shortly Posted February 17, 2014 Proposed drink-drive laws that would allow police to detain motorists for 30 minutes invade basic human rights, lawyers say. The ACT government says the revamped roadside alcohol and drug testing regime will improve road safety for all road users in the ACT. But some lawyers are concerned the new rules could erode civil liberties and could cause unnecessary delays for people on urgent business, such as surgeons on their way to hospitals. The new laws, due to be debated in the ACT Legislative Assembly next week, will give the police the power to detain a driver for up to 30 minutes if breathalyser or drug testing equipment is not available. Advertisement The law applies to all motorists, even if they are not suspected of drinking. The amended road-transport bill will have other changes: restricting defence of honest and reasonable mistake; removing the requirement for police to arrange a medical examination; and it will create an offence of refusing to undertake a screening test for alcohol or drugs. Police currently have the power to conduct roadside alcohol or drug tests either as part of random breath testing, where a driver is involved in an accident, following a routine traffic stop, or where the vehicle was stopped for another purpose. But officers have no legislative power to require that a driver remain for a test if a screening device is not immediately available at the scene, or a device is not working. Not all police vehicles are equipped with breathalyser equipment, and only the Belconnen-based Road Safety Operation Team currently carries drug-screening test kits. ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell said the change would provide certainty on police powers to temporarily detain a driver to undertake an alcohol or drug screening test. Mr Corbell said 30 minutes would be the maximum time a person could be detained, but in reality the delay would be shorter. "The 30 minutes maximum detention period was chosen as an appropriate compromise between the rights of drivers not to be detained for longer than necessary to ensure that the road transport legislation is being complied with, with the time needed to source a replacement screening device," Mr Corbell said. "Thirty minutes will allow a drug screening device to be sourced from the Traffic Operations Centre in Belconnen … and delivered to any part of metropolitan Canberra where the driver has been directed to remain." The Attorney-General said similar regimes currently operate in Victoria and Tasmania. "The amendment currently before the Assembly makes no change to the existing grounds upon which the police can require a person to undertake a screening test, i.e. the situation will remain that police do not need reasonable suspicion about the driver being under the influence of alcohol or drugs," Mr Corbell said. But Paul Edmonds, a defence lawyer from Canberra Criminal Lawyers, said the statutory basis which allowed authorities to randomly stop drivers for a breath test was based on the police being in a position to administer the breath test there and then. Mr Edmonds, who is a member of the ACT Law Society criminal law committee, said motorists accepted the personal inconvenience of being tested for the greater good of detecting drunk drivers. But he said the amendment eroded the right to liberty recognised by the Human Rights Act. "This is not simply a matter of personal inconvenience, but rather the power of police to curtail a law abiding individual's right to liberty," Mr Edmonds said. "It is an unreasonable inroad into the right to liberty to allow the police not only to require a driver who has not committed any offence, and who is not reasonably suspected at that point of having committed any offence, to not only submit to an 'on-the-spot' breath test, but to also make them wait at the roadside for up to 30 minutes just because the police do not have a breath-testing device available or in working order. "It will be interesting to see what happens if a surgeon on the way to hospital is stopped by police and told to wait for half an hour, or someone running late for a flight." Mr Edmonds said the laws should have only empowered the police to detain those drivers suspected of driving under the influence for the 30-minute period. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/detaining-drivers-a-human-rights-breach-lawyer-20140216-32u80.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Distracted Posted February 17, 2014 Awesome! So the first thing the cops do is tell you you're required to wait at least 30 minutes until a breatho turns up then once the 30 minutes is past they can THEN begin their actual investigation of no relevancy requiring you to wait even longer. Cops are tops but law makers are fucking awesome! 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ace1928 Posted February 17, 2014 What if we asked a cop to wait 30minutes while we went to get the licence we are supposed to have on us when they pull us over just cause we don't have it there and then at that moment?Bet that would go down real well... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Subaeruginosin Posted February 17, 2014 FYI, From what I understand in Victoria the police are already allowed to hold you for 30 minutes when doing a road worthy inspection or searching your vehicle for contraband, but once the 30 minutes is up you can leave without needing there permission. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halcyon Daze Posted February 17, 2014 Guilty until proven innocent, I can see how that would work well. -For Nazis and Communist Dictators. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shortly Posted February 17, 2014 I thought we had already pretty much forgone the presumption of innocence in order to combat a fictional enemy? Or perhaps we are the enemy, i'm not sure? 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ace1928 Posted February 17, 2014 It's pitiful that all laws assume that people are inherently bad/evil/whatever.Wouldn't it be nice if the world was based on the foundation that each person is capable of so much good and that in a given situation it is safe to assume that people won't be assholes?Yeh there are a lot of assholes in the world BUT they are a minority. That is why they stand out. A circle of white on black paper draws the attention far more than actual black paper itself. Minorities stand out in all situations.So rather than make laws according to the minority why not make them according to the majority?Why not assume that people ARE doing the right thing and simply enforce laws when people ACTUALLY break them. Why do we have to keep making more and more laws so that fewer and fewer people are "legally" doing anything right?They gone full retard... You never go full retard... 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Francois le Danque Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) How absurd, obviously the cop is going to HAVE reasonable suspicion in order to make the driver wait around for the machine, so why not just put that in the legislation? Subaeruginosin, your post implies that vicpol can search you just by pulling you over. I'm pretty sure they still need reasonable suspicion to search; if the half hour rule applies it must be after this or for other stuff like vehicle roadworthy, licence check etc. As for not having your licence when driving: that's just an 80 dollar fine, onthespot, no waiting for the police.! Soon every house will have a cop at the door who makes you stand there for half an hour for trying to leave the house, to ensure you are fit for society. Upon returning you must present the cop with the deed/tenancy agreement, your ID and a blood and hair sample. These will take about 2 hours to process. Assuming you pass all checks, you will be allowed inside your home for a 6 hour rest period before work again tomorrow. Sign here to receive air. Edited February 21, 2014 by Frank leDank Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anodyne Posted February 21, 2014 FYI, From what I understand in Victoria the police are already allowed to hold you for 30 minutes when doing a road worthy inspection or searching your vehicle for contraband, but once the 30 minutes is up you can leave without needing there permission. Usually how this stuff works is that yes, you can refuse a search &/or leave without permission, but it will be taken as evidence of suspiciously uncooperative behaviour (or some such shit) and used as their "reasonable suspicion" to detain and search you anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CLICKHEREx Posted February 21, 2014 So, what did they do in the times before alcotest kits, or breathalyser vans? They could revert to former procedures if suspecting drunken drivers, and having a faulty kit, or abandon RBT tests. What if they detain a type 1 diabetic who need insulin, has run out of supplies, and is on the way to a pharmacy, or doctor/hospital? In the US recently, a woman died in jail because she tested positive for cannabis, on the road trip to her interstate home, after a trip to Colorado, and was unable to access her medication. I foresee huge law suits, with sympathetic juries, and massive payouts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
