idiots’ ability to get back behind the wheel of a car, particularly during the period where they are still clearly intoxicated.

It’s interesting that multiple jurisdictions now empower Police to impound vehicle for driving like a hoon, but they can’t do it for proven drunk driving.

It’s plainly obvious that releasing him shortly after he was charged was the height of stupidity!

snoopydoc said :

Okay… I’ll be the first to ask the stupid question…

The kid was taken to the Police station for formal blood ethanol measurement, which demonstrated he was indeed quite intoxicated, had his _provisional_ license suspended, and someone was bright enough to not only (a) not impound the vehicle, but (b) give him the keys back when he was released?

Awesome.

This comes up every time;

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1977-17/current/pdf/1977-17.pdf

There’s some light reading, come up with the part in it where it says Police can legally impound the vehicle and confiscate his keys. I’ll give you a hint, it’s not there, what the Police would be doing is in fact stealing the items from the person.

Okay… I’ll be the first to ask the stupid question…

The kid was taken to the Police station for formal blood ethanol measurement, which demonstrated he was indeed quite intoxicated, had his _provisional_ license suspended, and someone was bright enough to not only (a) not impound the vehicle, but (b) give him the keys back when he was released?

Awesome.