Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:50:58 PM
@cynicalgamer, yes, I'm serious. It`s not the kind of world I would LIKE to live in, but it IS the world we live in NOW.
Unless proven by other evidence anything a cop says is taken to be true. This means that if he says he saw someone who looked like you drive past an hour before, he has a right to ask for a specimen of breath. Thats the law. I would like it to change but what am I as an individual going to do about it? (Other than voting for different politicians from the ones we have now.)
mistaken, but the officer would just say `i honestly belive he`d admitted it at some point`.
the judge may at that point decide that yes the officer had lied about smelling alcohol etc.... and dismiss any offence of drinking and driving. but that isn`t what the guy is being arrested for, it`s failing to provide a breath specimen... which like I said is a totally separate offence here in it`s own right. The judge may reasonably find that even though the initial circumstances were contrived by the police, the guy should then have complied with the lawful request of a breath specimen and then afterwards sought redress for the circumstances leading up that request.
Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:35:11 PM
(cont.) same way as yours do. The biggest case we have here of entrapment is in relation to the Rachel Nickell case..basically the police sent an undercover officer in to get friendly to their main suspect.
The courts didn't throw out the case though... I think at Colin Stagg`s trial the judge only told the jury to disregard any evidence gained from it,at which point the prosecution basically withdrew because they had nothing else, but they still thought (and most of the media here did too) that he`d done it..he was proved innocent a few years later btw..not just found innocent, someone else was proved to have done it.
in this case the police officer would argue that he reasonably suspected alcohol had been consumed and a driving offence had been committed because the guy had admitted to drinking...the video evidence would prove the officer to have been `mistaken` about the admission of drinking, and it would look to a jury that he`d just lied rather than been mi