Kia ora Lee

Thank you for your request of 17 December.

Police wants to provide information that will be useful you, however your
request is extremely broad and complex and would require extensive
searches and consultations to respond to in full. Providing the
information you have sought would likely have a significant and
unreasonable impact on Police’s ability to carry out its other operations.

 

Therefore, as it currently stands, Police will likely refuse your request
under section 18(f) of the OIA, as the information requested cannot be
made available without substantial collation or research.

Rather than refuse your request I want to give you the opportunity to
refine your request into a form that is more manageable. For example, you
may wish to consider what information is of most importance to you, and
focus on that in the first instance.

 

Please note that this does not prevent you submitting requests for the
remainder of the information asked for in future.

In accordance with section 18B of the OIA, Police invites you to refine
your request to enable Police to work within a more manageable scope.
Please respond by midday 22 December 2025, so that we can consider your
refinement in our response to your request.

Please note that under section 15 of the OIA, any clarification or
amendment made to a request within seven working days of its receipt may
be treated as a new request, and the response timeframe may restart from
the date of refinement.

 

Ngā mihi

 

Hagen Kerr

Senior Advisor – Ministerial Services

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Lee <[1][FOI #33308 email]>

Sent: Wednesday, 17 December 2025 5:01 PM

To: Ministerial Services <[2][email address]>

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Official Information request - Superintendent Steve
Greally (Director of Road Policing) decisions

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the New Zealand Police
Network. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognise the
sender and are assured that the content is safe.

 

Dear New Zealand Police-Attention to: Superintendent Steve Greally
(Director of Road Policing), who is overseeing the testing program and
procurement specifics

 

In the interest of matters that effect the peoples’ liberties and rights,
please provide answers to:

 

1. What qualification do you, Superintendent Steve Greally have to make
claims on the evidential basis for concluding the DrugWipe 3S is fit for
purpose given documented international performance issues

 

2. What qualification and training do Road Policing / NZ Police / Police
have concerning the new equipment that is to be used, evidence on its
reliability of accuracy, and what qualify officers as competent in
handling peoples bodily samples as per legislation, not limited to the
Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995 (CIBSA) and not limited
to sections 10,13, 36, 60,

 

3. How can you, Superintendent Steve Greally be sure these test kits can’t
be interfered with as identified with the breath test devices between July
2024 and September 2025 that were falsely / erroneously recorded by 120
police Officers

 

4. What reliance did you, Superintendent Steve Greally / Government Agent
/ Minister / Crown Agent / Parliament Agent / Service Providers / Public
servants use was used to procure independent forensic laboratory testing
that ensures the accuracy of the roadside equipment, as well as on going
testing for accuracy, with timeframes for servicing that are the critical
components in procurement evaluation

 

5. What are the chemicals, substances, antibodies, and immunoassay
formulations that are proprietary in New Zealand's use with the Securetec
DrugWipe 3 S tongue-swipe test that will be used by Police for the
roadside drug screening? Provide the validation studies and chemical data
that you, Superintendent Steve Greally and all NZ service providers are
reliant on

 

6. Superintendent Steve Greally, your insurance liability is required to
be publically available to make claims for any potential harm caused by
the use and use of force for compliance under the threat of infringement
fines, demerit points and court action when applying Securetec DrugWipe 3
S device to take bodily samples without knowledge of medical conditions
and contraindications

 

7.  What are Roading Police / NZ Police / Police / all parties contractual
agreement and obligations to NZ peoples including, not limited to
“persons”, “natural persons”, “legal entity”, “corporate”, “sole
corporate”, “individual”, “citizens”, “public”  verses Pathtech Pty Ltd

 

(i) in how much revenue is estimated to made over a 12 month period by
Roading Police / NZ Police / Police and Pathtech Pty Ltd, AKA PATHTECH
HOLDINGS PTY LTD (Former Name: Pathtech Diagnostic Pty Ltd); an
Australian-based Drug Detection and Life Science provider, regulated by
Australian Securities & Investments Commission; an Australian Proprietary
Company, who are the supplier of roadside oral fluid testing equipment;
the exclusive distributor for Securetec DrugWipe 3 S device alleged to
detect the presence of specified drugs in saliva at or above a threshold
that indicates current and recent use for the roadside drug screening that
includes supplying Roading Police  / NZ Police / Police with Oral Fluid
Collection Kits, utilising Quantisal collection device and buffer
transport tube to collect saliva samples to be sent for laboratory
analysis

 

(ii) In the motivation linked to meeting performance targets (as per the
findings in the falsification of breath tests)

 

(iii) In that these salvia tests are also pertinent to be carried out on
all Roading Police / NZ Police / Police / Crown Agents / Public servants,
including Ministers and Government personnel Include how:

•       Will the data be collected

•       Where will the storage of these taken samples and data analysis be
kept

•       Who will have access to these samples

•       How long they will be held on your system

•       Are Roading Police / NZ Police / Police regularly tested for drug
use? If not, why not?

•       What is the cost per DrugWipe 3S unit

•       What is the cost per oral fluid collection kit for laboratory
analysis

•       Annual procurement budget (devices and consumables)

•       Laboratory confirmatory testing costs per sample

•       Officer training costs (development and delivery)

•       IT systems development and maintenance

•       Administrative processing costs

•       Total first-year cost and projected ongoing annual costs

 

8. What is the revenue projections expected in annual revenue from
infringement fines and comparison of fine revenue vs. total programme
cost?

 

9. Statistically, which countries, including New Zealand, have seen a rise
in the number of drivers testing positive for drugs in recent years as
alleged, with the direct correlation to the number of people being
seriously injured or killed on NZ roads as alleged, including but not
limited to all analysis, reports, or calculations distinguishing between:

 

(a) Road fatalities where drugs were present in the deceased driver's
system

 

(b) Road fatalities where drugs were determined to have caused or
contributed to the crash

 

10. How have you, Superintendent Steve Greally secured that peoples right
under legislation, not limited to; New Zealand Bill of Rights (NZ BORA)
Act 1990; Human Rights Act 1993 (disability discrimination, indirect
racial discrimination) Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (Article 20: Personal mobility) are not ignored

 

(i) In view from JUDITH COLLINS' NZBORA REPORT it appears that NZ Police
are violating NZ BORA 1990, implementing this road side testing that
violates fundamental rights and the violation cannot be justified:
[3]https://bills.parliament.nz/download/Pap...

 

(ii) This violation is also supported by the Law Society:

[4]https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/assets/Law...

 

(iii) The Attorney-General's report states that requiring officers to have
reason to suspect drug consumption before testing would make the regime
less likely to be inconsistent with NZ BORA s 22. Please provide:

 

(a) All advice on why this recommendation was not adopted

 

(b) Policy analysis weighing rights protection vs. enforcement convenience

 

(c) Whether any modelling was done on how requiring suspicion would affect
testing numbers or road safety outcomes

 

(d) Legal advice on whether restricting driving for people taking legally
prescribed medications constitutes unlawful discrimination

 

(e) Whether alternatives to blanket restrictions were considered
(impairment-based testing, functional assessments, and conditional
licenses)

 

(f) Consultation with other organisations:

 

(i) List the organisations consulted during policy development, including,
but not limited to:

•       Patient advocacy groups

•       Disability rights organisations

•       Chronic pain associations

•       Medicinal cannabis clinics and prescribers

•       Māori health providers

•       Employment/labour organisations

•       Breaching peoples’ right under the Health and Disability
Commissioner

 

(ii) Provide copies of submissions and feedback received, particularly
regarding:

 

•       Mobility and accessibility concerns

•       Impacts on medicinal cannabis patients and Schedule 5 prescription
users

•       How concerns were addressed and reasons for dismissal

 

11. In New Zealand, the law requires that decisions and processes be fair,
which come from several core Acts most often relied on. How are you,
Superintendent Steve Greally and Roading Police / NZ Police /Police going
to ensure the law is applied pursuant to:

 

(i) Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) Section 27—Right to justice
(procedural fairness)

 

s27(1) “Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of
natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the
power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights,
obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law”

 

This is the primary fairness provision and applies to Police, ministries,
councils, courts, regulators, and tribunals, covering natural justice;
fairness, right to be heard, and absence of bias

 

(ii) Under the Legislation Act 2019 (interpretation fairness) Section
10—Purpose;

 

Legislation must be interpreted in a way that best achieves its purpose,
and not open to interpretation nor interchangeable

 

Section 11—Meaning of legislation—Interpretation must be consistent with
rights and freedoms, including NZBORA, where Courts must interpret laws
fairly and consistently with rights

 

(iii) As part of these arbitrary road sides testing, a Judicial Review /
Common Law (Natural Justice) can be pursued to ensure Roading Police / NZ
Police / Police align with NZ courts consistently to corroborate fairness
under common law under a two core rules:

 

(1). Audi alteram partem—right to be heard

 

(2). Nemo judex in causa sua—decision-maker must be impartial

 

These are recognised in cases such as: Daganayasi v Minister of
Immigration and Bulk Gas Users Group v Attorney-General. This also applies
even when statutes are silent

 

(iv) Under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 (criminal / enforcement
context) Section 3—Fair trial principles—requires proceedings to be
conducted in a manner consistent with justice and fairness, which is
relied on in Police enforcement, roadside procedures, prosecutions to be
carried out lawfully

 

How are you, Superintendent Steve Greally going to ensure Roadside
testing; that is summary and time-limited, carried out by Roading Police /
NZ Police / Police will be carried out lawfully and measures taken to
safeguard there are:

 

•       no predetermined outcomes

•       no bad faith

•       no systemic bias

•       reasonable opportunity to comply/and right for refusal and
challenge in Court

 

(v) As per your obligations under: Policing Act 2008—Section 9
—Principles—Police must act:

 

(a) lawfully

 

(b) professionally

 

(c) ethically

 

(d) with respect for human rights

 

(e) Fairness is implied through human rights compliance

 

Your obligations are also to govern and implement how roadside powers are
exercised, not just whether they exist, how are you going to ensure these
procedures are carried out as per design by assigned officers?

 

(vi) In accordance with Health & Disability Commissioner Act 1994 (where
medical/testing is involved)

 

Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights

 

(a) Right 6—Right to be fully informed

 

(b) Right 7—Right to informed consent

 

(c) And, relevant where biological testing, medical procedures, or
chemical exposure are involved

 

(vii) NZ BORA 1990, section 27(1)—Natural justice and is the clearest
statutory requirement that public decision-making must be fair and apply
to Police roadside testing in New Zealand and not as an unlimited veto,
grounded in statute and NZ case law;

 

How are you, Superintendent Steve Greally going to ensure Roading Police /
NZ Police / Police; who are purportedly a public authority exercising
statutory power (never seen a warrant to date as per Policing Act 2008 s24
Schedule 1: Part 1-4) that serves and protect the peoples’, where Roadside
testing directly affects:

 

(a) our liberty

 

(b) our right to drive

 

(c) potential criminal liability

 

in that Roading Police / NZ Police / Police will carry out and obey your
regulations / policies and procedures accordingly, without biased,
excessive force, fabrication and not arbitrarily?

 

•       Will you be applying NZ BORA s27 to the process, even though it is
brief and roadside stop?

 

•       s21 —Unreasonable search or seizure—Oral-fluid testing—search and
handling with peoples bodily substance must be lawful, reasonable, and
proportionate

 

•       And, s22—Arbitrary detention—Stopping and testing, which must:

 

(i) Be authorised by law

 

(ii) Not be arbitrary in selection or execution

 

(iii) And is it reasonable for identification purposes, get the Police
Officers name and QID at the time, in the likely event of harm / Court
proceedings? If not, why not?

 

As per NZ BORA s25(a) & (c) applies—Fair trial rights—that are engaged
once enforcement or prosecution begins (e.g. evidential test, charge,
suspension). Courts accept there is limited procedural fairness at
roadside

 

(viii) Do Health & informed-consent principles apply?

 

Where the law maybe contested stating Roadside drug testing is not treated
as healthcare, therefore full HDC Code consent doesn’t apply, however with
the use of:

 

•       Chemical exposure

•       biological sampling

•       lack of ingredient disclosure

•       Adverse reaction to unknown substances and contraindications are
valid, therefore it can’t be relied on that non-medical professionals or
statutory override considers real potentials risks can cause harm.

 

How are you, Superintendent Steve Greally going to recognize and prevent
this harm?

 

•       Do you recognize people reserve the right to challenge
reliability, question interference, challenge misuse or faulty devices and
challenge lack of safeguards?

 

•       If not, why not and what legislation are you reliant on to force
compliance?

 

Is it not true that pursuant to—NZ BORA s11—People have the right to
refuse medical treatment and Health & Safety at Work Act 2015—risk
management duties?

 

(xi) What action plans are in place to implement roadside Police carry
out:

•       lawful authority requirements

•       proper calibration & procedure

•       non-arbitrary stopping

•       accurate information about consequences

•       ability to elect confirmatory testing

•       chain of custody integrity

•       The right of refusal under medical grounds

 

(a) Would not a failure result in a NZ BORA breach and evidential
exclusion?

 

(b) As Roading Police / NZ Police / Police do not get a free pass from
their NZBORA obligations, they need to conduct themselves with
reasonableness under s21, Policing Act, natural justice, and for
accountability request the officers details at the time of the event to
subpoena them to appear in court if proceedings are lodged?

 

12. We have good cause to suspect that the” Securetec DrugWipe 3 S device”
used for the roadside drug screening tool creates a ‘rights’ gap from:

 

•       bodily intrusion

•       chemical exposure

•       no meaningful informed choice

•       weak transparency about reliability

•       And questions are the method reasonable?

•       Are safeguards equivalent to alcohol testing?

•       Is the intrusion proportionate to the risk?

 

(i) As you, Superintendent Steve Greally are accountable for your
decisions, how are you going to safeguard peoples’ rights? And what
authority are Roading Police / NZ Police / Police reliant on to make
determinations affecting peoples’ liberty, license status, and exposure to
criminal liability concerning the use of a DrugWipe 3 S device to take
bodily samples?

 

(ii) Is the DrugWipe 3 S device used to take bodily samples a screening
tool or an evidential device?

 

(iii) Is the operation of DrugWipe 3 S device (that takes bodily samples)
known to be affected by prescription medications, residual contamination,
oral conditions, and environmental exposure?

 

(iv) We require the disclosure of the device’s reliability limits

 

(v) disclosure of substances capable of causing false positives

 

(vi) confirmation of calibration, storage, or expiry

 

And any other information when using a ‘DrugWipe 3 S device’ that may
directly affect the body’s ability to function; both physically and
mentally, all relevant information that imposes / over reaches on our
inherent rights, freedoms and liberties and all evidence dependent on
unreliable or insufficiently validation from this technology that is
vulnerable to exclusion.

 

In good faith

 

Lee

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.

 

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[5][FOI #33308 email]

 

Is [6][New Zealand Police request email] the wrong address for Official
Information requests to New Zealand Police? If so, please contact us using
this form:

[7]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[8]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

 

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

===============================================================

WARNING

The information contained in this email message is intended for the
addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be
subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which
creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this
message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this
message or any of its contents. Also note, the views expressed in this
message may not necessarily reflect those of the New Zealand Police. If
you have received this message in error, please email or telephone the
sender immediately

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #33308 email]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. https://bills.parliament.nz/download/Pap
4. https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/assets/Law
5. mailto:[FOI #33308 email]
6. mailto:[New Zealand Police request email]
7. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
8. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

hide quoted sections