rowntrees
New Member
Hi There
I am just wondering if taking of blood was justified. I was asked at police station whether I would be able to to a breath test to which I replied that I would give it a go(mouth injury). I tried but the two readings were far apart by a marginal amount. I was then told they were going to call a doctor and get a blood sample done.
When I tried the breath test I had tissue in my mouth from blotting the blood. If they had been observing me it would have been noticed so the breath test probably would have worked. Should they have asked for blood if the police did not originally follow the correct observation procedure to ensure that the machine gave accurate results first time round, so that a blood test would never be required? ie they would probably have no resonable cause to ask for blood if they had done it correctly?
(3)A requirement under this section to provide a specimen of blood or urine can only be made at a police station or at a hospital; and it cannot be made at a police station unless—
a device of the type mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above has been used [F5(at the police station or elsewhere)] but the constable who required the specimens of breath has reasonable cause to believe that the device has not produced a reliable indication of the proportion of alcohol in the breath of the person concerned.
Many Thanks
I am just wondering if taking of blood was justified. I was asked at police station whether I would be able to to a breath test to which I replied that I would give it a go(mouth injury). I tried but the two readings were far apart by a marginal amount. I was then told they were going to call a doctor and get a blood sample done.
When I tried the breath test I had tissue in my mouth from blotting the blood. If they had been observing me it would have been noticed so the breath test probably would have worked. Should they have asked for blood if the police did not originally follow the correct observation procedure to ensure that the machine gave accurate results first time round, so that a blood test would never be required? ie they would probably have no resonable cause to ask for blood if they had done it correctly?
(3)A requirement under this section to provide a specimen of blood or urine can only be made at a police station or at a hospital; and it cannot be made at a police station unless—
a device of the type mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above has been used [F5(at the police station or elsewhere)] but the constable who required the specimens of breath has reasonable cause to believe that the device has not produced a reliable indication of the proportion of alcohol in the breath of the person concerned.
Many Thanks