No,
It's the lower of two readings, taken one after the other at the station.

Blood tests are not used unless there is a medical reason preventing a breath test.

The roadside test isn't evidential at all. It's not actually legally required, you can be arrested without it, if the copper has reasonable grounds to think you're drunk anyway.
(username failed moderation, Mon 30 Jan 2012, 16:52, 1 reply)

I'm not certain this is true actually but I'll take your word for it
but, nonetheless, there are almost no circumstances where "I drank after I drove" can work as a legal defence because if you have been arrested on suspicion of drink driving and claim you drank after driving, the onus is on you to prove that means you weren't over the limit, rather than the police to prove that you were.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 30 Jan 2012, 16:59, closed)

You might get away with it
if you have the opportunity - if you crash your car, and down half a bottle of scotch while you're waiting for the police to arrive, maybe you'd be able to wangle it.

But if you're arrested for drink driving, you won't get the opportunity. You'll be searched, taken to the station, and breathalysed. You're not even allowed to take a piss or smoke before that happens.

Don't you watch road wars?
(username failed moderation, Mon 30 Jan 2012, 17:03, closed)

there was a fairly high profile case recently
where that was tried and spectacularly failed (the scenario you present)

there's bucketloads of precedent as well, so I'd say you'd have no chance in any case.

I'm not disputing your points, only that even if what the OP says actually happened, the police would still have prosecuted successfully.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 30 Jan 2012, 17:07, closed)

I reckon drink driving laws
have been around for long enough for the police to have got pretty much every loophole covered. I think you're right.

Having said that, if the coppers were so stunningly inept as to allow a mate with a hidden bottle of vodka to travel in the van with him . . . they'd be in far more shit than the driver.
(username failed moderation, Mon 30 Jan 2012, 17:17, closed)

Exactly why I got away with it
They fucked up, and the roadside test is only an indicator, the breath test in the station is what counts, they royally fucked up the moment they let my mate in with me without checking him, not in the habit I've making bullshit stories up, just thought it was slightly relevant to the qotw
(serge, Mon 30 Jan 2012, 18:16, closed)

No no no.
It didn't happen.

You were probably really drunk, riding your rally chopper, and just imagined it.
(username failed moderation, Tue 31 Jan 2012, 9:25, closed)

A friend of mine
Crashed his car into a tree whilst he was over the limit, and phoned the police about 20 mins after. When they arrived he told them he'd drank a bottle of wine to calm his nerves whilst he was waiting. He was let off with a caution as no one was hurt.

I thought he was full of shit, but that's his story.
( Regger, Tue 31 Jan 2012, 11:33, closed)

There's plenty of precendents for this defence, though it's more along the lines of being arreseted after leaving the scene of an accident, i.e. car is found crashed or reported as not having stopped at an accident and person is arrested later - if they claim that they have had a drink since the accident - "I was pretty shaken up officer, so I had a couple of large whisky's to settle my nerves" - there's not a lot that the cops can do other than charging them for not stopping or leaving the scene of a crime.

As far as this story goes, I (a) can't really believe it because there's no chance that somebody would be let in the back of the van with somebody arrested for drink driving; and (b) drink driving cunt.
( Hunter Stockton was murdered by a bicycle wielding axolotl,.,.,.,., Tue 31 Jan 2012, 12:38, closed)

none of those precedents involve them actually having evidence that you were over the limit though
unlike this case.

and, to be fair, in the scneario you mention above, they'll just do you for leaving the scence of an accident, and you'll get a nice tidy year ban for that. Police = strangely not mostly stupid. For recent evidence, see Bannan, Barry, estwhile of this Scotch parish, now playing for Aston Villa.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 31 Jan 2012, 16:46, closed)

unlikely
i crashed my car on my way to work one morning.
i had no phone at the time, so i couldn't call anyone and report the accident, so i flagged another car down and got a lift home.

my wife drove me back a little while later, at which point the police had arrived and they didn't say anything about me leaving the scene, and only expressed surprise that I wasn't injured in any way
( real i'm not happy 'til you're not happy, Tue 31 Jan 2012, 22:55, closed)

That's because there's no requirement for you to report an accident if nobody's been hurt (apart from the driver) or nothing's been damaged (apart from the car).

You only need to report a single vehicle accident if you've:

Damaged roadside property of some permeance (if you've hit a parked car, you need to either exchange details or report it as soon as you can, but no later than 24hrs)
Caused injury to a person other than the driver
Killed or injured an animal (Dog, cow, sheep, horse, donkey)

And then only if there is nobody about with whom to exchange details.
( multijoy, Wed 1 Feb 2012, 19:38, closed)

i knocked down a lamp post and killed tree

( real i'm not happy 'til you're not happy, Thu 2 Feb 2012, 2:46, closed)