Dear New Zealand Police,

I am a NZ citizen and taxpayer and able to make this OIA request.

I am aware that the NZ Police are intending to start random testing drivers for drugs under a recent change to the law. Can you confirm this please?

This testing will use an invasive device for testing – a model from the Securetec DrugWipe product line, perhaps the 3S. It is invasive because unlike the alcohol testing device that detects and analyses breath alcohol, this test will require the device to be placed in the person’s body (their cheek), or on a part of the person’s body that is usually inside their mouth – their tongue. The person receiving the test will be expected to submit by extending their tongue. Can you confirm this please?

The test is compulsory and refusing the test is an offence. Can you confirm this please?

The test will be applied even if there is no reasonable cause to suspect the use of drugs, nor that there is any evidence of impairment. Can you confirm this please?

Can you confirm that in other countries and/or in New Zealand, the Securetec DrugWipe has been certified by use under regulations that govern medical devices, or some other regulation/standard? What regulation or standard was required or accepted by the NZ Police procurement process?

What testing evidence has been provided to, or sought by, the NZ Police about the testing that is undertaken as part of certifying the Securetec DrugWipe device as a safe product for use in humans? Please provide Records of the testing results that have been obtained by the NZ Police and detail the source(s).

Does the testing of the medical device cover any medium term effects of contact with the human mouth? Does the NZ Police have any evidence that the pads that turn from red to yellow upon contact with saliva do not transfer chemicals into the human recipient (that are then either absorbed into the lining of the mouth and/or probably swallowed)?

Can the NZ Police confirm whether the chemicals in the absorbent pads that turn from red to yellow upon contact with saliva are ph-Sensitive Indicator Dyes and/or Hydrochromic Agents? Please provide Records that detail the NZ Police's assessment of these absorbent pads and the chemicals.

For all surfaces that come into contact with the mouth - a very biologically sensitive part of the human body - what chemicals are used to manufacture, and sterilise these surfaces? From the plastic to the absorbent pads. Please provide any Records that the NZ Police have about this, and evidence (eg emails) that details were sought.

Specifically, is ethylene oxide (EO), or any cancer causing or harmful agents, used in the manufacture of the product or its packaging that may come into contact with highly absorbent parts of the human body? So for example a steriliser might not be a part of the core testing kit, but be inserted into the foil package. During subsequent storage such a product may become part of the surface that is applied to the human during the random drug testing event.

Given that eventually these swabs could be applied to all drivers in NZ randomly and without discrimination, what due diligence has the NZ Police undertaken/sought on the behaviour of any chemicals in the stick, container and/or packaging that comes into contact in humans? What time-frame does the evidence obtained cover?

For any chemicals identified above in the manufacture, do the safety studies follow the study participants for the length of time that is required to establish whether the harms from those associated chemicals (eg cancer) can be detected by those safety studies?

Was this product approved using the FDA’s 510(k) Pre-market Notification process or something similar in other jurisdictions? It appears that certification is only standards based so there is no long term testing on human health. What certification or standard did the NZ Police rely on?

My understanding is that the NZ Police cannot be sued by any member of the NZ public that might be negatively affected by the application of the testing devices used by the NZ Police. This would be covered by the Accident Compensation Act. Can you confirm that this is the case?

Has any notification been provided to a Minister that there may be harms to individuals from this testing regime? There is a requirement to declare to Parliament if there is expected harm, and an estimate of the liability/cost, in some circumstances. This is to enable Treasury to make provision in the accounts. If no such advice has been given is this by omission (eg "did not realise"), or by a decision against criteria? If by decision, then please provide the Record of assessment against the criteria.

Can you confirm what the current mechanism of sanction and accountability is for the NZ Police executive if it was proven at a later date that this testing regime and the devices that were used caused harm? Especially if that harm could have been predicted if sufficient due diligence was undertaken? Is it only the IPCA? What other mechanism exists?

Please provide the Records that show the approval sequence of policy approval, test device purchases and procedures. Just so the public has a record of what roles within the NZ Police approved which actions.

What informed consent procedure does the NZ Police have planned for drivers so that they can understand what health dangers they might be incurring by using their mouth surfaces to touch the testing device?

Is there a procedural requirement for the device to be unwrapped in front of the driver by the Police officer so that the risk of contamination is minimised? Will the driver be informed of this procedural requirement as part of the informed consent process?

It has been known that from time to time there is the occasional corrupt police officer or member of staff – and/or a person impersonating a Police officer. No society or organisation is perfect. All universal tests that are applied at random to members of the general public without reasonable cause to date in the entire history of the country of New Zealand have been … what I would call … “push” tests. Eg Breath tests for alcohol is the push test and the following invasive blood test is “with cause” after failing the initial “push” test. There is no danger of deliberate harm from the breath test – eg poisoning. With the proposed drug test, we have a situation where, for whatever reason, an entirely innocent person could be forced to undergo an invasive procedure that is guaranteed to cause ingestion of a substance if there was malicious intent by a rouge Police officer, or someone impersonating a Police officer. The NZ Police will dutifully train the public (via advertising and in-person action) to facilitate any person who looks like they are upholding the law as a Police officer, to place an object into a person’s mouth. I notice banks are now “untraining” their customers to try to minimise the risk of fraud when a communication appears to come from them but is a scam – eg no-one should click any links on emails from banks now. What assessment has the NZ Police made of this risk and how to manage it given the remarkable line being crossed (i.e. random invasive procedure without cause)?

If there is resistance to undertaking the test in the prescribed manner, but there is willingness by the driver “for the good of the driving population to cooperate with proving they no impairment to drive”, then is there another way to administer the test? For example, by spitting onto the absorbent pads. This would avoid the need to accept an “invasive procedure” and enable a “push” test to be administered – see above description of "push".

Please provide reports on results of any “pre-testing” of the acceptability of this testing procedure and device to the NZ public. Eg: focus groups, sample surveys. What were the key concerns of people? Which concerns have the Police catered to/ignored? Please provide the questions asked so that an assessment can be made of whether the questions were designed to “inform, investigate and understand” or “elicit a preferred response in absence of information”.

Please provide a legal assessment by or held by the NZ Police of how this “mandatory sampling power” aligns with the Bill of Rights in NZ.

Under the Regulatory Responsibility Act 2025, which government agency is responsible for reviewing the rules under which this random drug testing is undertaken, and the operational requirements/rules/procedures on drivers? The NZ Police or the Ministry of Transport? When will such a review be next due?

Other than responding to this enquiry under the Official Information Act, please detail what other action has been undertaken or initiated as a result of this communication. Please provide evidence of such action – eg an email to request a review of the informed consent procedure, or adjust the options for moisturising the test kit with saliva.

I hope that the responses above are able to allay fears and show an intent by the NZ Police to take great care in crossing this line that Parliament has requested. Time will tell.

Yours faithfully,

Chris Johnston