Motorbike accident/drug in system

Sundance92

I crashed my motorbike 7 weeks ago, very serious accident in which I smashed my shin bone and finger (the former requiring surgery and implants)
Still recovering, I today recieved a blood-test form stating that I was positive for cannabis. I did not smoke cannabis on the day of the accident, I did 4 days previous. There were no other's involved in the accident, and the gardai on the scene and in the hospital told me that I did not appear intoxicated (albeit I was in agony)

Here's my question's
1. Will this effect my garda vetting? I have currently a Education degree in university deferred which I would like to return to in the future, but if this is recorded, is my teaching career essentially doomed?

2. Will I be prosecuted? There were only trace amounts in my system, but the report did not state that.

Please refrain from turning this into a pro-cannabis/anti-cannabis thread, I was not intoxicated, nor do I advocate driving under the influence of any drug.

seamus

The positive result alone will not affect your Garda vetting.

It is theoretically possible that you could be prosecuted for driving under the influence - drugs are not treated like alcohol, and the level of drug in your system is irrelevant for the purposes of a "driving under the influence" charge. A positive is a positive whether you were off your head or hadn't smoked in a week.

That said, a Garda will only prosecute if they are under the impression that you were intoxicated, they are extremely unlikely to prosecute on the basis of the blood test alone.

Speak to a solicitor to get some proper advice on what, if anything, you need to do.

Odysseus

Who sought/ordered this blood test? It is unusal for such a test to be taken., especially if the cops did not view you as being intoxicated.

seamus

Odysseus wrote: »

Who sought/ordered this blood test? It is unusal for such a test to be taken., especially if the cops did not view you as being intoxicated.

The law changed in 2011 to require Gardai to take samples from anyone who was driving a vehicle in a serious crash;
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0028/print.html#sec8

“14.— (1) Where, in a public place, an event occurs in relation to a mechanically propelled vehicle in consequence of which a person is injured, or claims or appears to have been injured, and is admitted to, or attends at, a hospital and a member of the Garda Síochána is of opinion that, at the time of the event, the person was driving or attempting to drive, or in charge of with intent to drive or attempt to drive (but not driving or attempting to drive), the mechanically propelled vehicle, then, subject to subsection (4) and unless the member is of opinion that the person should be arrested, the member shall, in the hospital, require the person either—

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

(b) at the option of the person, to provide for the designated doctor or designated nurse a specimen of his or her urine,

It's usually quoted in the media as mandatory breath testing, but it extends to cover admissions to hospital too.

ResearchWill

seamus wrote: »

The positive result alone will not affect your Garda vetting.

It is theoretically possible that you could be prosecuted for driving under the influence - drugs are not treated like alcohol, and the level of drug in your system is irrelevant for the purposes of a "driving under the influence" charge. A positive is a positive whether you were off your head or hadn't smoked in a week.

That said, a Garda will only prosecute if they are under the impression that you were intoxicated, they are extremely unlikely to prosecute on the basis of the blood test alone.

Speak to a solicitor to get some proper advice on what, if anything, you need to do.

The above in bold is not correct i have seen prosecutions for such offences with no evidence of intoxication other than test results for illegal and legal drugs. The evidence of the crash and the drugs may be enough to secure a conviction. The minimum mandatory ban is 4 years.

ResearchWill

Odysseus wrote: »

Who sought/ordered this blood test? It is unusal for such a test to be taken., especially if the cops did not view you as being intoxicated.

Its standard in any test for drink if its negative for alcohol the sample is sent to be tested for all legal and illegal drugs. As pointed out AGS have power in a crash situation to get a sample.

ScouseMouse

Thats very interesting.

Do they have to ask or tell you they are taking it Will?

ResearchWill

superscouse wrote: »

Thats very interesting.

Do they have to ask or tell you they are taking it Will?

My reading of the 1994 act and the 2011 amendment the AGS at the very least have to ask the doctor and then the accused. Not sure what would happen if accused is out cold.

Odysseus

ResearchWill wrote: »

Its standard in any test for drink if its negative for alcohol the sample is sent to be tested for all legal and illegal drugs. As pointed out AGS have power in a crash situation to get a sample.

That's interesting, I know of a few of my clients where breath tested, some brought to the for it. Even though they would be known drug users, after passing the breath test they where released, no other tests where taken.

They where not involved in a crash though.

ResearchWill

Odysseus wrote: »

That's interesting, I know of a few of my clients where breath tested, some brought to the for it. Even though they would be known drug users, after passing the breath test they where released, no other tests where taken.

They where not involved in a crash though.

The drug test can only be done on blood or urine samples. I have not come across any person who was breath that was then required to give blood and urine. Also in accident situations the only requirement in hospital is to give blood or urine as no evidential breath machine in hospital. Also would be difficult to admin such a test in that environment.

If AGS administer breath test in station then they must believe it was drink not drugs. There is nothing in the legislation to stop a Garda at the station to require both breath and either blood or urine.

Odysseus

ResearchWill wrote: »

The drug test can only be done on blood or urine samples. I have not come across any person who was breath that was then required to give blood and urine. Also in accident situations the only requirement in hospital is to give blood or urine as no evidential breath machine in hospital. Also would be difficult to admin such a test in that environment.

If AGS administer breath test in station then they must believe it was drink not drugs. There is nothing in the legislation to stop a Garda at the station to require both breath and either blood or urine.

We could never work out what was happening, [I work in a methadone clinic so we are familar with test etc]

Anyway, we just became aware of a few clients being stopped by AGS, these guys would be well known to them. Anyway, they believed them to be intoxicated and used breath tests but never sough urine or blood samples.

We could never work out why they where not looking for the tests as the clients drug use would be well known. Anyway I going way off topic now, but that for the info about the change in law.

Slyderx1

isn't there a problem for the prosecution though to prove the actual quantity of drugs in the system because the cert is silent on this point? Mere presence of drugs or indeed alcohol does not automatically place one over the legal limit.

SB2013

The prosecution must prove there were drugs in the system. They must also prove that these drugs prevented the driver from driving properly. The first one does not require any specific quantity. It's also pretty easy to prove a person isn't able to properly control a vehicle when they are in a single vehicle crash.

Slyderx1

SB2013 wrote: »

The prosecution must prove there were drugs in the system. They must also prove that these drugs prevented the driver from driving properly. The first one does not require any specific quantity. It's also pretty easy to prove a person isn't able to properly control a vehicle when they are in a single vehicle crash.

I think you will find the phrase 'to such an extent' in there somewhere. I believe cannabis can show up in tests for ..is it 6 weeks after use? And as a biker I am happy to tell you that diesel will have me in the ditch as fast as any hallucinogen lol

ResearchWill

Slyderx1 wrote: »

isn't there a problem for the prosecution though to prove the actual quantity of drugs in the system because the cert is silent on this point? Mere presence of drugs or indeed alcohol does not automatically place one over the legal limit.

There was a case stated on that point but it never went anywhere. I was trying to set up a case stated on the issue but we won on another point. The issue is that even for drink driving its possible to get a conviction without any reading only the evidence that drink was consumed and that the person was incapable of having proper control of MPV.

Slyderx1

ResearchWill wrote: »

There was a case stated on that point but it never went anywhere. I was trying to set up a case stated on the issue but we won on another point. The issue is that even for drink driving its possible to get a conviction without any reading only the evidence that drink was consumed and that the person was incapable of having proper control of MPV.

Indeed and the one advantage that the prosecution has is the uncorroborated but always uncontradicted evidence of the observing garda who recites that the vehicle was weaving from side to side and crossing the white line etc....which coupled with glassy eyes slurred speech and smell of loads of olfactory guinness gets one a free puffing exam.

Del2005

SB2013 wrote: »

It's also pretty easy to prove a person isn't able to properly control a vehicle when they are in a single vehicle crash.

In a car maybe, but remove two wheels and lots of other factors come into play.

Odysseus

Slyderx1 wrote: »

I think you will find the phrase 'to such an extent' in there somewhere. I believe cannabis can show up in tests for ..is it 6 weeks after use? And as a biker I am happy to tell you that diesel will have me in the ditch as fast as any hallucinogen lol

It does depend on the person, and how often they smoke it. An odd joint would be gone in 3-7 days, with a daily user it is usually 3-4 weeks, but I have seen it take up to 6 weeks in rare cases. It is mostly cannabis and benzos that take such a significant amount of time to work through ones system. However, with benzos once they are presrcibed you should be ok, unless it was very clear one was intoxicated.

ResearchWill

Odysseus wrote: »

It does depend on the person, and how often they smoke it. An odd joint would be gone in 3-7 days, with a daily user it is usually 3-4 weeks, but I have seen it take up to 6 weeks in rare cases. It is mostly cannabis and benzos that take such a significant amount of time to work through ones system. However, with benzos once they are presrcibed you should be ok, unless it was very clear one was intoxicated.

I have seen convictions for benzodiazepine and codeine. I will say that in each case I have seen the conviction has been overturned on appeal. But if there is evidence of an intoxicant in the system and incapacity to such an extent as to not have proper control then a conviction and 4 year ban is possible.

While the following is an extreme case it shows convictions are given http://www.independent.ie/regionals/corkman/news/jailed-for-fifth-drug-driving-conviction-27075196.html

Odysseus

ResearchWill wrote: »

I have seen convictions for benzodiazepine and codeine. I will say that in each case I have seen the conviction has been overturned on appeal. But if there is evidence of an intoxicant in the system and incapacity to such an extent as to not have proper control then a conviction and 4 year ban is possible.

While the following is an extreme case it shows convictions are given http://www.independent.ie/regionals/corkman/news/jailed-for-fifth-drug-driving-conviction-27075196.html

Its good to hear that, as I have seen a fair few convictions in the papers that I couldn't understand how the found the person guilty as the only thing present was a drug in their system. With say codeine that will stay in a persons system for 3-5 days.

It is a standard 4 year ban if found gulity? If so why is that as you don't get that lenght of ban automatically for alcohol.

Del2005

Odysseus wrote: »

It is a standard 4 year ban if found gulity? If so why is that as you don't get that lenght of ban automatically for alcohol.

Where are a lot of TD's clinics held?

SB2013

Slyderx1 wrote: »

I think you will find the phrase 'to such an extent' in there somewhere. I believe cannabis can show up in tests for ..is it 6 weeks after use? And as a biker I am happy to tell you that diesel will have me in the ditch as fast as any hallucinogen lol

Yes i said the drugs have to cause it. Same thing.

Del2005 wrote: »

In a car maybe, but remove two wheels and lots of other factors come into play.

Not really. If you crashed it's because you did something wrong. Unless you have a habit of crashing then something affected your driving on this occasion

Slyderx1

SB2013 wrote: »

Yes i said the drugs have to cause it. Same thing.



Not really. If you crashed it's because you did something wrong. Unless you have a habit of crashing then something affected your driving on this occasion

In the words of that annoying insurance ad 'nonsense'...collisions can occur due to a number of circumstances outside of the driver/rider. I gave as an instance the hazard of spilt diesel which is colorless and unless one smells it on approach or perceives its rainbow sheen on a wet road then one is facing into a painful skid.
The trace or presence of a banned substance in ones blood may be a factor but not necessarily the governing cause of an accident.

ResearchWill

Odysseus wrote: »

Its good to hear that, as I have seen a fair few convictions in the papers that I couldn't understand how the found the person guilty as the only thing present was a drug in their system. With say codeine that will stay in a persons system for 3-5 days.

It is a standard 4 year ban if found gulity? If so why is that as you don't get that lenght of ban automatically for alcohol.

It's all in the road traffice act 2010. There are a number of mandatory bans, lets ignore the low reading bans which can be imposed without court intervention. So the minimum bans are as follows low readings, 1 year, medium readings 2 years and high reading 3 years. For any conviction for drink or drugs not based on a reading or a refusal or failure conviction 4 years. In reality a 2 year ban is in effect the same as a 3 year ban as a 2 year ban must serve 2 years while a 3 year ban can get a restoration after serving 2 years.

Del2005

SB2013 wrote: »

Not really. If you crashed it's because you did something wrong. Unless you have a habit of crashing then something affected your driving on this occasion

Not on a bike. The dynamics of riding on two wheels means that a lot more than the rider can influence the cause of an accident, as Slyderx1 says, diesel or other contamination on the road will cause a bike to crash where thousands of cars can drive over it without any issues.

football_lover

Sundance92 wrote: »

I crashed my motorbike 7 weeks ago, very serious accident in which I smashed my shin bone and finger (the former requiring surgery and implants)
Still recovering, I today recieved a blood-test form stating that I was positive for cannabis. I did not smoke cannabis on the day of the accident, I did 4 days previous. There were no other's involved in the accident, and the gardai on the scene and in the hospital told me that I did not appear intoxicated (albeit I was in agony)

Here's my question's
1. Will this effect my garda vetting? I have currently a Education degree in university deferred which I would like to return to in the future, but if this is recorded, is my teaching career essentially doomed?

2. Will I be prosecuted? There were only trace amounts in my system, but the report did not state that.

Please refrain from turning this into a pro-cannabis/anti-cannabis thread, I was not intoxicated, nor do I advocate driving under the influence of any drug.

People get cannabis in there system all the time and they are not users them self's.

Secondary smoke from some scum bag doing it on a bus for example could show in a test.

This has happened to athletes were they inhaled secondary smoke in public and it showed in tests.

Did the Gardai get a copy of the blood test or was this a medical test that was to inform you.

Was there a letter with it and did it stipulate any thing else.

ResearchWill

football_lover wrote: »

People get cannabis in there system all the time and they are not users them self's.

Secondary smoke from some scum bag doing it on a bus for example could show in a test.

This has happened to athletes were they inhaled secondary smoke in public and it showed in tests.

Did the Gardai get a copy of the blood test or was this a medical test that was to inform you.

Was there a letter with it and did it stipulate any thing else.

This is one of the issues with prosecutions for this offence. What happens is that AGS take a blood or urine sample, then one of two things happen, 1 if arrested for drink driving the sample goes off for test for drinking, if under the limit for drink then the test always goes to be tested for drugs both illegal and prescription and over the counter. 2 if the person was arrested for drug driving then the sample goes straight for drug test. I assume if negative for drugs it may go back for drink, but I have never seen one go that way.

ScouseMouse

I see mention of codeine here.

This is legal in solpadeine. So if I was in a crash and tested in this way, could I be charged?

Note: never had ANY drugs - ever!

ResearchWill

superscouse wrote: »

I see mention of codeine here.

This is legal in solpadeine. So if I was in a crash and tested in this way, could I be charged?

Note: never had ANY drugs - ever!

Simple answer yes, there was 2 prosecutions in Cork last year that I know of both resulted in conviction and ban for 4 years plus fine in the District Court and i think both convictions later overturned in the Circuit Court, I know for defo one was overturned.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/driver-banned-after-codeine-dose-178962.html

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

hullaballoo

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Does ya, but which one like?

hierro

The road traffic laws need to be rewritten but in this context not really. I did my dissertation on the subject and it was a load of nonsense. I have had many the arguement with Gardai, sergeants and an inspector about the fact that an illegal substance in a sample is not, on its own, sufficient evidence for a prosecution.

I have seen convictions and pleas with little or no evidence in files or oral evidence of intoxication to such an extent to have improper control of a vehicle.

In a proper context it should be illegal to drive with any drug in your system if it impairs driving and if prescribed in such quantities of such a drug a doctor will issue the obvious warning.

In terms of medical opinion, a doctor usually takes a sample but it is rare or never in my experience that he/she is asked for his/her medical opinion on the level of impairment when drugs is suspected.

And in this context, there is either evidence of impaired driving or medical evidence of impairment for a possible prosecution.

Sundance92

Hi all, OP here.
Thanks for the discussion, I gleaned some very interesting information from the thread.
I got a call from the Gardai that was on the scene saying that they will be prosecuting, and I will be summoned 6 months down the line.
He said that was not a case of how much, but rather a yes or no when it came to narcotics in the system. He also mentioned again that I did not seem intoxicated on the scene.

I despise the fact that it's 6 months down the line, it's like someone taking their time to off you.

Should I fight this? Or should I accept the fact that I have a 1 year ban off the road, and a drug offense on record.
I'm rather livid.

SB2013

Sundance92 wrote: »

Hi all, OP here.
Thanks for the discussion, I gleaned some very interesting information from the thread.
I got a call from the Gardai that was on the scene saying that they will be prosecuting, and I will be summoned 6 months down the line.
He said that was not a case of how much, but rather a yes or no when it came to narcotics in the system. He also mentioned again that I did not seem intoxicated on the scene.

I despise the fact that it's 6 months down the line, it's like someone taking their time to off you.

Should I fight this? Or should I accept the fact that I have a 1 year ban off the road, and a drug offense on record.
I'm rather livid.

That's a decision you can only properly make by discussing with a solicitor, a good one. Don't underestimate the inconvenience of a driving ban when compared to the cost of a solicitor or barrister. I'm not sure drug driving carries a ban of only one year.

Also remember that the case will likely come down to wether the crash can be pinned on your cannabis use unless your legal team find some technicality affecting the prosecutions case. In the former case, the decision will likely be subject to an appeal so be sure to discuss that possibility with your legal advisor.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sundance92 wrote: »

Hi all, OP here.
Thanks for the discussion, I gleaned some very interesting information from the thread.
I got a call from the Gardai that was on the scene saying that they will be prosecuting, and I will be summoned 6 months down the line.
He said that was not a case of how much, but rather a yes or no when it came to narcotics in the system. He also mentioned again that I did not seem intoxicated on the scene.

I despise the fact that it's 6 months down the line, it's like someone taking their time to off you.

Should I fight this? Or should I accept the fact that I have a 1 year ban off the road, and a drug offense on record.
I'm rather livid.

It is a minimum of a 4 year ban for this offence. You can if banned apply for early restoration but you will still have to serve 2 years 8 months of a ban.

football_lover

ResearchWill wrote: »

This is one of the issues with prosecutions for this offence. What happens is that AGS take a blood or urine sample, then one of two things happen, 1 if arrested for drink driving the sample goes off for test for drinking, if under the limit for drink then the test always goes to be tested for drugs both illegal and prescription and over the counter. 2 if the person was arrested for drug driving then the sample goes straight for drug test. I assume if negative for drugs it may go back for drink, but I have never seen one go that way.

This is were a lawyer has to find the technicalities in such instances.

The problem with allot of Irish law is that the system is rarely challenged is such cases.

Having such compounds in ones system especially at trace level is impossible to determine if the person was fit to drive.

What happens if it is secondary smoke that the person inhaled does that then mean that person who inhaled secondary through no fault of their own becomes liable with an accident a few days later.

I had an instance were some scumbag was smoking cannabis on a bus and a few days later it showed up in a private medical test I had my self. This did not happen in Ireland but it definitely got me thinking about how this would have been perceived in a legal case.

Further research and classification needs to be carried out on this subject.

gctest50

football_lover wrote: »

I had an instance were some scumbag was smoking cannabis on a bus and a few days later it showed up in a private medical test I had my self. This did not happen in Ireland but it definitely got me thinking about how this would have been perceived in a legal case.

Surely hair testing or whatever else would solve those ones ?

Testing hair for drugs of abuse was introduced over 50 years ago.One advantage of hair testing is its larger window of drug detection as compared to other biological fluids
In addition, many drugs are well preserved in hair, the extreme example being cocaine detected in the hair of a 900-year old mummy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2274831/

schemingbohemia

Sundance92 wrote: »

Hi all, OP here.
Thanks for the discussion, I gleaned some very interesting information from the thread.
I got a call from the Gardai that was on the scene saying that they will be prosecuting, and I will be summoned 6 months down the line.
He said that was not a case of how much, but rather a yes or no when it came to narcotics in the system. He also mentioned again that I did not seem intoxicated on the scene.

I despise the fact that it's 6 months down the line, it's like someone taking their time to off you.

Should I fight this? Or should I accept the fact that I have a 1 year ban off the road, and a drug offense on record.
I'm rather livid.

Are you being prosecuted solely for driving under the influence or for dangerous driving or both?

Del2005

gctest50 wrote: »

Surely hair testing or whatever else would solve those ones ?

Testing hair for drugs of abuse was introduced over 50 years ago.One advantage of hair testing is its larger window of drug detection as compared to other biological fluids
In addition, many drugs are well preserved in hair, the extreme example being cocaine detected in the hair of a 900-year old mummy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2274831/

The offence is having drugs in your system not how often you take them.

I know someone who regularly takes drugs will have more in their hair, but if someone takes drugs once and gets caught they'll have the same result as someone sitting next to a person smoking drugs. The law needs to be changed to be similar to alcohol in that the level is measured not just the presence.

Pro Hoc Vice

Del2005 wrote: »

The offence is having drugs in your system not how often you take them.

I know someone who regularly takes drugs will have more in their hair, but if someone takes drugs once and gets caught they'll have the same result as someone sitting next to a person smoking drugs. The law needs to be changed to be similar to alcohol in that the level is measured not just the presence.

There is a common misconception, there are 2 ways to be convicted of drink driving 1 the most common method is having a reading above a certain set level, once the reading is above that level guilty. The other way not often used is once evidence of drink (can be smell etc.) and evidence of inability to have proper control of an MPV then guilty, that us exactly the same for drugs in fact the offence is being intoxicated through any intoxicant (being drink or drugs). So in fact the law is the same for drink and drugs but very rarely used.

Del2005

infosys wrote: »

There is a common misconception, there are 2 ways to be convicted of drink driving 1 the most common method is having a reading above a certain set level, once the reading is above that level guilty. The other way not often used is once evidence of drink (can be smell etc.) and evidence of inability to have proper control of an MPV then guilty, that us exactly the same for drugs in fact the offence is being intoxicated through any intoxicant (being drink or drugs). So in fact the law is the same for drink and drugs but very rarely used.

If it's rarely used then it should be removed or drugs given the same stepped bans of alcohol. The fact that you can have a blood sample taken and have some alcohol in it and not be prosecuted yet be prosecuted for having a trace of drugs is the problem. If it's legal to drive with a low level of alcohol then it should be the same for all drugs.

Pkiernan

Tell the Guards the truth - you were up in Belfast 20 days before your crash, and tool one pull off a joint in a pub.

No crime committed in the jurisdiction of the Gardai.