Firstly, thank you to those who have posted more reasoned comments.
Backtrack
The go rounds really are not that relevent, and I wouldn't worry about it. The woman made her comments, police got involved and the result is as it is. Her comments were made, for whatever reason, but could equaly have been made with the same result over anything.
While that perhaps puts the crew at risk of being tested, it is the same risk any driver faces.
FL.
Investigate. Means to gather all of the facts, that means to hear both sides of a story. Unpopular on here it may be, but that's how it is done.
You use 3 examples of what the woman could have been asked, and I understand they are hypothetical, and perhaps he did. But that does not remove the responsibility to find out the crew's point of view.
The smell of alcohol is, as you know an indication. It's not the be all and end all.
Mr Chips may have hit the nail on the head with his suggestion. In those circumstances would you still say that was wrong?
Yes, I do try to see the Police side, partly because of what I did for a living and partly because I believe in people having a fair hearing. I can answer back (when there is a point in doing so) when I am attacked on here. The Police officers involved in most of the incidents complained of cannot.
Most of the attacks on Police Officers on here are because the full story is not known, and the police side of it is not even considered let alone looked at.
If trying to balance the debate makes me, as one poster says as 'To$$er', then so be it.
I am suprised, you normaly try to look at both sides.
airborne_artist
Had they refused, then if the officer suspected they had been drinking then could have been arrested. If he did not then there is an offence which they could be summonsed for.
While that sounds daft, it is the way it is because the test can be required in the case of an accident without any suspicion of drink being involved.