Random breath testing after musical festival

[Miss Chicken]

A four day musical festival was recently held in Tasmania. About 15,000 people attended in about 6,000 cars. The police decided to do random breath testing on the people as they left the festival. In all 987 drivers were tested (about 1 in 6 of all drivers) and 31 people were charged because they were over the limit.

The police are being criticised a fair bit over this because some patrons had up to an 8 hour wait though for most it was shorter. Some complained that they missed flights or work commitment etc.

There is only one dirt road out of the area where the festival is held so even without the random breath testing there are long delays getting out of the festival each year. But delays were much longer this year.

My question are

1) Do you think police should breath test young people coming out of such events?

2) Do you think that catching 31 drunks out of 987 people tested justifies the action the police took?

 

[RoJoHen]

1) Only if they have a prior indication that the drivers are intoxicated. The cops need to see them acting drunk before they get in the driver's seat, or they need to see the person driving recklessly. It's irresponsible of them to hold everyone else up for something like this.

2) Absolutely not. Unfortunately, in an event like that, people are going to drive drunk. The better thing to do would be to patrol the roads and keep an eye out for dangerous drivers. They tested 1000 cars. They did not test 5000 others. Odds are that the worst drivers are in the larger group that was not tested.

If you're going to do something like this, you have to test everybody for it to make any amount of sense, and that's just unrealistic.

 

[Miss Chicken]

After reading your post I did a little research and I believe that Random Breath Testing (RBT) isn't the norm in the USA.

Random Breath Testing is common in Australia. Police set up testing units and motion drivers to pull over. A breath test takes about one minute and it is against the law to refuse a breath test. The police do not have to have any evidence to of drunkeness to pull a driver over. It is simple the luck of the draw if a driver is pulled over or not.

 

[RoJoHen]

Yeah, I've never actually heard of such a thing in the US. In the US you have to right to refuse a breathalizer if you get pulled over for drunk driving, but that usually results in having to spend the rest of the night in a jail cell.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Making people wait up to eight hours in their cars to get out of a music festival is obscene, regardless of whether long waits (though much shorter than this obviously) are the norm.

If the police were going to pull that kind of shit they should have announced it beforehand so people could make a decision before buying their tickets or when they were still refundable. That way the deterrent element of the random breath testing still remains, and people have the option of planning ahead - either to make sure they don't drink or to have a designated driver with them or to make sure they don't miss other plans. It's still ridiculous, but at least the option is present rather than it just being forced on you.

 

[cultcross]

After reading your post I did a little research and I believe that Random Breath Testing (RBT) isn't the norm in the USA.

Random Breath Testing is common in Australia. Police set up testing units and motion drivers to pull over. A breath test takes about one minute and it is against the law to refuse a breath test. The police do not have to have any evidence to of drunkeness to pull a driver over. It is simple the luck of the draw if a driver is pulled over or not.

We here in Blighty sit between the US and Australia, it seems. A police officer can only perform a breath test if:
- They have reasonable suspicion the driver has been drinking.
- The driver has committed any moving traffic offence.
- The driver is involved in an RTC.

Given one of the above scenarios, the test becomes mandatory, and failing or refusing to provide a specimen is an offence in itself, which carries the same punishment as a positive specimen.

In the case of the festival, I would have handled it differently - set up a station off to the side on exit roads, pull in cars in 5 or 6 car blocks and talk to the drivers - this wouldn't impede anybody else on the road, and would allow breath tests if suspicion was there (or if in Australia, whenever they fancied!).
Having said that, 31 drink drivers off the road is a result to be proud of. And if I may say so, if people who sat there for 8 hours still blew positive I think the police had very good reason for targeting this festival.

 

[Miss Chicken]

This is one of the statements made on my local newspaper website today

If anyone commenting here actually knew what they were talking about, the brochure given to EVERY CAR that came into Falls clearly states on the first page that Police WILL be conducting breath testing on the 1st upon leaving the Festival. Everyone knew it was going to happen!! Why blame the Police if they gave everyone due warning? As a Falls veteran I think this is a necessary measure, I know many people who drive home after previous festivals when they are still clearly under the influence. Understand the situation before you complain about Police protecting your children's safety!

I assume that the organisers were given considerable warning by police and that thy festival goers could have known four days in advance if they had bothered to read the brochure.

 

[Marc]

well they can have the option - drivers are either breath tested before they get behind the well or the alcohol is banned at the festival.

People aren't learning the drink drive rules and when it comes to drink driving the cops have zero tolerance and rightly so.

 

[WillsBabe]

Given one of the above scenarios, the test becomes mandatory,

Are you saying that everyone who committs a moving violation or is in a RTA gets breath tested? Or are you saying that the police have the power to do a breath test under those circumstances?

 

[cultcross]

Given one of the above scenarios, the test becomes mandatory,

Are you saying that everyone who committs a moving violation or is in a RTA gets breath tested? Or are you saying that the police have the power to do a breath test under those circumstances?

I'm saying the Police have the power to do the test, sorry the wording was unclear on my part. In reality, any RTC that we attend would usually have all drivers tested, its a cover-your-back move in case insurance flares up later. Not everybody who commits a moving traffic offence is tested, however.

 

[WillsBabe]

^ Thanks for the clarification.