Drug driving question

Cheaa

Can someone shed some light for me.. I was stopped at a checkpoint earlier this year and while talking to the guard he said he could smell cannabis, I was swabbed and the Garda said it was positive for cannabis and had my car taken and impounded there and then but left me at the roadside, wasn't brought to the station, no arrest, no blood/urine test. Had to ring a friend to come and pick me up.

The guard said il be prosecuted for drug driving at the checkpoint while my car was being impounded but it seems what I have read in the last few pages contradicts that ?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Cheaa

Fred Swanson wrote: »

You are being prosecuted under the old drug driving law.

Even without a blood/urine test and no mention of impairment ?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Cheaa

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Have you had a summons yet?

No

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Cheaa

Fred Swanson wrote: »

You never know, nothing might come of it.

Has anyone a more definitive answer ?

Is it possible to be prosecuted for drug driving without a urine or blood test ?

Cheaa

Is it possible to be prosecuted for drug driving without a urine or blood test being taken ?

As in, stopped at a checkpoint, with no mention of impairment.

howyegettinon1

no

Little CuChulainn

Cheaa wrote: »

Has anyone a more definitive answer ?

Is it possible to be prosecuted for drug driving without a urine or blood test ?

Yes.

Pat Mustard

Mod:

Posts from other thread merged with this thread.

Pat Mustard

Just to highlight the difficulty with seeking advice on the internet.

Cheaa wrote: »

Is it possible to be prosecuted for drug driving without a urine or blood test ?

howyegettinon1 wrote: »

no

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Yes.

Samuel T. Cogley

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Just to highlight the difficulty with seeking advice on the internet.

Very definitive answers though, which is what the OP requested :pac:

micar

Are you guilty of the offence yoy are accused of?

Samuel T. Cogley

micar wrote: »

Are you guilty of the offence yoy are accused of?

No as there's been no trial yet.

micar

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

No as there's been no trial yet.

Ok...but I was asking the OP

Op.......were you stoned while driving?

Cheaa

micar wrote: »

Ok...but I was asking the OP

Op.......were you stoned while driving?

No but I was parked up chatting to friends who were smoking hence the smell, this was shortly before I arrived at the check point. I do smoke but this was during the day and I was going to work so I wasn't partaking at the time.

I am basically asking can you be prosecuted without a blood/urine test or impairment test, and if so on what grounds i.e I "looked" like I was smoking so this is good enough for prosecution ?

Little CuChulainn

Cheaa wrote: »

No but I was parked chatting to friends who were smoking hence the smell

It's an offence to allow your vehicle to be used for doing drugs. Generally comes with a ban.

Cheaa

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It's an offence to allow your vehicle to be used for doing drugs. Generally comes with a ban.

I was parked up chatting with friends (in a garden) none of them were in my car.

Little CuChulainn

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1977/act/12/enacted/en/print#sec19

Samuel T. Cogley

Was the wind blowing in a very particular way, and you just happened to have the right window open, the seats you know they hold on to all sorts of smells must be the fabric or something.

Cheaa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Was the wind blowing in a very particular way, and you just happened to have the right window open, the seats you know they hold on to all sorts of smells must be the fabric or something.

Yes my windows were open as I was talking to my friends and maybe the wind was blowing the smell directly into my car, it's very possible.

What I'm asking is without a blood urine or impairment test is prosecution possible and if so on what grounds ?

GM228

Cheaa wrote: »

Can someone shed some light for me.. I was stopped at a checkpoint earlier this year and while talking to the guard he said he could smell cannabis, I was swabbed and the Garda said it was positive for cannabis and had my car taken and impounded there and then but left me at the roadside, wasn't brought to the station, no arrest, no blood/urine test. Had to ring a friend to come and pick me up.

The guard said il be prosecuted for drug driving at the checkpoint while my car was being impounded but it seems what I have read in the last few pages contradicts that ?

None of this adds up for several reasons:

1. Gardaí don’t carry swabs and don’t have any legal power or equipment to test for drug use (they will in 3 days time).

2. Under current laws you can only be prosecuted for driving under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle – aka impairment. The test for this requires impairment testing which consists of Pupillary Examination, the Romberg Balance Test, the Walk and Turn Test, the One Leg Stand Test and the Finger to Nose Test.

3. Gardaí have no power to seize/impound a vehicle for drink or drug driving or for an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 S19.

4. The part in bold that you were stopped at a checkpoint contradicts your later post below.

Cheaa wrote: »

I was parked up chatting with friends (in a garden) none of them were in my car.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Just to highlight the difficulty with seeking advice on the internet.

Cheaa wrote: »

Is it possible to be prosecuted for drug driving without a urine or blood test ?

howyegettinon1 wrote: »

no

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Yes.

I can see where both the yes and no answer came from. The answer to the specific question “Is it possible to be prosecuted for drug driving without a urine or blood test ?” is technically no, but you can be prosecuted for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (intoxicant meaning either drink or drugs) to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle without a blood test, this simply requires the evidence of impairment.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It's an offence to allow your vehicle to be used for doing drugs. Generally comes with a ban.

Correct, but it does not afford a power of seizure of a vehicle.

Cheaa

GM228 wrote: »

None of this adds up for several reasons:

1. Gardai don’t carry swabs and don’t have any legal power or equipment to test for drug use (they will in 3 days time).

2. Under current laws you can only be prosecuted for driving under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle – aka impairment. The test for this requires impairment testing which consists of Pupillary Examination, the Romberg Balance Test, the Walk and Turn Test, the One Leg Stand Test and the Finger to Nose Test.

3. Gardai have no power to seize/impound a vehicle for drink or drug driving or for an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 S19.

4. The part in bold contradicts your later post below.








I can see where both the yes and no answer came from. The answer to the specific question “Is it possible to be prosecuted for drug driving without a urine or blood test ?” is teschnically no, but you can be prosecuted for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (intoxicant meaning either drink or drugs) to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle without a blood test, this simply requires the evidence of impairment.





Correct, but it does not afford a power of seizure of a vehicle.

Thank you for that information.
To clarify I was talking to friends in a garden then I left and was stopped at the check point a couple of miles down the road.

GM228

Cheaa wrote: »

Thank you for that information.
To clarify I was talking to friends in a garden then I left and was stopped at the check point a couple of miles down the road.

Still does not add up.

Reminds me of the hotel and false details threads.

0ph0rce0

If the swab test was positive you should have been taken back to the station for a blood test.

Maybe they smelled the weed and just wanted to search the car.

You'll be grand.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

If the swab test was positive you should have been taken back to the station for a blood test.

Maybe they smelled the weed and just wanted to search the car.

You'll be grand.

But there is no swab test, never was.

There will be in a few days time though.

0ph0rce0

GM228 wrote: »

But there is no swab test, never was.

There will be in a few days time though.

Then they just wanted to search the car, and they have used the new law as an excuse to do this.

Make a complaint and ask for the swab results.

GM228

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Then they just wanted to search the car, and they have used the new law as an excuse to do this.

Make a complaint and ask for the swab results.

Which again would make no sense, the new law is not actually "law" for another 3 days, also they don't need to use it as an excuse, they have existing laws to allow for a legal search such as S23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977.

None of this adds up.

0ph0rce0

GM228 wrote: »

Which again would make no sense, the new law is not actually "law" for another 3 days, also they don't need to use it as an excuse, they have existing laws to allow for a legal search such as S23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977.

None of this adds up.

Fair point they would have searched it there and then.

OP you sure your not on some Youtube channel getting pranked.

Pat Mustard

Mod:

Thread closed pending review concerning breach of forum charter in relation to legal advice.

In the meantime, please do not open any new threads in this forum, OP.

Please allow 48 hours before sending PMs.