Blood/urine sample

MagicSean

I just want to make sure i'm right about something. When arrested for drink driving and an evidential breath testing machine is not available a garda can make a demand on a person to provide blood but can also give them the option of providing urine. The garda can't actually demand a urine sample unless there is a medical reason for not providing blood.

So if a person declines to provide a urine sample and instead chooses blood they have forefeited their option to provide a urine sample. But if the doctor then cannot obtain a blood sample due to medical reasons can the garda demand urine or is that the end of the matter? As the person refused to provide urine and cannot provide blood is this a refusal? I would think it is but I am open to correction.

Hooch

k_mac wrote: »

I just want to make sure i'm right about something. When arrested for drink driving and an evidential breath testing machine is not available a garda can make a demand on a person to provide blood but can also give them the option of providing urine. The garda can't actually demand a urine sample unless there is a medical reason for not providing blood.

So if a person declines to provide a urine sample and instead chooses blood they have forefeited their option to provide a urine sample. But if the doctor then cannot obtain a blood sample due to medical reasons can the garda demand urine or is that the end of the matter? As the person refused to provide urine and cannot provide blood is this a refusal? I would think it is but I am open to correction.

I thought you were a Garda......

You make the demand under Section 13 for them to allow the des doctor to take from them a specimen of blood, or at their option to provide the des doctor a specimen of their urine.

If they choose blood and the doctor cannot get a specimen then thats the end of it....a Garda cannot make a second demand for urine.

(This is why going for an Evidential Breath Test (Sec 13 (1) (a)) is the best.....if they refuse or fail to give the breaths in the perscribed manner, or if they come in under you can revert to Blood/urine Sec 13 (1) (b))

nuac

NGA are you sure that a Gárds can ask for a blood or urine sample if the prisoner comes in under i.e. passes the evidential breath test?

I don't defend dd cases but this seems odd.

Hooch

nuac wrote: »

NGA are you sure that a Gárds can ask for a blood or urine sample if the prisoner comes in under i.e. passes the evidential breath test?

I don't defend dd cases but this seems odd.

Yes we can revert to blood or urine.

Its to cover another intoxicant....IE drugs which the EBT wont show. Happens everyweek if they fall into the bracket of possible users.

Victor

The new bill also proposes other tests, to be prescribed by the minister. It could for example include a "walk the line" test or a iris response test.

Hooch

Victor wrote: »

The new bill also proposes other tests, to be prescribed by the minister. It could for example include a "walk the line" test or a iris response test.

Ya victor we were asked our opinion some time back about these subriaty (or some spelling like that!!!) for checking drivers who may be intoxicated due to drugs. Thats what the new bill is aiming at.

Members of AGS will have to be trained up as users.....only so many per station. They have a simular setup in the UK.

MagicSean

nice guy always wrote: »

I thought you were a Garda......

You make the demand under Section 13 for them to allow the des doctor to take from them a specimen of blood, or at their option to provide the des doctor a specimen of their urine.

If they choose blood and the doctor cannot get a specimen then thats the end of it....a Garda cannot make a second demand for urine.

(This is why going for an Evidential Breath Test (Sec 13 (1) (a)) is the best.....if they refuse or fail to give the breaths in the perscribed manner, or if they come in under you can revert to Blood/urine Sec 13 (1) (b))

You thought right. Which is why I'm trying to clarify things. Hardly a failing is it?

Hooch

k_mac wrote: »

You thought right. Which is why I'm trying to clarify things. Hardly a failing is it?

Not at all.....why not just ask at work.....dont be afraid to admit your not sure of something. Asking for help is a sign of strenght not weakness.....just my two cents.

Tom Young

Yep - It's difficult to remember everything, all the time. Most people are able to have encyclopedic recall in one or two discrete areas. Others need to check. Nothing wrong with that.

MagicSean

nice guy always wrote: »

Not at all.....why not just ask at work.....dont be afraid to admit your not sure of something. Asking for help is a sign of strenght not weakness.....just my two cents.

I was looking for a more legal perspective really. Since evidential breath testing became common blood/urine isn't often used in my area and i've yet to see one in court.

johnnyskeleton

k_mac wrote: »

I just want to make sure i'm right about something. When arrested for drink driving and an evidential breath testing machine is not available a garda can make a demand on a person to provide blood but can also give them the option of providing urine. The garda can't actually demand a urine sample unless there is a medical reason for not providing blood.

So if a person declines to provide a urine sample and instead chooses blood they have forefeited their option to provide a urine sample. But if the doctor then cannot obtain a blood sample due to medical reasons can the garda demand urine or is that the end of the matter? As the person refused to provide urine and cannot provide blood is this a refusal? I would think it is but I am open to correction.

The law is to be read as a whole rather than two separate demands. As such, the demand is to provide "blood or, at your request, urine". A demand to provide just blood or just urine is arguably wrong. Once the demand is made it is up to the person, with the assistance of the doctor to ensure the sample is adequate, to provide the sample. Once the demand is made and there is a doctor there, if a sample is not obtained the offence is complete (subject to what the doctor may say about medical reasons for not providing the same and other safeguards). At least, that's my understanding of the Doyle case.

Hooch

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The law is to be read as a whole rather than two separate demands. As such, the demand is to provide "blood or, at your request, urine". A demand to provide just blood or just urine is arguably wrong. Once the demand is made it is up to the person, with the assistance of the doctor to ensure the sample is adequate, to provide the sample. Once the demand is made and there is a doctor there, if a sample is not obtained the offence is complete (subject to what the doctor may say about medical reasons for not providing the same and other safeguards). At least, that's my understanding of the Doyle case.

But if the Doctor is unable to take blood its the states problem...not the suspect...???

If the Doctor cant take blood for a medical reason.....cant he revert to urine. Think thats covered in Section 13??

Our man in Havana

I don't think so. Once blood cannot be obtained, any urine sample obtained would become inadmissible as evidence.

Hooch

Haddockman wrote: »

I don't think so. Once blood cannot be obtained, any urine sample obtained would become inadmissible as evidence.

This is what I was getting at -

Section 13 (1) Road Traffic Act 1994/06 wrote:

( b ) require the person either—

(i) to permit a designated doctor to take from the person a specimen of his blood, or

(ii) at the option of the person, to provide for the designated doctor a specimen of his urine,

and if the doctor states in writing that he is unwilling, on medical grounds, to take from the person or be provided by him with the specimen to which the requirement in either of the foregoing subparagraphs related, the member may make a requirement of the person under this paragraph in relation to the specimen other than that to which the first requirement related.

I dont believe there is case law for if this relates to breath or just reverting from blood to urine and vice versa?????

Our man in Havana

There is definitely case law for where a doctor could not get a blood sample, the urine was thrown out.

nuac

So we could yet be back to the pre 1968 Act days

Gardai would say

Defendant face flushed, eyes blood shot
staggered up the station steps
could not walk a straight line
could not pick up a coin
could not sign his name properly
etc
Solr could suggest various explanations. It led to some fun cases.

Had a client once who had plausible explanations for many of the above features.

However fell down at beng uable to explain his efforts to fight all the Gardai in the station together or one by one, and having to be restrained from doing so.

Our man in Havana

However fell down at beng uable to explain his efforts to fight all the Gardai in the station together or one by one, and having to be restrained from doing so.

Oh dear.

Hooch

nuac wrote: »

However fell down at beng uable to explain his efforts to fight all the Gardai in the station together or one by one, and having to be restrained from doing so.

Seems some things havint changed:D

MagicSean

nice guy always wrote: »

This is what I was getting at -



I dont believe there is case law for if this relates to breath or just reverting from blood to urine and vice versa?????

Thats the part I was wondering about.

nuac

Thankfully since the changes in dd procedures post-Dowra most defendants reaiise there is no point in asking their solicitor to call to the station in the hope of magicking the matter away.

I recall once being called to the local station about 4 a.m. It was in the days of local exchanges, and the Garda making the call was so careful about identity and nature of charge that I thought it was a particular highly respectable client, so hastened down.

When I got there found it was one of the local alcoholics in for being drunk and disorderly. A few pissed off Gárdai were trying to deal with him in their day room. When he saw me he started making allegations of garda brutality.

I defused it by pointing out that he now risked solicitor brutality for getting me out of bed at that hour. Garda were so amused that they released him to me to bring him home without charges.

Gárdai have to comply with numerous regulations from custody records to intoxyliser tests, and be able to defend their action in court perhaps a year or more later.. At the same time the crew that are on may have to cope with some outrageous behaviour by some other prisoner, or friend of a prisoner, or just someone calling with a complaint..

johnnyskeleton

nice guy always wrote: »

But if the Doctor is unable to take blood its the states problem...not the suspect...???

If the Doctor cant take blood for a medical reason.....cant he revert to urine. Think thats covered in Section 13??

Arguably not; in Swan Egan J. stressed that urine was just an option i.e. a garda can only require blood but can offer to accept urine as an alternative. The Supreme Court agreed with this in Malone apparently on the basis that urine is an option but the default setting is blood. Lavan J. interpreted it as being a requirement only for blood in Corcoran, but I'm not sure if this has since been distinguished. He said that the section does not suggest that if you can't provide blood for a genuine reason that it reverts to urine.

So read literally, that section means that if they can't provide blood the garda can make a requirement that they provide an optional urine sample. If they choose not to provide that urine sample then the matter would appear to be at an end.

Also, it's a grey area if neither a blood nor a urine specimen can be obtained. For example, someone elects urine, then can't do the business, so after half an hour or so the garda says give blood but the doctor says no, on account of, for example, haemophilia. I'm not sure if that point has arisen in the past, but surely where someone can't give blood for health reasons and is unable to urinate on demand it would be a little harsh to convict them.

Also, where someone has a special and substantial reason not to give a blood sample, and offers to give urine but that is not accepted by the garda, then it is a defence under s.23.

nice guy always wrote: »

I dont believe there is case law for if this relates to breath or just reverting from blood to urine and vice versa?????

Cases in the High and Supreme Court at the moment as to whether if a person cannot reasonably provide a breath sample, they should be offered blood in the alternative. Accepted wisdom is that they do not have to, but it is quite harsh that the gardai don't have to inform someone (e.g. asthmatic) of an alternative.

I think the whole thing should be simplified so that a requirement is made to provide a sample of a) breath, b) urine or c) blood, and if they can't provide any, they should show how it was not possible for them provide any of the three samples. Of course, practically, this could mean a doctor for every drink driving, so I can see why they want to avoid it.

Hooch

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think the whole thing should be simplified

I'll second that!!!:D

All jokes aside Sec 49 and related legislation is bloody crazy!! Thanks for the above....must look at those.

johnnyskeleton

nice guy always wrote: »

All jokes aside Sec 49 and related legislation is bloody crazy!!

They should have breathalised the draughtsman, what what?

nice guy always wrote: »

Thanks for the above....must look at those.

Citations for reference:
DPP v Corcoran [1995] 2 IR 259
DPP v Swan [1994] ILRM 314
DPP v Malone [2006] 3 IR 250.

Obviously the cases currently before the courts exist in a vapour of rumour and speculation and so have no citations.

Our man in Havana

It's no wonder that Sec 49 is one of the most litigated areas of law in this country.

johnnyskeleton

Haddockman wrote: »

It's no wonder that Sec 49 is one of the most litigated areas of law in this country.

The reason is the mandatory disqualification. Lots of wealthy individuals get caught a few pints over the limit, don't care what sort of a fine is imposed or how much their legal fees are (within reason) but want to avoid conviction and disqualification so that they aren't put off the road.

Bunny Buster

A few quick questions..

Is there a time frame for The MBRS to analyse specimens ie: 7 days, 10 days, 21 days etc...?

Does one have to empty their bladder and wait a specific period before providing a sample of urine to be sent for analysis, as far as I know it was the case before, but is it now?

Does a specimen have to be stored at a certain temp or in certain conditions before being dispatched to The MBRS?

detective

Bunny Buster wrote: »

A few quick questions..

Is there a time frame for The MBRS to analyse specimens ie: 7 days, 10 days, 21 days etc...?

Does one have to empty their bladder and wait a specific period before providing a sample of urine to be sent for analysis, as far as I know it was the case before, but is it now?

Does a specimen have to be stored at a certain temp or in certain conditions before being dispatched to The MBRS?

not that im aware of as there is an anti clotting device within the plastic containers for blood

don't understand the question

doubt it as these conditions wouldn't be replicated whilst in postal transit

Bunny Buster

detective wrote: »

not that im aware of as there is an anti clotting device within the plastic containers for blood

don't understand the question

doubt it as these conditions wouldn't be replicated whilst in postal transit

I was referring to urine samples specifically...

When an arrested person is brought to a station for suspected drunk driving, they have to be observed for 20 mins if using the intoxilyzer machine to provide a sample/specimen of breath.

What I meant was, is there such a requirement for an arrested person who is opts to provide urine? I was under the impression that there was a requirement for the person to urinate, thus emptying their bladder and observe a further 30 minute interval before urinating again to provide the specimen!?

Surely there must be some guidelines to be followed when handling such samples!? For example, a specimen that would be stored in a press/locker in a room that may not have a regulated temperature, for a few days before being dispatched for analysis, must start do degrade!?

Bosco boy

Just wondering what would happen if someone had a reading of 34 on the intoxlyser (1 under the limit) and the garda then requested a blood or urine sample as suggested earlier by NGA. If the blood or unrine sample then came back with a result over the legal limit for alcohol by a small margin (no drugs). This could happen because of the 17% deduction with the intoxlyser. I would think there has to be a serious issue here. Personally unless its very obvious they are on drugs I will go with the intoxlyser result, if i felt they were on drugs to start with I would be using sec 14

johnnyskeleton

Bosco boy wrote: »

Just wondering what would happen if someone had a reading of 34 on the intoxlyser (1 under the limit) and the garda then requested a blood or urine sample as suggested earlier by NGA. If the blood or unrine sample then came back with a result over the legal limit for alcohol by a small margin (no drugs). This could happen because of the 17% deduction with the intoxlyser. I would think there has to be a serious issue here. Personally unless its very obvious they are on drugs I will go with the intoxlyser result, if i felt they were on drugs to start with I would be using sec 14

If there are two possible versions of events, one favourable to the accused and the other favourable to the prosecution, the court must adopt the one favourable to the accused. i.e. there would have to be a doubt in such a case.

Bosco boy

That's what I was thinking, I think in fairness it would only be done if the intoxlyser was 0 and they were clearly intoxicated, the alcometer on the roadside should probally have indicated a low level of alcohol allowing you to decide the course of action at the roadside

detective

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If there are two possible versions of events, one favourable to the accused and the other favourable to the prosecution, the court must adopt the one favourable to the accused. i.e. there would have to be a doubt in such a case.

this is incorrect. if you pass the intoxilyser and fail the blood/urine then you're out of luck. i sat through a full hearing in the district court where this argument was used and it failed.

Our man in Havana

That would have made a good case on appeal.

detective

Haddockman wrote: »

That would have made a good case on appeal.

it still might. i was only a very peripheral witness at the time so if it was called to appeal or indeed a case stated then i wouldn't have heard about it. i worked with a certain supervisory sergeant who directed all guards to draw blood/urine if a guy passed the breath. highly unfair in my unprofessional opinion. he said it wasn't our place to dilute the legislation.

Jo King

Most unlikely to succeed. There would have to be grounds for believing that the breath machine was wrong to do that successfully. A person can only be deatained for the purpose of giving a sample if there is a reasonable belief that they have committed an offence. As soon as someone passes a test they should be released from detention as soon as possible fortwith. Detention should only be prolonged for the purpose of another test if there are grounds to believe that an offence was committed which could only be because the breath machine was not working. If a guard said in the witness box that the suspect was detained "because the sergeant told me", it would be fatal to the prosecution.

Bunny Buster

Some interesting reading there folks!! But, can anyone answer the questions I raised??

Bosco boy

Normally results are back within 10 days, but I guess as long as the sample can be tested scientifically and a result obtained there should be no problem, unless it was done outside the 6 month period which would make the case statute barred anyway. If you wanted to contest this i would imagine you would need an expert witness dealing with such samples. I know of no timeframe. But I've often been wrong in the past.

Bunny Buster

Bunny Buster wrote: »

A few quick questions..

Is there a time frame for The MBRS to analyse specimens ie: 7 days, 10 days, 21 days etc...?

Does one have to empty their bladder and wait a specific period before providing a sample of urine to be sent for analysis, as far as I know it was the case before, but is it now?

Does a specimen have to be stored at a certain temp or in certain conditions before being dispatched to The MBRS?

Thanks Bosco Boy, but what about the rest??? Anyone there that can answer the above??

MagicSean

Bunny Buster wrote: »

Thanks Bosco Boy, but what about the rest??? Anyone there that can answer the above??

Pretty sure its a no to them all

Our man in Havana

I would agree. So long as the sample is sealed there should be no issues.

Reloc8

Bunny Buster wrote: »

A few quick questions..

Is there a time frame for The MBRS to analyse specimens ie: 7 days, 10 days, 21 days etc...?

Does one have to empty their bladder and wait a specific period before providing a sample of urine to be sent for analysis, as far as I know it was the case before, but is it now?

Does a specimen have to be stored at a certain temp or in certain conditions before being dispatched to The MBRS?

1. No. The specimen must be sent to the MBRS as soon as possible after it is taken. This is a matter of the next day without good explanation. It is then to be analysed as soon as is practicable, which is not defined in law but a matter of weeks if not months is fine and the delay does not require explanation.

2. No.

3. No. Presuming all other matters are in order, i.e. detection, arrest, taking of sample procedure, the Certificate provided by the MBRS is evidence of the facts stated therein, including as to alcohol concentration, without proof required of anything else. A person providing a sample can retain one portion thereof in order to have their own test conducted on it, enabling them to rebut that presumption should it transpire that their test results in a different outcome.

Reloc8

k_mac wrote: »

I just want to make sure i'm right about something. When arrested for drink driving and an evidential breath testing machine is not available a garda can make a demand on a person to provide blood but can also give them the option of providing urine. The garda can't actually demand a urine sample unless there is a medical reason for not providing blood.

Where breath is not the sample required, the requirement made is to provide blood or at the option of the arrested person urine. The garda can not require urine.

k_mac wrote: »

So if a person declines to provide a urine sample and instead chooses blood they have forefeited their option to provide a urine sample. But if the doctor then cannot obtain a blood sample due to medical reasons can the garda demand urine or is that the end of the matter? As the person refused to provide urine and cannot provide blood is this a refusal? I would think it is but I am open to correction.

The person can provide blood or at their option urine. The obligation to provide the sample of blood is coterminous with the obligation to provide urine (DPP v Moorhouse) so that if the person opts for urine but then fails or refuses to do so, they must permit a blood sample to be taken subject to Section 23 of the Act.

If a Doctor states that they will not take a sample on medical grounds the sample (blood or urine) which is chosen the member may then make a requirement that the other type of sample be provided. That requirement must be made separately to the first requirement - i.e. 'you can provide blood or urine', person says 'i'll give blood', Dr. says he/she won't take a blood sample on medical grounds, garda is entitled to then make a requirement for urine.

A failure to provide urine would then be a failure to provide a sample and render the person liable to charge and conviction subject to the Section 23 Defence.

Section 13(1) specifically provides however that a Garda having arrested a person for a relevant offence may do 'either or both' of the following, that is require a breath specimen, or require blood/urine (the arrested person having the choice to provide urine in place of blood). The Garda could then therefore require a breath sample notwithstanding having required blood or urine already, irrespective of whether a sample was provided and a failure to provide breath here would also be an offence subject to Section 23.

Section 23 of the Act of 1994 provides for the Defence of 'a special and substantial reason' for failing/refusing to provide a sample and requires proof of that reason and that the person in question offered to provide a different sample. S. 23(1) says where breath is required you have to offer urine. S. 23(2) says where blood is required you have to offer urine. IN each case you must offer and provide the sample or offer it but not be called upon it to provide it.

The situation hypothetically where a Doctor says he/she won't take blood or urine on medical grounds is not addressed - presumably there is no practicality to it arising in respect of urine bearing in mind that in case of immediate medical emergency and removal to hospital Section 15 applies to enable the taking of a specimen there, and provides at S.15(2) that where following admission to hospital a doctor on medical grounds refuses to permit the taking of any sample this is a defence to a charge of failure/refusal to provide.

If a person offered blood but the Doctor refused on medical grounds to take the sample, they must offer urine (therefore lack of availability of breath testing facilities is not relevant) and moreover provide urine, or offer it and not be called upon to provide same. As to whether they could argue that they just were not physically able to perform ('I only went to the jacks 20 minutes ago because I thought I was giving blood) this is a question of fact and degree.

Bunny Buster

Reloc8 wrote: »

A person providing a sample can retain one portion thereof in order to have their own test conducted on it, enabling them to rebut that presumption should it transpire that their test results in a different outcome.

What is the procedure/provisions for dealing with such samples. When one part is handed to the arrested person then the other is packed, sealed etc..., along with the doctors cert. Who's responsible for the sealing of the sample within the box provided? Is it the designated doctor or a Garda? I believe there is something within the Road Traffic Act that states which one, but I fail to find it!

Hooch

Bunny Buster wrote: »

What is the procedure/provisions for dealing with such samples. When one part is handed to the arrested person then the other is packed, sealed etc..., along with the doctors cert. Who's responsible for the sealing of the sample within the box provided? Is it the designated doctor or a Garda? I believe there is something within the Road Traffic Act that states which one, but I fail to find it!

The Garda. Once the samples are placed in the containers and sealed by the doctor he must then hand them to the Garda. The doctor must then complete the cert. This is where Doctor involvement must end. The Garda offers the specimen under Sec 18 and places one or both along with the certificate in the MBRS box which (s)he seals and retains for postage

Bunny Buster

nice guy always wrote: »

The Garda. Once the samples are placed in the containers and sealed by the doctor he must then hand them to the Garda. The doctor must then complete the cert. This is where Doctor involvement must end. The Garda offers the specimen under Sec 18 and places one or both along with the certificate in the MBRS box which (s)he seals and retains for postage

Cheers Nice Guy, you are as helpful as always, it is appreciated!:D:D

Reloc8

Bunny Buster wrote: »

What is the procedure/provisions for dealing with such samples. When one part is handed to the arrested person then the other is packed, sealed etc..., along with the doctors cert. Who's responsible for the sealing of the sample within the box provided? Is it the designated doctor or a Garda? I believe there is something within the Road Traffic Act that states which one, but I fail to find it!

The full procedure post sample being taken is in the 1994 Road Traffic Act.

spurs2010

k_mac wrote: »

I just want to make sure i'm right about something. When arrested for drink driving and an evidential breath testing machine is not available a garda can make a demand on a person to provide blood but can also give them the option of providing urine. The garda can't actually demand a urine sample unless there is a medical reason for not providing blood.

So if a person declines to provide a urine sample and instead chooses blood they have forefeited their option to provide a urine sample. But if the doctor then cannot obtain a blood sample due to medical reasons can the garda demand urine or is that the end of the matter? As the person refused to provide urine and cannot provide blood is this a refusal? I would think it is but I am open to correction.

That's to easy........

if the arrested person opts for urine and fails to comply then the mandatory requirement to give blood revives.

A case called Connolly -v- Salinger dealt with this issue.

Any decent court solicitor or drunk driving practitioner should be aware of this .......... there is a loophole that I have successfully argued twice in this type of case but thats a trade secret.

Spurs 2010

MagicSean

spurs2010 wrote: »

That's to easy........

if the arrested person opts for urine and fails to comply then the mandatory requirement to give blood revives.

A case called Connolly -v- Salinger dealt with this issue.

Any decent court solicitor or drunk driving practitioner should be aware of this .......... there is a loophole that I have successfully argued twice in this type of case but thats a trade secret.

Spurs 2010

That wasn't my question. The question was that if the person subsequently could not give blood due to a medical reason is that considered a fail/refusal?

Reloc8

Exactly.

(No is the answer as per previous posts, or at least perhaps but with a full statutory defence available).

I do enjoy the odd lecture from a decent court solicitor or drunk driving practitioner who has not grasped the issue though.

Side note : People who say they have 'successfully argued a loophole twice in this kind of case' and refer to it as a trade secret either :

a) are making it up,
b) are touting, or
c) are lacking in something (I'm not sure what but its a but like a garda posting about his successful prosecutions in a self-congratulatory sense. Class maybe).

Bosco boy

Reloc8 wrote: »

Exactly.

(No is the answer as per previous posts, or at least perhaps but with a full statutory defence available).

I do enjoy the odd lecture from a decent court solicitor or drunk driving practitioner who has not grasped the issue though.

Side note : People who say they have 'successfully argued a loophole twice in this kind of case' and refer to it as a trade secret either :

a) are making it up,
b) are touting, or
c) are lacking in something (I'm not sure what but its a but like a garda posting about his successful prosecutions in a self-congratulatory sense. Class maybe).

D) they know more than you do

Reloc8

Entirely possible.