killarava2day
Ex-Bluelighter
'Contradictory' drug tests in doubt
By Andrew Webster, Marc Moncrief
December 15, 2004 - 3:58PM
Page Tools
* Email to a friend
* Printer format
*
*
A world first roadside drugs testing program has been thrown into doubt after it emerged two separate tests taken from the same driver failed to agree which drug he had allegedly taken.
Victoria Police say John De Jong, 39, initially tested positive for methamphetamine.
But Mr De Jong today said he was told the results of a second, more sophisticated test conducted in the back of a police vehicle, showed only he had taken marijuana. He said police at no time told him he had tested for methamphetamine.
Experts say the contradictory results demonstrate the tests are not yet ready for use.
"Research that we are aware of has shown that these devices are not yet reliable enough," said Australian Drug Management and Education Group chief executive officer Gwen Wilcox.
"There will be legal ramifications from using this," she warned.
Police Minister Andre Haermeyer today defended the roadside drug tests, saying he had "every confidence in the integrity of this process".
AdvertisementAdvertisement
But Mr De Jong says he intends to fight to clear his name and is considering suing the police force after media reports on Monday alleged he tested positive for both marijuana and methamphetamine.
Mr De Jong today told The Age Online he had never used methamphetamine. He said the last time he had smoked marijuana was "a little over four weeks ago with a friend".
He said police on Monday told him the second of two saliva tests indicated he had smoked marijuana within the past two hours. At no point, he said, was he told he had tested positive for methamphetamine.
"I asked them a number of times to explain the test results and they said I had consumed it (marijuana) within two hours," he said.
"I told them truthfully that yes, four weeks ago I had had a joint," he said.
A police spokesman today confirmed the first test, conducted while Mr De Jong sat in his vehicle, indicated only that Mr De Jong had taken methamphetamine. He said police could not confirm the result of the second test until a third test is done in a laboratory.
The analysis of Mr De Jong's evidentiary test should be available by the end of the week.
Solicitor Katalin Blond of firm Slater and Gordon's today told ABC radio Mr De Jong might bring suits for defamation and breach of privacy.
"My client's rights have clearly been violated," Ms Blond said.
Mr De Jong today said he had very little sleep since Monday. "Everything that has happened to me in the last couple of days keeps going round and round in my head," he said.
Police have issued a statement defending the testing process.
The statement, from Assistant Director Media Kevin Loomes, said police had followed normal procedures and had asked the media to respect Mr De Jong's privacy.
"Police at no stage identified the man and had requested the media likewise not to identify this person as the matter was still pending," the statement said.
Assistant Commissioner Bob Hastings said police had taken steps to calm the media frenzy around Mr De Jong's result.
"We knew that there was intense media interest in this because it was a first and as a consequence we took an approach to control the situation and advised the media to be there at a certain time where they could watch what occurred," assistant commissioner Hastings said.
"At no stage did we identify him. We advised the media who were present at the scene not to identify him and after the process had been completed at the scene, we understand that he actually conducted a short media interview himself at the time."
"Following the process, he was also asked by an independent sub-officer was he satisfied with his treatment by police, of which he said he was. He was also asked if he understood what it was all about, which he did. And he was also asked if he had a copy or a sample of his own which he
could analyse."
"We conducted a process no differently to what we always do at our booze bus and in our random drug testing sites. So we believe that we complied with the legislation and we endeavoured to protect the privacy as best we could."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/12/15/1102787114858.html?from=top5
By Andrew Webster, Marc Moncrief
December 15, 2004 - 3:58PM
Page Tools
* Email to a friend
* Printer format
*
*
A world first roadside drugs testing program has been thrown into doubt after it emerged two separate tests taken from the same driver failed to agree which drug he had allegedly taken.
Victoria Police say John De Jong, 39, initially tested positive for methamphetamine.
But Mr De Jong today said he was told the results of a second, more sophisticated test conducted in the back of a police vehicle, showed only he had taken marijuana. He said police at no time told him he had tested for methamphetamine.
Experts say the contradictory results demonstrate the tests are not yet ready for use.
"Research that we are aware of has shown that these devices are not yet reliable enough," said Australian Drug Management and Education Group chief executive officer Gwen Wilcox.
"There will be legal ramifications from using this," she warned.
Police Minister Andre Haermeyer today defended the roadside drug tests, saying he had "every confidence in the integrity of this process".
AdvertisementAdvertisement
But Mr De Jong says he intends to fight to clear his name and is considering suing the police force after media reports on Monday alleged he tested positive for both marijuana and methamphetamine.
Mr De Jong today told The Age Online he had never used methamphetamine. He said the last time he had smoked marijuana was "a little over four weeks ago with a friend".
He said police on Monday told him the second of two saliva tests indicated he had smoked marijuana within the past two hours. At no point, he said, was he told he had tested positive for methamphetamine.
"I asked them a number of times to explain the test results and they said I had consumed it (marijuana) within two hours," he said.
"I told them truthfully that yes, four weeks ago I had had a joint," he said.
A police spokesman today confirmed the first test, conducted while Mr De Jong sat in his vehicle, indicated only that Mr De Jong had taken methamphetamine. He said police could not confirm the result of the second test until a third test is done in a laboratory.
The analysis of Mr De Jong's evidentiary test should be available by the end of the week.
Solicitor Katalin Blond of firm Slater and Gordon's today told ABC radio Mr De Jong might bring suits for defamation and breach of privacy.
"My client's rights have clearly been violated," Ms Blond said.
Mr De Jong today said he had very little sleep since Monday. "Everything that has happened to me in the last couple of days keeps going round and round in my head," he said.
Police have issued a statement defending the testing process.
The statement, from Assistant Director Media Kevin Loomes, said police had followed normal procedures and had asked the media to respect Mr De Jong's privacy.
"Police at no stage identified the man and had requested the media likewise not to identify this person as the matter was still pending," the statement said.
Assistant Commissioner Bob Hastings said police had taken steps to calm the media frenzy around Mr De Jong's result.
"We knew that there was intense media interest in this because it was a first and as a consequence we took an approach to control the situation and advised the media to be there at a certain time where they could watch what occurred," assistant commissioner Hastings said.
"At no stage did we identify him. We advised the media who were present at the scene not to identify him and after the process had been completed at the scene, we understand that he actually conducted a short media interview himself at the time."
"Following the process, he was also asked by an independent sub-officer was he satisfied with his treatment by police, of which he said he was. He was also asked if he understood what it was all about, which he did. And he was also asked if he had a copy or a sample of his own which he
could analyse."
"We conducted a process no differently to what we always do at our booze bus and in our random drug testing sites. So we believe that we complied with the legislation and we endeavoured to protect the privacy as best we could."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/12/15/1102787114858.html?from=top5
. Then again, they might construe it as a strict liability offense -- you're guilty merely by the fact that you test positive, unless there's a reasonable mistake of fact. Then again, you'd have to admit to taking a prescription drug without a prescription, which is an offence in itself.
