Kia ora,

Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following information relating to the New Zealand Police press release dated 8 December 2024 titled “Drugged driver taken off road after roadside test”, published at:
https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/...

This request is confined to the factual accuracy of statements made in that release.

Requested information

Substance identification

At the time the press release was issued, did Police have any evidence capable of distinguishing methamphetamine from MDMA or other amphetamine-type substances, beyond the initial DrugWipe 3S roadside oral fluid screening test?

Test capability

Do Police acknowledge that the DrugWipe 3S roadside oral fluid screening test cannot distinguish between methamphetamine and MDMA, and instead indicates only the possible presence of an amphetamine-type substance?

False positive rate

Do Police acknowledge that the DrugWipe 3S (or equivalent roadside oral fluid screening tests) has a documented false positive rate of approximately 10%, meaning a positive screening result does not, on its own, establish drug consumption?

Evidential certainty

At the time of publication, did Police have any confirmatory saliva or blood test results establishing drug presence, or was the statement based solely on an initial screening test followed by refusal or inability to obtain a confirmatory sample?

Accuracy review

Have Police reviewed whether describing the individual as a “meth driver” or implying methamphetamine consumption was factually supported, given the known limitations of the screening test?

Scope and form

This request seeks confirmation of Police knowledge and understanding at the time of publication. It does not seek personal information about the individual concerned.

If any part of this request is refused, please specify:

the precise statutory ground relied upon, and whether the information can be released in summary or aggregated form.

I am happy to receive the response electronically.

Ngā mihi,
J. P. W. Pitt
Wellington region

Dear New Zealand Police,

My apologies, the correct date of the press statement this OIA request is about - published at

https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/...

- is Friday, 19 December 2025 - 2:43pm

not "8 December 2024", as used in my original email.

Yours faithfully,

J. P. W. Pitt

Dear Ministerial Services for NZ Police,

> to avoid prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the right to a fair trial.

Unfortunately the Police press statement has already ensured that this case is prejudiced in the public eye.

> Verification testing of the roadside drug screening device identified a 5% false positive
rate.

This is incorrect. We now have access to the IFC Expert Report via another OIA. This study was commissioned by the Police Procurement Lead and delivered 25 August 2025. For methamphetamine the false positive rate is 2/12. For THC and MDMA it is 1/12. Cocaine had no false positives in this study.

The standard definition of false positive rate is: (False Positives / (False Positives + True Negatives)) and there are only 2 clear samples used by the IFC Report. Thus depending on the substance tested for the the FPR is between 0-16% based on this report.

In addition, the MoT guidance that second administration of a DrugWipe 3S test will reduce this to 5.5 % is based on nothing but a guess:

"It is impossible to know for sure what causes a false positive, and therefore impossible to know how independent the two OFTs would be, this CBA assumes a range of between 50-100% OFT independence"
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, Enhanced testing regime for drug-impaired driving, Ministry of Transport.

> Police did not describe the driver as a “meth driver” as seen in some media headlines.

The Police described it as "testing positive for methamphetamine", which was prejudicial, as the DrugWipe 3S is unable to determine this. It can test positive for "methamphetamine or MDMA", but importantly, as described earlier, there is 8-16% chance this was a false positive. None of this context was provided by Police, which led to the press claiming they were reporting exactly what the Police stated.

Yours sincerely,

J. P. W. Pitt