Driving Conviction based on wrong sample type

LisaMarieM

Morning all,

I had a question in regards to drug driving convictions. Let's say no saliva sample is taken, but a urine sample is. Based on the following:

Road traffic act 2016 has section 13B: Obligation to provide blood specimen where suspected of certain offences involving drugs

And Prior to that there is this: “Subsection 4(a) amends section 4 of the 2010 Act by introducing a new subsection (1A). This establishes the new offence of driving with the presence of certain specified drugs – these are cannabis, cocaine and heroin (see below under subsection 4(c)) - at or above a specified concentration in the blood. The levels are to be measured in blood - by contrast to alcohol, where concentrations of breath, blood or urine may be used - based on scientific advice that blood is the best indicator of recent use in the case of drugs.”

Lastly, I contacted the department of transport who replied on the matter saying:
– Irish road traffic law, as amended in 2016 and brought into effect in 2017, sets limits for certain drugs while driving for blood only, and not for urine. The decision to do this was based on expert advice which indicated that blood specimens would provide the best evidence for recent drug use.

The limits are set out in section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 2016, which you can find here - <link to the irish statute book, 2016, act 21, section 8>

---

So based on this, can a urine sample be used in court to convict someone for drug driving?

sexmag

Its up to his solicitor to use and bend the law for his client so go by their advice and because this an actual real life situation this thread will be closed shortly.

Good luck

LisaMarieM

edited it to make it more general

nuac

Mod
leaving open for general discussion subject to rule on legal advice

Under His Eye

A decent solicitor would tear a case of drug driving apart if the only evidence was a urine sample.

THC can stay in the urine for 6 weeks in the case of habitual smokers. Blood is always the best way to get an actual level for a given time.

Skatedude

Under His Eye wrote: »

A decent solicitor would tear a case of drug driving apart if the only evidence was a urine sample.

THC can stay in the urine for 6 weeks in the case of habitual smokers. Blood is always the best way to get an actual level for a given time.

but at what concentration and what are the pass/fail levels?

LisaMarieM

Under His Eye wrote: »

A decent solicitor would tear a case of drug driving apart if the only evidence was a urine sample.

THC can stay in the urine for 6 weeks in the case of habitual smokers. Blood is always the best way to get an actual level for a given time.

Unfortunately our solicitor refused to even bring it up in court - he claimed the arrest was made under an old act, not the new one which lays out the blood levels, we only found out after the case was closed that he was wrong and that he should have brought it up in court to get it dismissed..

uck51js9zml2yt

Ah legal loopholes. A person caught drug driving and instead of not doing drugs, not doing them while driving or just accepting the penalty is instead blaming someone else for their wrongdoing.

seamus

My understanding is that a Garda is permitted to charge you with an offence under section 4 (1) of the 2010 Act, without taking any measurement of anything in your system.

Section 4 (1) is a catch-all that permits a Garda to charge you with an offence if he believes you are intoxicated to the extent that you cannot control your vehicle, regardless of how much is in your system.

For the purposes of this offence, a urine sample to establish the presence of any intoxicant is sufficient as evidence, since the level of intoxicant in the person's system is irrelevant. Their level of impairment is based on the testimony of the Garda and their assessment of the individual's state at the roadside, and not on the volume of intoxicant present in their system.

If you were convicted under Section 4 (1) - as opposed to 1A - then the solicitor would be right to claim that the type of sample is not relevant.

laotg

Urine only indicates presence. Blood indicates that and concentration.

The old act where urine is used usually needs to have evidence of impaired driving. If this act was used then your solicitor could not have come up with any argument re not using blood.

The new act which depends on concentration requires blood. Being over the limit is enough. It's up to the guard at the time which he used.

LisaMarieM

seamus wrote: »

My understanding is that a Garda is permitted to charge you with an offence under section 4 (1) of the 2010 Act, without taking any measurement of anything in your system.

Section 4 (1) is a catch-all that permits a Garda to charge you with an offence if he believes you are intoxicated to the extent that you cannot control your vehicle, regardless of how much is in your system.

For the purposes of this offence, a urine sample to establish the presence of any intoxicant is sufficient as evidence, since the level of intoxicant in the person's system is irrelevant. Their level of impairment is based on the testimony of the Garda and their assessment of the individual's state at the roadside, and not on the volume of intoxicant present in their system.

If you were convicted under Section 4 (1) - as opposed to 1A - then the solicitor would be right to claim that the type of sample is not relevant.

Thanks Seamus! The statement says he was arrested "under Section 4(1), (2), (3) or (4) of the Road Traffic act of 2010 as amended by section 8 of the road traffic act 2016"

GM228

LisaMarieM wrote: »

Unfortunately our solicitor refused to even bring it up in court - he claimed the arrest was made under an old act, not the new one which lays out the blood levels, we only found out after the case was closed that he was wrong and that he should have brought it up in court to get it dismissed.

But you were already shown previously that is not the case and your solicitor was correct!