police and implied right of access

[hopalong]

If you remove the implied right of access for police to your property at what point can they ignore this?

I was reading gary slapper's How the law works, in one chapter there is a case where a man drove very irractically and was followed home by 2 police men who walked on to his drive and told him they suspected him of drink driving. They requested a breath sample he declined told the police to f---off and was arrested. The court decided that the f---off statement was not a sufficiently expressed rebuttal and the police retained their right of implied access. The man was convicted.

So does this mean if he had removed their right of access the police couldn't of followed on to his land him even thougn he was suspected of drink driving and he would have got away with it even with the breathalyser evidence.
Can anyone with a little more intelligence make sense of this, what other occassions can you keep the police off your property even if they suspect you of something and at what point can they ignore it.
The chapter was about profane language so it doesn't go in to detail.
Thanks

[Too Far Gone]

The police will just ignore it and walk down your path anyway.

[Geronimo]

The police will just ignore it and walk down your path anyway.

But what would be the consequences of that when it gets to court?

[Too Far Gone]

The police will just ignore it and walk down your path anyway.

But what would be the consequences of that when it gets to court?

I'm not sure. I've never heard of police being held to account for something like this, which might be an indication that the is no consequences.

[Freeman Stephen]

Would the police have had a right to breathalyse him on his own land had he rebutted the accusation that if had been drink driving. Serious invasion of privacy if they can come on to your property and do invasive searches like breathalysers if they dont have enough evidence without the breathalyser.

[vanilla]

The police will just ignore it and walk down your path anyway.

But what would be the consequences of that when it gets to court?

I'm not sure. I've never heard of police being held to account for something like this, which might be an indication that the is no consequences.

Trespass is a civil matter unless you have an injunction against the person. It would go to court if you were to sue them for damages, but then you'd have to show that you suffered some kind of loss. I doubt any court is going to take the view that walking up your garden path to question you about a crime constitutes any kind of loss to you.

Would the police have had a right to breathalyse him on his own land had he rebutted the accusation that if had been drink driving. Serious invasion of privacy if they can come on to your property and do invasive searches like breathalysers if they dont have enough evidence without the breathalyser.

I would have thought the erratic driving would be considered sufficient cause to do a breathalyser test.

I think it's a simple matter of practicality that the police can enter someone's property to enforce the law or conduct investigations. Besides, if you took out an injunction against the police to stop them trespassing on your land, who would enforce it if they did trespass?

[frogmanbrabs]

Doesn't the aspect of which jurisdiction the police are operating under come into this. ie if they are there to enforce a statute as opposed to a common law then you have the right to not consent don't you? If the police are acting against their oath then they are in the wrong.

[Freeman Stephen]

I am just trying to make sense of the judges remark. i know that the violent always have the upper hand at the spur of the moment but purely in a legal sense vanilla your view seems at odds with that of the judge who seems to have held that denial of right to access is possible but not in this instance. would you expand on your view to explain the legality of this practice in light of the judges remark?

[vanilla]

I am just trying to make sense of the judges remark. i know that the violent always have the upper hand at the spur of the moment but purely in a legal sense vanilla your view seems at odds with that of the judge who seems to have held that denial of right to access is possible but not in this instance. would you expand on your view to explain the legality of this practice in light of the judges remark?

I never said that they couldn't be denied the right to access... just like anyone else, the police can be trespassers unless they have a lawful excuse.

What I was saying is that it makes sense that the police should have some powers to enter property when they legitimately suspect certain types of crime are being or have been committed. It may be that suspicion of drink driving isn't considered sufficient justification in law to be a defence against trespassing, but I don't have any solid info either way.

In case anyone is interested, the original text from the book is below:

One case in which the precise connotations of swear words was judicially examined was
Snook v Mannion (1982). The Divisional Court held that the words ‘fuck off’, when said to
police officers by a man on his front driveway, were not clear enough to indicate that the man
wanted to revoke their implied licence to be there.

Quite what words would have been clear enough to revoke the officers’ implied licence to be
on the driveway was not explained in any great detail by Mr Justice Forbes. This is curious.
Someone who steadfastly remained somewhere, having been told what the officers were
told, might be opening themselves to an enquiry from their aggressor such as ‘What part of
“fuck off” do you not understand?’ However, the court’s unusual interpretation of language
might be explicable when the wider story of the case is taken into account.

On 17 April 1981, Brian Snook had been out drinking when he drove his Ford Cortina home
near Lydney in Gloucestershire. He drove in an erratic manner and reached speeds of
55 mph in a built-up area. Two policemen followed him home in a police car. Mr Snook drove
up his front driveway, got out of the car, and then threw his keys into a flowerbed. The officers
walked on to his drive and told him they suspected him of driving while under the influence
of alcohol. They requested a breath sample. He declined, saying he was on his own drive.
He was eventually arrested and convicted for drink-driving. The court decided that police
officers, like other citizens, had an implied licence to be on someone’s driveway between
the front gate and the front door if they thought they had legitimate business with the
occupier. In this case, the words ‘fuck off’, uttered by a man who had been drinking, were not
‘a sufficiently express rebuttal’ of the implied licence the police officers had to be on the
drive.

[legaleagle]

Hi all I have just joined the forum and noticed this question so I thought I'd try to shed some light on it.
It is indeed possible to deny police officer access to your home but they do have the right to enter without your consent in number of circumstances one of which is to arrest an individual who is suspected of having driven under the influence of drink or drugs (section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988). An easy to understand list of the times they can force entry is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_ ... ales#Entry.

Notice I said that these are the times they can force entry as if the officer is already in your home (or grounds) and sees an offence he can remain to arrest the suspect.

Also to clear up the confusion about asking for a breath sample on his property as they have seen him driving the car, then exit the vehicle they can request the sample. If there was a period of time between him driving and exiting his vehicle during which the officers lost sight of him then a breath test would not be appropriate as he could claim he had consumed the alcohol after driving.

Also note that the power to enter is under section 4 of the Road Traffic Act which is driving or being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle whilst under the influence of drink or drugs, which does not require either to be over the drink drive limit or to be actually driving. It only requires the person to be be in a position where they could drive the vehicle whilst his ability to drive is suitably impaired, the proof of this is normally by witness statement from police constable.

I hope this helps