What would happen if.....

[Joey]

As soon as you got pulled over, you quickly took a few swigs at a bottle of vodka?
After I got pulled over, at the station they asked me questions such as if I have used any mouth wash etc, and if I have consumed any alchohol since driving.

It would be obvious that you were trying to evade, but they have to wait at least 15-20 minutes before they can test you, but can they now prove you were driving while drunk?

I had an empty bottle in my car, and if i had realised it at the time, i might of tried to say I finished it off.

 

[Forum Moderator]

As soon as you got pulled over, you quickly took a few swigs at a bottle of vodka?
After I got pulled over, at the station they asked me questions such as if I have used any mouth wash etc, and if I have consumed any alchohol since driving.

It would be obvious that you were trying to evade, but they have to wait at least 15-20 minutes before they can test you, but can they now prove you were driving while drunk?

I had an empty bottle in my car, and if i had realised it at the time, i might of tried to say I finished it off.

Post incident alcohol consumption is commonly known as the 'hip flask defence'. It is based on the fact that although it is unlawful to have an excessive BAC at the time of driving, it is not unlawful to have an elevated BAC (blood alcohol content) at the time of being tested for alcohol.

In order to run a hip flask defence a forensic expert would be required to carry out calculations based on specific information inculding, amongst other factors, how much alcohol was consumed both before and after you drove. This would allow them to determine what your BAC would have been if you had not consumed alcohol after driving.

The burden of proof is upon the defence to prove that alcohol was indeed consumed after a defendant drove and how much alcohol was consumed and had that alcohol not been consumed then the defendant would have not been over the legal limit at the time of driving. Not as easy as you may think.

It is a complicated and technical area of law.

 

[Joey]

but how would they prove that you had been drinking previously? Surely buy the time you get to the station, and process, then breathalized, the alcohol you consumed after getting pulled over would be in your system voiding the result. I dont see any area of law that says you cant consume alcohol after getting pulled over.

 

[Forum Moderator]

but how would they prove that you had been drinking previously? Surely buy the time you get to the station, and process, then breathalized, the alcohol you consumed after getting pulled over would be in your system voiding the result. I dont see any area of law that says you cant consume alcohol after getting pulled over.

Consuming alcohol after driving and before being tested does not 'void' any result. The police will require an evidential specimen for analysis, if it shows that a person was over the legal limit, they will be charged accordingly.

It will then be upon the defendant (the defence) to prove in a court of law that alcohol had been consumed after driving and before testing. As mentioned previously a forensic expert will be required to carry out calculations in order to determine if the alcohol consumed post-incident did indeed cause the defendant to be over the legal limit or not.

For example if a person blew 96 and stated that they drank a couple of cans of lager after driving and before testing a forensic expert could calculate how much those couple of cans of lager contributed to the total BAC of 96. They would then deduct this from the total BAC result and hence prove that the defendant had x amount of alcohol in their system before the cans of lager were drunk, proving that they did indeed (in this case) consume alcohol previous to the two cans of lager.

 

[Joey]

Ah i can see what your saying. But they wouldnt be able to tell how much you have consumed. If for example i had an empty vodka bottle in the car, They wouldnt know how much was in it. All i would have to do is pretend to gulp it down. saying it wasnt full in the first place. They wouldnt have a way of telling how much was in the bottle, as long as its done without them seeing the bottle before hand.

 

[neverwillagain]

Most people use this forum to gain advice and support after they have made a genuine mistake, one that they will regret for many years. Trying to D&D and get away with it intentionally cannot be right, going to drive? DONT DRINK simples.

 

[Joey]

thought someone would say that eventually. I didnt mean i want to do it again and get away with it. this was just a "What if" post.

 

[Forum Moderator]

Ah i can see what your saying. But they wouldnt be able to tell how much you have consumed. If for example i had an empty vodka bottle in the car, They wouldnt know how much was in it. All i would have to do is pretend to gulp it down. saying it wasnt full in the first place. They wouldnt have a way of telling how much was in the bottle, as long as its done without them seeing the bottle before hand.

Exactly how much alcohol was consumed does not need to be proved in order to be charged. It is driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of a vehicle while exceeding the legal limit that is an offence. Not driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of a vehicel after drinking (a shot of vodka, 2 cans of lager etc) xx amount of alcohol. Specific amounts of alcohol will effect people differently depending upon their sex, metabolism, build etc. A 5 foot tall, slim female for instance will usually have a higher BAC (blood alcohol content) than a 6 foot, large built male if they both drank exactly the same amount of alcohol.

The legal limit in the UK is 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath OR 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood OR 107 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine. If you drive, attempt to drive or are in charge of a vehicle while exceeding these limits you are guilty of an offence regardless of the amount of alcohol you drank beforehand.

A legal assumption is made that the proportion of alcohol in a persons breath, blood or urine at the time of the alleged offence was not less than that found in any type of specimen provided at the time of testing. The onus is on the defendant/defence to prove otherwise. To prove that alcohol had been consumed between the time of the alleged offence and the time of testing and had that alcohol not been consumed then he/she would not have been over the legal limit/unfit to drive.