P-Plater goes DUI twice in one night

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?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
29 Responses to P-Plater goes DUI twice in one night
Filter
Order
bundah bundah 6:15 pm 07 Jun 12

To reiterate the only way to guarantee that they won’t return to their car within a short period of time is to detain them in custody until they’re sober. Given that approx one third of road deaths involve drink drivers a short stint in custody would be entirely appropriate and remind those caught that this is a serious offence with potentially disastrous consequences!!

watto23 watto23 2:52 pm 07 Jun 12

Then again most people have 2 sets of keys to their cars also. I’m fine with cars being impounded, but wonder if the typical DUI repeat offender is likely to then steal a car and keep making bad decisions…

    johnboy johnboy 2:54 pm 07 Jun 12

    Having gone DUI I think the average drunk, on getting home to where the spare keys are, would go to sleep.

p1 p1 2:34 pm 07 Jun 12

Special G said :

Maybe Police should be seizing the vehicle as a key piece of evidence in relation to the offence. Peanut can have the car back after the matter is finalised in court. I can see the outrage now. Not only that the police would need a much bigger storage yard for all the cars.

Not really. You can save space by crushing them into a cube.

shirty_bear shirty_bear 1:51 pm 07 Jun 12

iirc, when I went DUI many moons ago (with a similar reading to champ in this story), the plod took my keys until I blew below .08 (there’s a clue as to how long ago).

I thought they were being mean/petty at the time, but it was the ideal thing for them to do. I don’t recall whether I was asked or instructed to hand the keys over, but I wasn’t about to argue the toss with them at the time.

Surely legislation hasn’t changed in the meantime to prevent this course of action?

Special G Special G 1:04 pm 07 Jun 12

Maybe Police should be seizing the vehicle as a key piece of evidence in relation to the offence. Peanut can have the car back after the matter is finalised in court. I can see the outrage now. Not only that the police would need a much bigger storage yard for all the cars.

Solidarity Solidarity 10:52 am 07 Jun 12

bundah said :

Solidarity said :

bundah said :

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!

Opinions like this are what is wrong with society these days. You are responsible for your own actions. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.

I absolutely agree that one is responsible for one’s actions however the reality is an intoxicated person who has little or no fear of consequences will obviously do stupid things.I do not in any way condone their actions!!!!

Not all drunk people do stupid things. If you know you can’t make good decisions when drunk, well then you should limit the amount you drink. Hopefully this idiot has learnt a valuable lesson in life, one he should have learnt about 10 years ago.

bundah bundah 10:42 am 07 Jun 12

Solidarity said :

bundah said :

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!

Opinions like this are what is wrong with society these days. You are responsible for your own actions. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.

I absolutely agree that one is responsible for one’s actions however the reality is an intoxicated person who has little or no fear of consequences will obviously do stupid things.I do not in any way condone their actions!!!!

buzz819 buzz819 10:32 am 07 Jun 12

beeshive said :

Don’t the police have a duty of care once they take someone into custody? This person was quite intoxicated and the police just let them walk out of the station? Don’t the police have to ensure the person has a safe means to get home – e.g. call someone to pick them up, provide a taxi voucher, give them a lift (I think ACTION buses are meant to deny transport of intoxicated people)?

I realise the person has committed a serious crime (twice) but I thought police had a duty to care for even the most stupid (and also to prevent crime, not place people in a situation where crime is one of the best options). If the police haven’t adequately provided this person with a safe means to travel home I consider this as some form of entrapment.

There not going to pay for a taxi for him to get home, they will call him a Taxi from the Police station, but they are not going to sit there baby sitting him. A reading of .123 is nothing major, you’d get there on a Saturday afternoon drinking with mates.

This guy knew that he shouldn’t have driven, he has access to a telephone, instead of catching a Taxi or calling his parents he decided to walk back to his car and drive it. He is 18, he needs to know that actions have consequences, now he knows.

Solidarity Solidarity 10:25 am 07 Jun 12

bundah said :

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!

Opinions like this are what is wrong with society these days. You are responsible for your own actions. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.

beeshive beeshive 10:01 am 07 Jun 12

Don’t the police have a duty of care once they take someone into custody? This person was quite intoxicated and the police just let them walk out of the station? Don’t the police have to ensure the person has a safe means to get home – e.g. call someone to pick them up, provide a taxi voucher, give them a lift (I think ACTION buses are meant to deny transport of intoxicated people)?

I realise the person has committed a serious crime (twice) but I thought police had a duty to care for even the most stupid (and also to prevent crime, not place people in a situation where crime is one of the best options). If the police haven’t adequately provided this person with a safe means to travel home I consider this as some form of entrapment.

bundah bundah 9:54 am 07 Jun 12

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!

Solidarity Solidarity 9:45 am 07 Jun 12

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.

p1 p1 9:38 am 07 Jun 12

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.

bundah 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 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 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 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 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 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 shortlived 9:47 pm 05 Jun 12

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

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site