Staffs Police face data protection probe over 'drink drivers named' Twitter campaign

I was thinking of setting up a blog asking people to hunt down those individuals and post their addresses. Might have been interesting to see how the police react to that idea.

If it's good enough for the Yanks

This looks like a hi-tech equivalent of the 'perp walk' that US police use as extra-judicial punishment of accused people.

Funny how when it's a public authority making the mistake the ICO respond far more quickly.

Regardless of whether what the police have done is wrong or not, what's the bet that the officers concerned will be unaffected by this, but the police force will have to pay a fine that will result in tax payers getting a worse service?

... claimed to have "overwhelming support"

Quite a few people engage in activities which do little or no harm to others and for which it could similarly be claimed there is "overwhelming support". The courts generally take rather a dim view of this argument if used for defence or mitigation when such activities break the law.

If you've been breathalysed and presumably blood tested it is open and shut anyway. They are hardly alleged. Whatever the law says, I don't believe the police are wrong. The law as it stands makes a mockery of crime and victims anyway. I am sure it won't be long before all criminals are anonymous throughout the whole court process. Save millions in new identities and reporting restrictions when scum are released.

It;s a good day...

... for Libel Lawyers.

IANAL

Does this amount to preventing the possibility of a fair trial? Sub judice? Contempt of court proceedings to follow?

This merely betrays the intellectual prowess of the Staffordshire plod force.

So, vigilantism is OK when the police do it ?

How many?

Aside from the rather probable illegality and obvious stupidity shown by the Staffordshire plod in doing this, what caught my attention was the figure of eighty people having tested positive "in the run up to Christmas" (thus presumably in the space of only a few weeks at most).

In the country where I live (which has a zero limit for drivers), those numbers would be a scandal of national proportion. Even the dimmest of people here know not to get behind the wheel after a drink. I would have hoped that things would have changed (for the better!) in the UK in the past decade or two. :-(

Police above the law ...

... it can go the other way ...

A former Warwickshire magistrate, Alan Marks, drove off a Stratford-upon-Avon roundabout into people drinking coffee at Costa's pavement tables, injuring several people including himself in April last year. Police decided not to charge anyone due to 'insufficient evidence'. Seems to everybody here that there's plenty of evidence the driver lost control of the car and there's a case to answer. Sure he may be found not guilty for a number of reasons, but the fact there won't even be a trial (and apparently at the decision of the police, rather than the CPS) is pretty incredible.

** Edit: after a public outcry, and a second investigation, the case has finally come to court

Le sigh.

Suspicion does not necessarily result in Investigation.

Investigation does not necessarily result in Arrest.

Arrest does not necessarily result in Charge.

Charge does not necessarily result in Prosecution.

Prosecution does not necessarily result in Conviction.

The problem is that the average knee jerking Mail reader sees a name involved in the legal process and immediately presumes guilt. As it is, what people get is "guilt by association" regardless of anything else.

Case in point : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25625572

That poor sod's name (and indeed anyone involved in this latest Twattersphere saga) will forever be linked to the suspicion, courtesy of the interweb, with all the 'fun' that will bring them in later life, regardless of actual guilt and/or outcome.

There are a multitude of reasons (IMO) that both sides in a legal process should remain under cover of anonymity, with certain exceptions where public knowledge could result in further evidence coming forward. The flipside is that total anonymity could provide an avenue to secret courts, and that's not something I support.

#DataProtectionActOffendersNamedOnTwitter

@StaffsPolice... are you ready for it?

Even if found guilty...

I'd rather have the courts decide what punishment to set. If they decide the miscreant needs to be named and shamed on Twitter, then by all means let the police do it in the name of the court.

But otherwise, this is the police deciding what punishment should be applied and that's not a good direction to be heading in. Before I'd be happy with that, I'd want to see this overwhelming public support translate itself into legislation that authorised the police action.

Even then, I'd want people to have the option of accepting it as a punishment (although obviously it'd be a pretty weak one on its own) or going to court to challenge it - much like on-the-spot fines.

Good Lord!

...At the time, the constabulary's Chief Inspector Paul Trevor said the force would use Twitter to name and shame "those who have been caught drink-driving" on a daily basis...

By definition, this means that any person arrested can not receive a fair trial.

Don't the police understand anything about the law? I know that they are above it and they can always get off a charge of murder, but you would think that SOMEONE associated with them would know some legal principles...

Guilty or Not. What is the point??

Ok so if guilty or not, what exactly is the point of this exercise? Does it shame the accused into not doing it again? I would have thought that being caught already would have done that sufficiently enough (unless the accused is hardened scum of course)

Then maybe it is to discourage others from doing it themselves?

Why would looking at peoples names on twitter who had been caught be any sort of deterrent? not exactly akin to the blood and gore fest advertisements that get shown on the TV each festive season, that sort of thing does hit home.

Lastly who the hell follows the police on twitter? (I do not have Twitter so please excuse if it is some sort of default localized feed or something)

stronger penalties

people drink drive not because then can...but because they can get away with it.

need stronger penalties - i think we'd have far less abuse of driving privilege if we followed some of our European neighbours e.. France

http://www.french-property.com/guides/france/driving-in-france/driving-offences/

...and if you are found guilty of eg DUI and require a vehicle for work (strange how many people claim they cant use a bus or train service etc) then you should have your car impounded for a set time and be given a little 'micro car' - similar to a tuktuk - that'll be a nice stigma and let everyone know what sort of person you are.

If you drink alcohol you should not drive

Too much chatter about getting off a DUI charge. People, including one I know, have been killed by drunk drivers. Finding a technically to get yourself off just adds to the grief of the victim's family and friends.

Just a name?

Not very descriptive in such a large area, if you have a common name then how do they know which John Smith. Say I being a John Smith had decided to start cycling to work as a New Years resolution and a twitter feed announces John Smith arrested for drunk driving then people could put two and two together...so if I have the same name as one of the announcements can I sue for defamation if someone accuses me of being a drunk driver?

Guilty unless proven innocent

Title says it all. This is totally wrong on many levels. Maybe (and that's a VERY big "maybe"), a touch of naming and shaming for people actually found guilty might be JUST in order but to do that with folk who have been charged only and not gone through due process is totally out of order, in my opinion. Cases fail for a variety of reasons. If it was me, I would certainly be on to a solicitor with a view to suing the pants off 'em!

Tweets weren't sufficiently detailed and came across with a presumption of guilt. It would probably be best to tie this into people actually being found guilty. I suspect a slap on the wrists is coming and is this prejudicial to the court case given that the tweets present it as someone is guilty rather than just charged.

I can see it now...

Staffs Police Officer caught tweeting about drunk drivers while in charge of a vehicle.

Officer arrested, which is tweeted, and then later charged with breach of Data Protection Act, which is also Tweeted by a Staffs Police Officer caught tweeting while in charge of a vehicle..........

dangerous slope...

I remember when they first introduced random drug tests to go with the random breath tests here.

Media circus arranged by police for the first use of the new booze/drug bus - cameras filming the first guy (a professional truck driver) who tested positive on the preliminary test, his identify splashed across all the TV channels. Reputation ruined. His wife and children in tears. Police and pollies bleating about how despicable this family man must be to drive with drugs in his system.

What a pity that the follow up lab tests showed 100% clear - and the preliminary test was faulty.

Bit late by then though...

Yes the idea was a stupid one ...

..... but could we stop tarring regular beat officers with the same brush as the decision makers? Just like many other industries these ideas are thought up by middle management and above. Also please note that like many other areas, from the 90's the police fast tracked graduate recruits into officer level positions, and it is now these inexperienced office workers making these decisions.

If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide.