IR-01-26-7115
26 March 2026
Hayden
[FYI request #33251 email]
Dear Hayden
Request for information
I refer to your Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) request received 26 February 2026 in
which you asked follow up questions about the roadside drug testing regime. I have
answered each part of your request below.
What are the documented real-world false positive and false negative rates for
the Pathtech Securetec Drugwipe 3 S when used by police officers in actual
roadside conditions (real human saliva, variable temperatures 5–35 °C, no
centrifugation, real drivers)?
Police currently holds no information on “real-world false positives or false negative
rates”. This part of your request is therefore refused under section 18(e) of the OIA as the
information is not held by Police.
Police ensured that due diligence and verification testing (which used real donor oral
fluid) was conducted to meet the requirements set out by procurement and prescribed
testing standards. The DrugWipe 3 S met those requirements.
Police officers are trained to ensure they follow the manufacturer’s guidelines for use, and
this includes how to undertake testing with drivers, as well as other considerations such
as temperature and storage.
It should be noted that the manufacturer must adhere to strict regulations in order to
distribute the DrugWipe 3 S, which is currently used in over 40 countries worldwide.
Has this exact device (or the DrugWipe 3 S family) been subjected to any
independent field trials or operational pilot studies in New Zealand or Australia
involving real drivers and confirmatory blood/oral fluid testing? If yes, please
provide the ful results, including exact false positive/negative rates per drug. If
no, why was the device approved for random testing without such data?
Police is not immediately aware of any independent trials or pilot studies in New Zealand
or Australia. This part of your request is therefore refused under section 18(e) of the OIA
as the information is not held by Police.
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
The Land Transport Act sets out the approval requirements for an oral fluid screening
device under section 71G. Police has met al requirements set out in the legislation, and
the devices in use by Police have been approved by the Minister of Police.
The AS/NZS 4760:2019 standard (Appendix C3) that this verification relies on
was developed under Dr Michael Robertson as Chair of the Standards Australia
committee, with explicit “support of device manufacturers”. Dr Robertson’s
company (Independent Forensic Consulting) was then paid by NZ Police to verify
the Pathtech device against that same standard.
a) Were any conflict-of-interest declarations made by Dr Robertson or committee
members regarding connections to device manufacturers (including Securetec or
Pathtech) during the 2014–2019 standard revision?
No conflicts of interest were declared.
b) Were any conflict-of-interest declarations made for the 2025 verification report
itself?
No conflicts of interest were declared.
If no real-world field data exists, how can NZ Police justify imposing immediate
12-hour driving bans on the basis of a device that has only been proven to work
in perfect laboratory conditions?
The requirement to forbid a person from driving for 12 hours is set out in section 94A of
the Land Transport Act 1998. The Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bil s were
presented to and considered by Parliament before it passed the changes into law. Police
respects the sovereignty of Parliament to enact legislation. The role of Police is to enforce
the laws as enacted.
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 Greal y
Director: Road Policing
New Zealand Police
