Tēnā koe Nigel,

I acknowledge receipt of your Official Information Act 1982 request below, received by Police on 16 May 2026.

Your reference number is IR-01-26-17968.

You can expect a response to your request on or before 16 June 2026 unless an extension is needed.

Ngā mihi,

Keenia
Advisor | Ministerial Services
Police National Headquarters

-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Gray <[FOI #34721 email]>
Sent: Saturday, 16 May 2026 7:38 PM
To: Ministerial Services <[email address]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Official Information request - Roadside Alcohol + OralFluid Drug Testing Protocols, Legal Authority, Training, and Procedural Compliance

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.

To: NZ Police
From: Nigel Gray

Dear New Zealand Police,
Tēnā koutou,
I am requesting information under the Official Information Act 1982 regarding the conduct of a roadside alcohol test and subsequent oral‑fluid drug test recently carried out by a CVST/CVIU officer on a heavy‑vehicle driver.

The driver has provided a written account of the incident. I summarise the key points below for clarity and to ensure Police can identify the relevant policies, procedures, and legal authorities required to answer this request.

Summary of the Driver’s Account (Condensed) The driver was stopped at a weighbridge for routine CVIU checks.

The officer first required the driver to undergo an alcohol breath test, which the driver passed.

The officer then stated: “It’s obvious you’re not impaired, but I’m going to require you to undergo a roadside drug test.”

The driver requested Safety Data Sheets (SDS) or safety information for the oral‑fluid device. The officer stated none existed and that he was not required to provide any.

The initial screening test was first declared “fine”, then changed to “a very, very faint line”, leading to escalation.

The officer took photographs of the test devices but refused to allow the driver to photograph his own biological samples, despite the driver not obstructing the process.

The officer relied heavily on instruction sheets and appeared unfamiliar with the procedure.

The entire process took approximately one hour, despite the presence of a weighstation office that could have been used for privacy.

The driver was then prohibited from driving any vehicle for 12 hours.

This account raises significant questions about legal authority, training, accuracy, rights compliance, and adherence to Police’s own Alcohol Testing Manual and Oral‑Fluid Testing Manual.

Information Requested
Please treat each question as a separate request for the purposes of s12 of the OIA.

1. Legal Basis for Requiring a Drug Test When No Impairment Was Observed Why was the officer “required” to tell the driver he must undergo a drug test when the officer explicitly stated he observed no impairment?

Please provide:

The statutory authority relied upon

Any Police Manual or OFT protocol requiring a test in the absence of impairment indicators

Any training material instructing officers to compel a test despite acknowledging no impairment

2. Legal Authority to Take a Biological Sample When No Crime Has Occurred Under what law are Police permitted to collect a biological sample from a person who has committed no offence, displayed no impairment, and is not under arrest?

Please provide:

The specific statutory provisions authorising compulsory oral‑fluid collection

Any legal advice, internal memos, or policy documents interpreting this authority

Any BORA vetting documents relating to this power

3. Sequencing of Alcohol Test → Drug Test What policies or protocols govern the sequencing of a passed alcohol test followed immediately by a compulsory oral‑fluid drug test?

Please provide:

Any requirement to escalate to drug testing after a negative alcohol test

Any impairment‑based thresholds for escalation

Any guidance on officer discretion

4. Police Exemption From the Testing Regime Given Police officers drive on public roads, often at speed and under pressure, why are Police not subject to the same compulsory oral‑fluid testing regime?

Please provide:

Any policy, exemption, or legal basis for excluding Police from the regime

Any internal risk assessments or safety analyses justifying the exemption

5. Reliability of “Faint Line” Interpretation The officer shifted from “that looks fine” to “there is a faint line”.

What training, scientific validation, or procedural guidance governs the interpretation of faint or ambiguous lines on oral‑fluid screening devices?

Please provide:

The official interpretation criteria

Any laboratory validation studies

Any error‑rate data

Any guidance on officer discretion

6. Requirement to Use a Private or Designated Testing Area Why was the driver not taken to the weighstation office or another private area, despite such a facility being available?

Please provide:

The Police Manual or OFT protocol governing location of testing

Any requirement to avoid public humiliation or maintain driver dignity

Any guidance on when roadside testing is inappropriate

7. Thresholds for “Faint Lines” and Driving Legality What are the acceptable levels for driving where a “faint line” appears on the cannabis indicator?

Please provide:

The threshold concentrations

The scientific basis for these thresholds

Any calibration or sensitivity data for the device

8. Exact Levels That Constitute Impairment What are the exact levels of THC or other drugs that Police consider to constitute impairment?

Please provide:

The impairment thresholds

The scientific evidence used to set them

Any BORA or Ministry of Justice vetting documents relating to impairment standards

9. Expected and Acceptable Timeframe for the Testing Process What is the expected and acceptable total duration for:

Screening test

OFT1

OFT2

Result interpretation

Administrative steps

Please provide:

The official time standards

Any maximum allowable duration

Any guidance on unreasonable detention

10. Right to Have a Lawyer, JP, or Witness Present Is a driver legally entitled to request a lawyer, Justice of the Peace, or other witness to observe the testing process, given the legal and reputational consequences?

Please provide:

Any statutory rights

Any Police Manual guidance

Any restrictions or allowances for independent witnesses

11. Scientific Validation of the Testing Regime Where are the studies demonstrating that the oral‑fluid testing devices used by Police are accurate, safe, reliable, and effective?

Please provide:

All validation studies held by Police

Any external scientific evaluations

Any internal assessments of accuracy, false positives, or false negatives

Any HSWA/HSNO safety assessments or SDS documentation

Format Requested
Please provide all information in electronic form.

If any part of this request is refused, please provide the grounds for refusal under the relevant section of the OIA and identify the decision‑maker.

Ngā mihi,
Nigel Gray

Yours faithfully,

Nigel Gray

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

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

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #34721 email]

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

hide quoted sections