IR-01-25-42802
29 January 2026
Chris Johnston
[FYI request #32972 email]
Dear Chris
Thank you for your Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) request received 23 November
2025 in which you requested information regarding oral fluid testing. I have answered
each part of your request below.
1. 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?
Roadside drug driving testing commenced in the Wellington District on 15 December
2025. The rollout wil scale up from April 2026 with nationwide implementation expected
by mid-2026.
2. This testing wil 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 wil require the device to be placed in the person’s body (their
cheek), or on a part of the person’s body that is usual y inside their mouth –
their tongue. The person receiving the test wil be expected to submit by
extending their tongue. Can you confirm this please?
The Securetec DrugWipe 3S device approved for use by New Zealand Police requires a
small collection of saliva (oral fluid). Police officers wil not place anything in your mouth.
The roadside drug test is self-administered by the driver. The driver wil briefly wipe the
device pads down their tongue so that the test pad can collect saliva. The procedure is
considered minimal y invasive and is standard practice internationally for drug screening.
3. The test is compulsory and refusing the test is an offence. Can you confirm
this please?
Under the Land Transport Act 1998, roadside saliva (oral fluid) drug testing is compulsory
when requested by an enforcement officer.
It is il egal to fail or refuse to undergo the drug screening test or provide a saliva sample
without delay if asked by a Police Officer acting in the lawful execution of their duties. A
failure or refusal to undergo a drug test or provide a sample without delay may result in
an infringement and prohibition from driving for 12 hours.
Police National Headquarters 180 Molesworth Street. PO Box 3017, Wellington 6140, New Zealand.
Telephone: 04 474 9499. Fax: 04 498 7400. www.police.govt.nz
4. The test wil 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?
Roadside saliva (oral fluid) testing is al owed under the Land Transport Act 1998, and is a
drug detection test for the presence of drugs recently used, there is no requirement to
have good cause to suspect and if there were signs of visible impairment an officer would
assess the driver using a behaviour test cal ed the Compulsory Impairment Test (CIT).
While roadside drug driving wil typically result in an infringement offence, a failed CIT
could result in either an infringement or criminal offence. This approach is intended to
help keep everyone safe on our roads by reducing the risk of drug-related harm.
5. 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?
The DrugWipe 3 S device has been manufactured to specifications set by New Zealand
Police, which align with the Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZ 4760:2019 for
oral fluid testing. As part of the procurement process, al roadside drug testing equipment
used by Police underwent independent verification in New Zealand or Australia. This
verification confirmed that the devices meet the required standards for accuracy and
performance. Fol owing this, the Securetec DrugWipe® 3 S code S304G.91 roadside
drug screening device has been approved as the roadside oral fluid screening device
(OFSD) for use in New Zealand, via gazette notice.
6. 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).
Please find included with my response supporting documents:
1. 20161213 DW II TWIN_Gluten_Lactose
2. 201880220 Confirmation letter – no al ergic reaction
3. 20190128 Statement of no allergical reaction
4. 202208 DrugWipe Product Safety Data Sheet
7. 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)?
The oral fluid testing devices used by Police are approved medical devices that have
undergone safety and performance assessments in accordance with international
standards prior to deployment. These assessments include evaluation of materials
intended for contact with the human mouth to ensure they are non-toxic and safe for
short-term use. Police holds no evidence indicating that the pads transfer harmful
chemicals into the mouth or cause ingestion of substances. The devices are designed
and certified to meet health and safety requirements for their intended purpose.
8. 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.
The list of ingredients used by Securetec AG is confidential and is proprietary information
and therefore cannot be provided, as Police do not hold this information. As such, this
part of your request has been refused pursuant to section 18(g)(i) of the OIA in that the
information requested is not held by Police and I have no grounds for believing that the
information is held by any other agency subject to the OIA.
However, Police can confirm that the driver wil only be in contact with the device swabs
which do not contain any harmful ingredients. The DrugWipe 3 S has been manufactured
to comply with biological safety standards to allow Securetec AG (the manufacturer) to
manufacture and sell devices that come into contact with a person.
9. 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.
The DrugWipe 3 S is packaged by the manufacturer fol owing strict regulations, that are
required for compliance and law. The plastic and pads have been confirmed as being
biologically safe for use. The package is opened at the roadside and then the driver will
receive the device from an officer who wil be wearing gloves.
Please refer to the ‘
DrugWipe Product Safety Data Sheet’ attached.
10. Specifical y, 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.
No ethylene oxide (EO) or any harmful agents or carcinogens are used in the
manufacturing of the DrugWipe 3S.
11. 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?
The manufacturer must comply with biological safety standards to al ow them to be able
to manufacture and sel devices that come into contact with a person.
It should also be noted that these devices are being used in over 40 countries around the
world and has been used in Australia since 2004. There have been no records of any
harmful reaction with any person, including the officers that use them.
12. 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?
As noted above, there are no harmful ingredients in the manufacturing of the DrugWipe
3S and the manufacturer has confirmed that the device is biologically safe for human use.
13. 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?
The fol owing certification was provided to NZ Police:
a. Certified company according to EN ISO 13485:2016.
For the DrugWipe 3 S
b. Confirmation of no al ergic reaction to gluten or lactose.
c. Compliance with EN ISO 10993 biological evaluation of medical
devices, confirming there has no sensitizing potential.
d. Compliance with ISO 14971 and ISO 10993 and confirmation of
there being no detection of harmful substances.
For the Quantisal saliva collection device
e. US FDA clearance under K942435 by the Saliva Diagnostics
Systems (SDS) “Saliva Sampler” tradename.
f. The use of the Ahlstrom Filtration paper grade 270 for the sample
collector (for the collection of saliva for laboratory analysis) which is
recognised as safe according to FDA Regulation 21CFR 186.1673.
The ingredients in the paper are approved under 21CFR 176.170
and 21 CFR 176.180.
14. 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?
Police does not provide legal advice or legal interpretation services to the public.
Therefore, this part of your request is refused under 18(g) of the OIA as the information
requested is not held by Police.
15. 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.
No. Police has not provided any notification to the Minister in relation to potential harms
to individuals arising from the use of the DrugWipe 3 S device.
There has been no harm to individuals identified from the use of the DrugWipe 3 S, and
therefore no circumstances have arisen that would meet the threshold for notification. As
no harm has been identified, no assessment was required against the criteria and no
record of such an assessment exists.
16. 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?
Accountability for the NZ Police executive is governed by multiple mechanisms. The
Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) provides independent oversight of Police
conduct, including systemic issues. In addition, Police executives are subject to internal
governance and performance frameworks under the Policing Act 2008, ministerial
oversight, and public sector accountability requirements such as the Public Service Act
2020. These mechanisms collectively ensure sanction and accountability if harm were
proven and due diligence found lacking.
17. 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.
Regarding the approval of policy amendments and procedures, please find included with
my response the approval form relating to the amended Impaired Driving chapter. This
document records the internal approval of the relevant policy amendment.
Regarding the approval and procurement of roadside drug‑testing devices, this
information is publicly available on the Police website in a proactive release relating to the
implementation of roadside drug‑driving testing. The documents in that release record the
procurement process, including the relevant requirements and decision‑making steps.
These documents can be accessed here:
http://police.govt.nz/about-
us/publication/proactive-release-papers-relating-implementation-roadside-drug-driving-
testing
18. 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?
Police does not have a specific informed consent procedure relating to health risks from
contact with roadside drug testing devices. The oral fluid testing process uses an
approved device designed to meet hygiene and safety standards, and the risk of health
issues from contact is very low. Drivers are legally required to comply with the testing
process under the Land Transport Act 1998, and Police provide clear instructions on how
the test is conducted. At present, no additional health warnings or consent documentation
are planned.
19. 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?
Wil the driver be informed of this procedural requirement as part of the
informed consent process?
There is no procedural requirement for Police officers to unwrap the oral fluid testing
device in front of the driver, however generally this would occur. The devices used for
roadside drug testing are single-use and individual y sealed to maintain hygiene and
integrity, and officers follow standard handling protocols which address contamination risk
and other factors. This step is not specifically discussed with the drivers as part of an
informed consent process. The law requires compliance with testing under the Land
Transport Act 1998 rather than formal consent. Police provide clear instructions on how
the test wil be conducted, but there is currently no additional requirement to explain
device unwrapping to the driver.
20. 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. Al 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 fol owing 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 wil 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)?
Police acknowledges the importance of mitigating risks associated with impersonation
and malicious intent. A comprehensive assessment was undertaken during the
development of the oral fluid testing regime, which included consideration of security,
integrity, and public safety. Measures to manage these risks include strict officer
identification protocols that are currently in place and robust training. Additionally,
operational policies require that all testing is conducted in accordance with statutory
authority and documented procedures, reducing the likelihood of unauthorised or harmful
actions.
21. If there is resistance to undertaking the test in the prescribed manner, but
there is wil ingness 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".
The oral fluid testing regime is prescribed by legislation and associated operational
policy, which requires the test to be administered in a specific manner to ensure
accuracy, integrity, and evidential reliability. Alternative methods, such as spitting onto
the device, are not permitted under current law or approved procedures, as they would
compromise the validity of the test and its evidential standard. The regime is designed to
balance public safety with individual rights, and any changes to the method would require
legislative amendment and scientific validation.
22. 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”.
Police has not undertaken any public focus groups, sample surveys, or other forms of
pre‑testing specifical y to assess public acceptability of the roadside drug testing
procedure or the DrugWipe 3 S device.
As part of preparing for implementation, Police engaged with Australian policing
jurisdictions that have longstanding roadside drug testing regimes. This engagement
provided insights into lessons learned, public communication approaches, and
implementation considerations. These were used to inform New Zealand’s planning. This
advice did not include New Zealand‑specific acceptability testing with the public.
Police was also required to meet statutory and procurement requirements relating to the
approval and acquisition of the device. Procurement processes are commercial y
sensitive and are not conducted publicly. Consequently, there are no records of public
acceptability tests, survey questions, or analysis of concerns arising from such testing.
The DrugWipe 3 S device has an established history of operational use internationally,
which contributed to Police’s assessment of its suitability for use in New Zealand.
The roadside drug testing regime commenced on 15 December 2025 with a pilot
operating in Wellington. The purpose of this pilot is to test and refine Police procedures,
processes, and equipment, and to gather operational feedback, including engagement
and reactions from members of the public who interact with the testing process.
Feedback collected through the pilot informs ongoing adjustments to implementation.
23. Please provide a legal assessment by or held by the NZ Police of how this
“mandatory sampling power” aligns with the Bil of Rights in NZ.
This part of your request is refused under section 9(2)(h) of the OIA, as it seeks legal
advice and/or legal analysis that is subject to legal professional privilege.
While Police are unable to provide a legal assessment, we note that the consistency of
the relevant drug‑driving legislation (including mandatory sampling and evidential testing
powers) with the New Zealand Bil of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) was considered during
the legislative process.
In particular, the Attorney‑General’s reports prepared under section 7 of the NZBORA
assess whether the legislation appears to be inconsistent with the rights and freedoms
affirmed by that Act. These reports are publicly available here:
https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/constitutional-issues-and-human-
rights/the-bill-of-rights-act/compliance-reports/section-7-reports/
24. 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 wil such a review be next
due?
The Ministry of Transport is responsible for the legislation, and NZ Police is the
enforcement agency, who operationalises and enforces the legislation. The legislation
includes a review no later than 5 years after the commencement of the Land Transport
Act 1998.
25. 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.
Beyond responding to this OIA request, Police continually reviews operational policies
and procedures as part of its standard governance and assurance processes. Feedback
received through public enquiries is considered within these frameworks to inform
ongoing improvements where appropriate. No specific actions have been initiated solely
as a result of this communication at this time.
If you are not satisfied with the way I have responded to your request, you have the right
under section 28(3) of the OIA to ask the Ombudsman to review my decisions.
Information on how to do this is available online at
www.ombudsman.parliament.nz.
Yours sincerely
Superintendent Steve Greally
Director: Road Policing
New Zealand Police
