Question for Flying Lawyer:
The police need "reasonable suspicion" to demand a breath test.
In the Manchester 'heavy landing' incident, as you infer, it would be interesting to know what they thought was "reasonable".
If the pilots had refused to provide a breath test, would they have a defence in law? i.e. can you say "no, you have no reasonable suspicion, therefore I have no need to undertake a breath test".
Do the police even have to tell you what the "reasonable suspicion" is? i.e "someone smelt alcohol on your breath" "you're speech is slurred" "an anonymous tip"...etc.?