Tiger was doing 87mph in a 45 mph zone

[Billysboots]

yeah, I think the key bit is "Villanueva said a search warrant could only have been obtained for Woods’s blood samples if the golfer had appeared to be in a state of impairment."

If that's the law in the US, then the law is an ass, particularly with his track record.

Here, there are occasions other than where there is suspicion of impairment where a drink/drive procedure can be legally pursued. Just one example is where a moving traffic offence has been committed - that gives the police the power to require a breath test regardless of any suspicion of impairment. But, equally, there are occasions where there needs to be suspicion that a driver is impaired.

I understand your surprise that it hasn’t happened in this case but we are talking about the U.S where, in some states, it may well be a capital offence to wear a loud shirt in a built up area.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

So there’s no evidence of impairment, and without evidence of impairment they can apply for a warrant for a sample of his blood. Looks like you’ve answered your own question.

If there is no obvious reason for a crash and the person in the car is someone that you know from public records has injuries that require some hefty painkillers would your nose not twitch a bit? To dismiss so clearly, as the police did, seems a bit hasty. I think this is the bit the rest of us struggle with here. I appreciate you and @Billysboots have experience of this type of thing so it is interesting to hear your perspectives.

 

[clubchamp98]

Key point....under our system. Again.....I don't know the rules where he was.....which wasn't here.......and I'm too lazy to try to research it enough to find out. I don't think he should be tossed in jail etc etc. Fined?.....yeah. I know he can pay any fine without blinking an eye......but.....

Someone suggested he take the driving test over again. I kind of laughed at that one. I've only taken the test in Washington state (and my UK wife as well) but I think it is similar in most states......it's easy.....real easy.

The only reason I suggested taking his test again was that is ,that is the date when his ban would start ,so he is not serving a driving ban while in his hospital bed!
It’s not a ban if he can’t drive anyway.

 

[Billysboots]

If there is no obvious reason for a crash and the person in the car is someone that you know from public records has injuries that require some hefty painkillers would your nose not twitch a bit? To dismiss so clearly, as the police did, seems a bit hasty. I think this is the bit the rest of us struggle with here. I appreciate you and @Billysboots have experience of this type of thing so it is interesting to hear your perspectives.

The law may not allow them to rely on his previous in order to form suspicion.

If a police officer was to stop someone in this country for a routine check - no traffic offences - and if there was then no suspicion of impairment (smell of intoxicants, slurred speech etc), then even previous knowledge of a drink/drive conviction would not give grounds to suspect impairment, and rightly so.

The law is an absolute minefield in the U.K. - traffic law particularly so.

 

[rudebhoy]

So there’s no evidence of impairment, and without evidence of impairment they can apply for a warrant for a sample of his blood. Looks like you’ve answered your own question.

which was why i highlighted the sheriff's comment. However what constitutes "evidence of impairment"? Obviously he wasn't able to attempt to walk in a straight line, so I guess it's down the officers to decide if he smells like a brewery, his speech is slurred, or his eyes are popping out his head. But as I said earlier, most "morning after" drivers who are over the limit would pass those tests. It all sounds very subjective and potentially open to abuse. It puts the officers in an invidious position.

 

[clubchamp98]

Isn’t prosecution there to be a deterrent for those caught to try and prevent them acting in the same manor in the future.

I’d think the injuries sustained by Tiger are much more of a deterrent for him driving in this manor again than up to a £1k fine and being chauffeured temporarily whilst a ban is enforced.

I also imagine as the speed was calculated from the crash rather than video evidence it would take valuable police time and effort to elevate the case to court. Therefore not in public interest due to costs/time, especially when a good defence lawyer can probably find something to get it thrown out of court as the speed is ‘theoretical’ I’m assuming.

Yes all true.
Until next time when he does injur somebody else .
The question will be asked “ why wasn’t he prosecuted last time”
Because he hurt himself .
What do you say to the mother of the person killed or injured

 

[rudebhoy]

If a police officer was to stop someone in this country for a routine check - no traffic offences - and if there was then no suspicion of impairment (smell of intoxicants, slurred speech etc), then even previous knowledge of a drink/drive conviction would not give grounds to suspect impairment, and rightly so.

That sounds sensible.

I've got a question though - when certain forces run high profile campaigns around Xmas to try to catch "morning after" drivers, do they breath test everyone they stop, or just the ones who appear impaired? (it's not a trick question - I genuinely don't know the answer.)

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The law may not allow them to rely on his previous in order to form suspicion.

If a police officer was to stop someone in this country for a routine check - no traffic offences - and if there was then no suspicion of impairment (smell of intoxicants, slurred speech etc), then even previous knowledge of a drink/drive conviction would not give grounds to suspect impairment, and rightly so.

The law is an absolute minefield in the U.K. - traffic law particularly so.

Are you telling me that 'coppers nose' is just a figment of literature and old episodes of The Sweeney . Gutted

 

[AliMc]

Interesting. I heard the police knew a cause but were not publishing it.

No doubt he was in a sh*tty 4x4 that has rubbish handling.

Or you could turn it around and say that maybe he is still alive due to the fact that he was in an suv rather than a small saloon car, just a thought ?

 

[Billysboots]

That sounds sensible.

I've got a question though - when certain forces run high profile campaigns around Xmas to try to catch "morning after" drivers, do they breath test everyone they stop, or just the ones who appear impaired? (it's not a trick question - I genuinely don't know the answer.)

It’s been a while since I was involved in an operation of this kind but, unless the law has changed, the police in England & Wales have no power to conduct random roadside breath tests. There have to be grounds which, as I say, come from a number of sources.

 

[drdel]

Going that speed through a curve in an SUV was idiotic.

It was lucky that no-one else was involved.

 

[Billysboots]

Are you telling me that 'coppers nose' is just a figment of literature and old episodes of The Sweeney . Gutted

It’s funny you should say that because I have zero sense of smell. So if I ever put in a statement that my grounds for administering a breath test was a smell of intoxicants everyone would know I was lying!

But rest assured the coppers nose is otherwise alive and well ?

 

[clubchamp98]

If there is no obvious reason for a crash and the person in the car is someone that you know from public records has injuries that require some hefty painkillers would your nose not twitch a bit? To dismiss so clearly, as the police did, seems a bit hasty. I think this is the bit the rest of us struggle with here. I appreciate you and @Billysboots have experience of this type of thing so it is interesting to hear your perspectives.

Yes that’s my take on it as well.
If we had a crash do you think the police would carry your clubs away from your car for you.
It’s who he is, not what he’s done that seems to be why the police action or lack of is being questioned.
Motoring law in the US is incredibly strict so some of this really surprised me.

 

[clubchamp98]

Are you telling me that 'coppers nose' is just a figment of literature and old episodes of The Sweeney . Gutted

So the “RAP SHEET IS NO MORE.”

 

[Billysboots]

Yes that’s my take on it as well.
If we had a crash do you think the police would carry your clubs away from your car for you.
It’s who he is, not what he’s done that seems to be why the police action or lack of is being questioned.
Motoring law in the US is incredibly strict so some of this really surprised me.

I’d actually view it the other way. This case was bound to be picked over worldwide, not just on this forum (?), so my take is that the police would want to make absolutely sure they had got everything spot on.

 

[IanM]

They had passers-by move some rocks and change the road speed limit signs.... no penalty here.

 

[clubchamp98]

It’s been a while since I was involved in an operation of this kind but, unless the law has changed, the police in England & Wales have no power to conduct random roadside breath tests. There have to be grounds which, as I say, come from a number of sources.

Police by me did random test going into city centre.
They ask you!
I had no problem with that.
Don’t know what happens if you say no.

 

[Billysboots]

Police by me did random test going into city centre.
They ask you!
I had no problem with that.
Don’t know what happens if you say no.

If ever they do it again, ask them what their grounds are.

 

[clubchamp98]

I’d actually view it the other way. This case was bound to be picked over worldwide, not just on this forum (?), so my take is that the police would want to make absolutely sure they had got everything spot on.

Well I think they are not doing a very good job judging by most comments here.
But we’re not lawyers.
The police are in a difficult situation with no witnesses.
But if they have evidence of his speeding some sort of prosecution should be seen to be done.
Who picks what laws to ignore, ? them or the prosecutor.?

 

[clubchamp98]

If ever they do it again, ask them what their grounds are.

I have learnt over many years if you have nothing to hide it’s in your interests to be civil and help them do their job.
Being awkward just wastes theirs and my time.
He checked insurance ,tax etc I have no problem with that.