Roadside Drug Testing....

[Pleonastic]

Excelent work! Your efforts will be definitely appreciated by a great number of people on bluelight.

I think most people who post here are also fairly responsible with their drug use, and understand already that driving under the influence is not a good idea. But the prospect of being busted while not under the influence is what's worrying people the most. Some actual tested data is exactly what's needed to allow people make sure they leave enough time - even if that does end up being 24 hours. I'd rather know that than get busted the day after when I'm actually fine...

 

[VelocideX]

Is it criminal or a public regulatory offense?

If its criminal I actually can't see a hell of a lot of prosecutions getting through...courts aren't gonna find your under the influence beyond reasonable doubt very often on the strength of the test results alone.

Of course, if its just a fine your all screwed...especially stoners...man...smoke a bong and go driving a month later *BAM*

8(

And if you don't test positive, NEVER consent to a search. Even if you do don't consent. Don't try to physically intervene if they decide to anyway, just make it more than clear that you are not consenting to the search - let the lawyers sort it out later.

Some clarifications on the law in NSW

Its already the case that if the police have reasonable suspicion that you are under the influence of drugs, they are allowed to detain you and take you to a hospital where you are required to undergo a blood test. That blood test is more than sufficient evidence to convince a court beyond reasonable doubt.

Refusal to submit to the blood test is a criminal offence and carries the same penalty that failing the blood test does.

If police wish to search your car or boat for drugs, and they have reasonable suspicion that you have drugs, you cannot refuse a search. Refusal to accept the search may be construed as hindering police.

If you want I can get the links to the statutes. I'm not making this up
(I'm a law student in NSW)

 

[VelocideX]

Here's some laws to chew on:

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s37

s37 Powers of search and detention

(1) In this section:

"police vessel" means a vessel ordinarily used by members of the police force in the execution of their duty.

(2) A member of the police force of or above the rank of sergeant, or in charge of a police station or police vessel, may at any time with as many members of the police force as the member thinks necessary:
(a) enter into any part of any vessel or aircraft, and
(b) search and inspect the vessel or aircraft.

(3) A member of the police force of or above the rank of sergeant, or in charge of a police station or police vessel, may, for the purpose of enabling the powers conferred on members of the police force by subsection (2) to be exercised, stop and detain any vessel or aircraft in which the member reasonably suspects there is any prohibited plant or prohibited drug which is, in contravention of this Act, in the possession or under the control of any person.

(4) A member of the police force may stop, search and detain:
(a) any person in whose possession or under whose control the member reasonably suspects there is, in contravention of this Act, any prohibited plant or prohibited drug, or
(b) any vehicle in which the member reasonably suspects there is any prohibited plant or prohibited drug which is, in contravention of this Act, in the possession or under the control of any person.

ROAD TRANSPORT (SAFETY AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT) ACT 1999 - s30

30 Power to prevent driving by persons who are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs

(cf Traffic Act, s 26A)
(1) If a police officer is of the opinion that a person who is driving (or about to drive) a motor vehicle is under the influence of alcohol or any other drug, the police officer may:
(a) prohibit the person from driving the vehicle while the person is under the influence of alcohol or that other drug, and
(b) require the person to immediately hand over all ignition or other keys of the motor vehicle in the person’s actual possession:
(i) to the police officer, or
(ii) to another person in the company of the person whom the police officer is satisfied is responsible and capable of exercising proper control of the motor vehicle, and
(c) take such other steps as, in the opinion of the police officer, are necessary in order:
(i) to immobilise the motor vehicle, or
(ii) to remove the motor vehicle to a place of safety and detain it at that place.

(2) If the police officer is of the opinion that the person concerned is under the influence of alcohol, the person is entitled to request that the person undergo a breath test in order to determine whether or not the person is under the influence of alcohol. If such a request is made, the police officer may not take any action under subsection (1) until the person undergoes the breath test.

(3) Subsection (1) does not authorise the confiscation of any keys, or the immobilisation, removal or detention of any motor vehicle, for any period that is longer than necessary in the circumstances and in the interest of the person driving (or about to drive) or of any other person or of the public.

(4) It is lawful for a police officer to retain any keys that are confiscated under subsection (1), or for any motor vehicle to be immobilised or detained under that subsection, until such time as:
(a) the return of the keys or the motor vehicle is requested by a person, and
(b) the police officer to whom the request is made:
(i) is satisfied that the person making the request is capable of exercising proper control of the motor vehicle, or
(ii) is informed by a registered medical practitioner (not being the person making the request) that the person making the request is not under the influence of alcohol or any other drug.
However, the person making the request is entitled to possession of the keys or motor vehicle concerned only if the police officer is satisfied that the person is entitled to lawful possession of the motor vehicle.

(5) If the keys or the motor vehicle are not returned within 24 hours after such a request is made, the person may apply to a Local Court for an order for the keys or motor vehicle to be returned to the person.

(6) A person must not:
(a) contravene any prohibition or requirement made by a police officer under subsection (1), or
(b) attempt in any manner to obstruct a police officer in the exercise of any power conferred on the police officer under subsection (1).
Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units.

(7) A court may only find a person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) if the court is satisfied that the police officer had reasonable grounds for believing that, in the circumstances, the action taken by the police officer was necessary in the interest of the person or of any other person or of the public.

(8) The Commissioner of Police has (in the Commissioner’s official capacity) a duty to take all reasonable steps to secure a motor vehicle that is detained under subsection (1).

(9) Any expenses incurred in connection with the immobilisation, removal or detention of a motor vehicle under subsection (1) may be recovered from the person who was driving (or about to drive) the vehicle, or from the responsible person for the vehicle, as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.

ROAD TRANSPORT (SAFETY AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT) ACT 1999 - SECT 26

26 Arrest following failure to submit to (or pass) sobriety assessment

(cf Traffic Act, s 5AA (3)) If the person refuses to submit to a sobriety assessment under this Division or, after the assessment has been made, a police officer has a reasonable belief that the person is under the influence of a drug, the police officer may:
(a) arrest that person without warrant, and
(b) take the person (or cause the person to be taken) with such force as may be necessary to a hospital or a place prescribed by the regulations and there detain the person (or cause the person to be detained) for the purposes of this Division.

ROAD TRANSPORT (SAFETY AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT) ACT 1999 - SECT 27

Procedure for taking samples following arrest
27 Procedure for taking samples following arrest

(cf Traffic Act, s 5AA (4) and (6)–(10))
(1) Except as provided by section 28, a police officer may require a person who has been arrested under section 26 to provide samples of the person’s blood and urine (whether or not the person consents to them being taken) in accordance with the directions of a medical practitioner.

(2) The police officer must inform any such medical practitioner that the samples are required to be taken for the purposes of this Division.

(3) The medical practitioner by whom or under whose directions a sample of blood or urine is taken in accordance with this Division must:
(a) divide the sample into 2 approximately equal portions, and
(b) place each portion into a container, and
(c) fasten and seal each container, and
(d) mark or label each container for future identification.

(4) Of the 2 sealed containers:
(a) one must be handed by the medical practitioner to the person from whom it was taken or to some other person on behalf of that person, and
(b) the other must be handed by the practitioner to the police officer present when the sample was taken and forwarded to a laboratory prescribed by the regulations for analysis by an analyst to determine whether the blood or urine contains a drug.

(5) An analyst at a laboratory prescribed by the regulations to whom any blood or urine is submitted for analysis under this section may carry out an analysis of the blood or urine to determine whether it contains a drug.

(6) Any duty of a medical practitioner under this Division and any relevant provisions of the regulations may be performed by a person acting under the supervision of the medical practitioner. A duty performed by any such person is taken to have been performed by the medical practitioner.

(7) An analysis under this section may be carried out, and anything in connection with the analysis (including the receipt of the blood or urine to be analysed and the breaking of any seal) may be done, by a person acting under the supervision of an analyst and, in that event, is taken to have been carried out or done by the analyst.

For reference, 1 penalty unit is currently set at $110

 

[Pop Popavich]

Top Work!

Excellent info VelocideX!!

It's always good to know exactly where you legally stand on these things.

 

[Fry-d-]

Cheers for all the info VelocideX and Pop Popavich for the research into the testing devices. Good luck with your testing and we'll be waiting for your results

 

[hoptis]

Call me ignorant, but I've read it 3 times now and I still don't see that reference at all!?!?!? [No, I'm not high. Just stupid]

Can someone please point it out to my old, ignorant eyes?

Sorry, there were two articles on News.com.au about this and I was talking about the other one that described the penalty during the trial period.

Pop Popavich: Noticed you are also down on the roll call for Kryal next month. You know you could become the most popular Bluelighter EVER if you brought one of these kits to the meet up there!!

"Sorry, you can't enter the maze, your test result is positive"

 

[thomo1981m]

saliva tests

does this open up the way for vechile and body searches for drugs

i have add and if have just poped some dexies could this come up in a test result and if it does i will get charged for driving under the influence of amphetimenes as i would most likely get off in court but wouldnt it hapen every time they pull me over and give me a swab i beleive my cival liberties will are and will be abused as they will most likely find some kind of parifinalia in my car when they search also wat happens to the swab they take from you is it a way they goverment can secretly obtain your dna.
the last bit is just a thought but it is possible they already have a list of names from random sniffer dog searchs even though they find nothing and now they obtain a list from your local chemist to find out how much sudafed you have been buying.

 

[Cowboy Mac]

does this open up the way for vechile and body searches for drugs

I suggest you learn how to use the search function, these questions have been answered before. I know in Victoria that police can search your car/person if they have 'reasonable suspicion' that you are carrying drugs. Driving to a rave would qualify.

i have add and if have just poped some dexies could this come up in a test result and if it does i will get charged for driving under the influence of amphetimenes

If you have ADD/ADHD I would think the saliva sample would test positive, and a blood test would be required. If you have a legitimate prescription this would not be an issue.

is it a way they goverment can secretly obtain your dna.

8( If you are so concerned about this, then I suggest you stop having drugs. If you are prepared to buy and use drugs then don't whinge when the police follow the law and do their jobs. Politicians create law, and when it comes to getting drugged drivers off the road and punishing them I have no objection. If you use drugs it is best to do it safely.

 

[Jimity]

First, punctuation is your friend. Use him to safely guide you through the world that is Bluelight.

Secondly; if youre talking about swab testing in NSW, it would seem that for the first 12 months after it is introduced (in 12 months), you will not be arrested; just taken off the road for 24 hours. Thats the latest I've heard. I'm not sure if htey will believe you about being on dexies. After it is properly introduced, i'd say you will be arrested and blood tested for a more definitive answer.

Thirdly... Heres the drug testing thread...


{edit}Cowboy Mac, you beat me to it while I was trying to find the other thread. *shakes fist*{/edit}

 

[Pop Popavich]

The legislation only allows them to use the tests for the purposes of detecting and stopping you from driving under the influence. They are not allowed to use the results for anything else.

Oh and the tests will not show up a positive for any prescription or over the counter drugs.

I have some literature about this at home, I'll try and remember to post more descriptive and useful info when I'm at home and not coming down.

 

[Cowboy Mac]

Oh and the tests will not show up a positive for any prescription or over the counter drugs.

Do you have a source for that?

But like the earlier study, saliva testing accurately detected the presence of drugs. The researchers found the screening device Cozart RapiScan was 98 per cent accurate in detecting those positive for dexamphetamine.

Source

It is certainly capable of detecting it but are you suggesting they won't be screening for it? I find that irrational, is a user high on dexamphetamine any less dangerous in the eyes of the law compared to a user on methamphetamine?

 

[BigTrancer]

Threads merged.

 

[Pop Popavich]

Do you have a source for that?
Source

I got told that in a lengthy discussion with the man in charge of the Vicroads initiative for the drug testing. He gave me a whole bunch of literature, so I'll have a hunt and see if it's documented anywhere. But I did specifically ask him about Dexies and Codiene (and the like) as showing up false positives for Amphetamines and Opiates, and was told that they wouldn't.

Edit: And in answer to the second part of your post, from the discussion I was under the impression (which I will clarify as soon as I get a chance to chat to him again) that as your source says, they COULD test for Dexies (and others) but had designed the tests not to show up a positive for them. This follows the same line as the fact that they could have tests to detect the use of drugs in the last (XX) days but they are only interested in being under the influence of illicit drugs, right now.

One trouble that they have with testing for dexies, or any other legal drug, is that the threshold for a positive test is zero. If they were to include legal drugs that affect people when abused (most of them) then they have to decide on a quantity that constitutes abuse. As I understand it, this was a political minefield that they chose to sidestep by excluding these from the tests.

As I said though, I will have to check the literature and suss out the good doctor in charge, and see what I can discover.

 

[Fry-d-]

Seems tassie might be first.

Roadside drug tests for drivers
November 23, 2004

DRIVERS in Tasmania will face roadside drug tests under new laws to curb accidents caused by motorists high on illegal drugs.

Police will be given the power to carry out saliva-screening tests that will register the presence of drugs including cannabis, speed and ecstasy.

Drivers who test positive will then have to give a blood sample that will go to a lab for confirmation of the test result.

Tasmania's Deputy Premier and Police Minister David Llewellyn said toxicology reports showed that more than 22 per cent of the drivers killed on Tasmania's roads between 1999 and 2003 had drugs in their systems.

Mr Llewellyn said under present laws police could not force a driver they believed was affected by drugs and putting others at risk to undergo a test.

Recent technological advancements would allow police to use portable equipment to carry out tests for commonly used drugs, he said.

"These advancements make it possible to conduct a quick, non-intrusive, saliva screening test," he said.

The Tasmanian Government plans to put forward the legislation to enable police to carry out roadside drug testing in the autumn session of parliament next year.

Mr Llewellyn said penalties for breaches of the new law would be based on current penalties for drink driving.

Victoria has already put similar laws in place and a spokeswoman for Police Minister Andre Haermeyer said today that testing drivers in that state was expected to begin next month.

Police in NSW will launch a 12-month trial of roadside drug testing in the second half of 2005 to assess the feasibility of introducing the tests permanently.

Privacy and civil liberties groups have expressed concern about the tests, questioning their accuracy.

They fear people using legitimate medication could test positive and that DNA could be retained and used without people's knowledge.

The Victorian legislation prohibits the use of saliva from the drug tests being used for DNA testing.

Source: News.com.au

The latest on the roadside drug testing is that Tasmania will try to push the legislation through. Its been said 'its going to happen' for quite a while now its becoming difficult to know whats going on with this. Seems December this year has been pushed back to July next year for NSW.

 

[DQ]

in my experience the courts are aware of the concept of impairment, and of the idea that you can have drugs in your system yet not be impaired (like with alcohol). sounds like the tests are calibrated to allow for this (the guy who tried out the sampler tests showing a negative test 4 hours after a line of speed, which probably wouldn't be long enough to clear all traces from the body). In any case the court would have to prove impairment to get any sort of conviction.

i'm strongly in favour of drug testing of drivers cos i reckon far too much dangerous shit happens, and i've been on the receiving end of precisely this sort of irresponsible risk-taking. i'm usually the most distrustful of authority, but in this case i think it's a valid measure to protect people from genuinely dangerous behaviour.

bring it on.

 

[Winterborn]

Sorry, I might try re-reading this a little later but could someone clarify:

Are the drugs tests that are planning to be introduced, show false positives for speed and opiates? If so... how the fuck could they be introduced- anyone could say they have ADHD or took some cough medicine.

 

[BigTrancer]

^ Definitely worth re-reading... and also keeping a close eye on any information that is given to the public when the actual tests are introduced.

BigTrancer

 

[hoptis]

December is here - where is my free police-issue chewing gum?

It's now the last weekend of November and the new month approaches.

The month designated in media articles all through this year as the one when saliva-testing of drivers would begin in Victoria.

I know most of you are up at the big dance party near Shepparton today so I guess the first we may hear of this is early next week, if police decide to target this party. From everything that I've been hearing though, it doesn't seem to be.

The next likely target will be the dance party near Ballarat two weeks from now.

Whenever it's going to start, it's my understanding from everything I've read that it will be soon, and quite obvious when it does.

Besides from this FAQ on a police website, I don't see anything else in the papers about it. I would assume there would be some publicity, no matter how small, when the police decided to start using this, and that a specific party or event would be targetted.

A quote from the website mentioned above:

Victoria Police are preparing for the commencement of roadside screening later in 2004. The commencement date will be widely publicised before roadside operations begin.

So, I ask again, where is my stick of police-issue gum, giving my mouth a soothing, minty, drug-free freshness???

 

[Joop]

NEWS: Motorists face drug tests over Christmas

Motorists face drug tests over Christmas
By Jason Dowling
November 28, 2004


Random drug tests for Victorian drivers are set to begin in less than three weeks.

The State Government is expected to announce this week that trials of saliva drug-testing machines, which will check for methamphetamines (also known as speed and ice) and cannabis, have been completed with two being approved for testing.

Sources have told The Sunday Age they expect police to begin pulling over drivers for drug tests by the middle of December, the peak season for Christmas parties, with the testing in full swing before New Year's Eve.

A Government spokeswoman yesterday would not confirm or deny the imminent introduction of the tests.

Last Wednesday, Professor Olaf Drummer from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine is believed to have briefed Government ministers on the testing equipment, saying it was ready for implementation.

The Government confirmed yesterday that motorists who returned a first-offence positive drug reading and were issued with a traffic infringement notice would face a $300 fine and the loss of three demerit points.

But police sources have told The Sunday Age that motorists convicted of a drink-driving offence in the past 10 years would face much stiffer penalties for a first drug-driving offence, with fines of up to $600 and the loss of licence for three months.

The Government yesterday denied this, saying the harsher first-offence penalty would apply only to motorists who contested their drug-driving fine in court.

Drivers found guilty of a second drug-driving offence would face court with fines of up to $1200 and a six-month licence cancellation.

Also, drivers who lost their licences as a result of a drug-driving offence would be made to undertake a drug education course before they could apply to have their licence back.

Police sources have indicated the penalty would be the same for the detection of cannabis or methamphetamines.

The new technology will allow cannabis to be detected several hours after use and methamphetamines for about 24 hours.

Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said the tests would not react to common over-the-counter or prescription drugs.

It is believed the new roadside drug tests will take about five minutes and will be similar to alcohol testing. Drivers will provide a saliva sample by placing on their tongue an absorbent swab.

Professor Drummer said Victoria would be the first state to introduce the random drug testing of motorists.

He said broad testing of the equipment had been undertaken to ensure its accuracy and that motorists should not be concerned about a repeat of the speed camera fiasco.

"Every effort has been made to make sure the devices work and all the processes involved in the testing meet proper standards," he said.

Mr Batchelor announced last December that random roadside drug testing would begin by mid-2004, but longer than expected trials of the new technology caused delays.

The roadside drug testing legislation has a "sunset clause" attached to it, with Parliament to review the law about July next year.

Of the 333 people killed on Victoria's roads in 2003, 59 are believed to have had drugs in their system, compared with 54 whose blood-alcohol content was above .05.

According to VicRoads, methamphetamines increase risk taking and aggression, and are often used by drivers to allow them to continue to drive even though they are too tired to do so safely. Cannabis impairs mental functions and reduces concentration.

Police will continue to check for other drugs - including heroin and GHB - through existing processes, which allow them to take urine and blood samples from drivers who fail impairment assessments.

Police figures indicate that in two of the past three years, more people have been killed on the roads with illegal drugs in their system than those killed with a blood-alcohol reading above .05.

Last week a Reservoir man, 31, was sentenced to 10 years' jail by the County Court after colliding with and killing a motorcyclist. At the time of the crash, the man was said to be high on illegal drugs.

Opposition police spokesman Kim Wells said the Opposition supported roadside drug testing.

"We have been calling for it for three years," he said.

Mr Wells expressed concern that police would not have sufficient resources to carry out the new tests.

"We noticed in the Victorian Police annual report that they didn't reach their target for booze bus testing because of a shortage of police," he said.

"We hope that is not going to be the same issue with roadside drug testing."

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/news/Natio...s/2004/11/27/1101495459946.html?oneclick=true

 

[Pleonastic]

The next likely target will be the dance party near Ballarat two weeks from now

Absolute odds on favourite that one... take the train, a sober buddy, or acid! (just kidding)...