Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

P-Plater goes DUI twice in one night

By johnboy - 5 June 2012 29

ACT Policing will summons an 18-year-old man to court after he was apprehended for drink-driving twice in the one morning (Saturday, June 2).

Around 4.25am the driver of a Nissan Pulsar was stopped in the city area for a routine traffic stop where he returned a positive reading to a roadside screening test. He was conveyed to City Police Station where he recorded an Alcohol Content (AC) of 0.135.

The man’s provisional licence was seized and he was issued with an immediate suspension notice. He was then released by police.

Just over an hour later, police were again patrolling the city area when they observed the same Nissan Pulsar travelling along Mort Street. Police stopped the vehicle and submitted the driver to another roadside screening test. He again returned a positive reading and was taken to the City police station where he recorded an AC of 0.123.

He will face the ACT Magistrates Court on June 14 when he will be charged with driving without a licence, as well as the drink-driving offences.

In the past week, ACT Policing apprehended 23 motorists for drink-driving offences. Six of the 23 were repeat offenders.

Of particular concern to police was the high proportion of drink drivers apprehended – eight of the 23 – who have a 0.00 Alcohol Content restriction on their licences.

“It’s shameful that these drink-drivers have such disrespect for the law, for their own safety and for that of other road users”, Traffic Operations Acting Superintendent Rod Anderson said.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
29 Responses to
P-Plater goes DUI twice in one night
bundah 9:29 am 07 Jun 12

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!!

outtatowner 7:53 am 07 Jun 12

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

GardeningGirl 11:09 pm 06 Jun 12

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.

bundah 10:16 pm 06 Jun 12

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?

outtatowner 8:51 pm 06 Jun 12

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.

shortlived 9:50 pm 05 Jun 12

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

shortlived 9:47 pm 05 Jun 12

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

Sandman 9:43 pm 05 Jun 12

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.

poetix 9:10 pm 05 Jun 12

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.

Brindabella 6:40 pm 05 Jun 12

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.

buzz819 6:27 pm 05 Jun 12

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.

snoopydoc 6:08 pm 05 Jun 12

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.

bundah 5:53 pm 05 Jun 12

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

buzz819 5:42 pm 05 Jun 12

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.

snoopydoc 5:33 pm 05 Jun 12

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.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site