Drug driving blood test

They test alcohol first and drugs after. You will get another result of the drugs test in a couple of weeks

cityboyjim wrote: »

Got stopped at road block and arrested and drug driving blood tested.I got results back today .Just zero alcohol.No mention of drugs on the form .Do they also test for alcohol as well as drugs and drug results come later, or did I get the incorrect form back.Thanks .

Were you arrested for failing the drug test?

cityboyjim wrote: »

Thanks for the reply .I had one smoke of cannabis .One joint that is .Is that enough to give high enough reading to convict me .I had some the previous night also.I was not expecting to have to drive that evening but felt fine and took the chance .Just no idea how to defend myself if I am charged with this .Thanks

Impossible to say how one joint affected you. If at the time of driving you were incapable of having proper control of the vehicle they you may well be prosecuted.

If that's the case contact a solicitor

talla10 wrote: »

Impossible to say how one joint affected you. If at the time of driving you were incapable of having proper control of the vehicle they you may well be prosecuted.

If that's the case contact a solicitor

It does not need to be proved that the driver was incapable of having proper control there are two offences. Driving whilst impaired and driving whilst the drug is in the system. It's an offence in itself

talla10 wrote: »

They still need to prove the person was not in proper control of an MPV in a public place.

S4 Road Traffic Act 2010- 4.— (1) A person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

This is definitely correct, as intoxicants can stay in the system for a long time and it is difficult/if not impossible to determine from a blood test when they were ingested. Cannabis can stay in the system for (I think its up to 28 days) so if someone had smoked a j 2 weeks previous, it would be detected in the test but wouldn't be incapable of driving.

It is usually backed up with an impairment test done at the roadside, which would be adduced as evidence as proof of incapable. If there is no test, the defence would or at least should be able to easily put forward a reasonable doubt.

One thing in the above scenario (and in no way take this as concrete), the fact that there was speeding coupled with a possible positive test and eye pupil testing could be proof enough.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there is also a strict liability offence of driving with an intoxicant in your system above a prescribed limit

Apologies, you are quite correct. I forgot about the 2017 update. FOr cannabis its 1ng/ml. Its only for cannabis, heroin and cocaine that the strict liability is there.

joeguevara wrote: »

There are two other things that are important. Firstly the blood test must have been taken within 3 hours of the actual driving. If not, it is highly likely that its inadmissible. Secondly, the B sample should have been offered to the accused for independent testing. If not, then it would be a good argument to get the case thrown out. Hypothetically.

I agree but these days Gardaí and designated doctors are so used to the process its unlikely they would make these errors

joeguevara wrote: »

From talking with colleagues who are more used to road traffic cases, I am shocked at the amount of cases that are thrown out for failure to follow procedure. It is definitely something that they go through with a fine tooth comb to see if all the t's crossed and i's dotted. In the scenario the OP outlined for example it did not mention anything about the B sample provided. That could be an oversight.

or it could be that the OP just didnt mention it as it doesnt become relevant until the A sample proves positive.

joeguevara wrote: »

Apologies, you are quite correct. I forgot about the 2017 update. FOr cannabis its 1ng/ml. Its only for cannabis, heroin and cocaine that the strict liability is there.

That would make me think twice about using cannabis. You don't even have to be under the influence of cannabis to end up with a motoring conviction as long as it's in your system.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

. . . .This is a genuine worry for me. I do smoke (but don't drink, so I'm the devil) but I only smoke when I know I won't be driving until the following day. But going by the 1ng/ml, I'd probably fail even if I quit for a few weeks. In this case, I would imagine evidence of impaired driving would be a necessity, rather than just going with 'it's in the system'.

Anyone know of a case where this was challenged? A google search isn't bringing back anything.

Just as with alcohol, there are two separate offences:

- Driving while impaired, for which it's not necessary to prove any particular blood concentration, just (a) consumption of the substance plus (b) impaired driving.

- Driving while having a blood concentration in excess of the permitted limit. To get a conviction here you need a test to prove the concentration, but you don't need to prove when the substance was consumed and you don't need to prove impaired driving.

In the case of alcohol, 99%+ of all cases are prosecutions for the second offence. A prosecution for driving while impaired is extremely rare. It's like to be the same for cannabis.

You cannot challenge a conviction for the second offence on the grounds that your driving was not impaired, because impaired driving is not an element of the offence. Siimlarly it's irrevant that your consumption of alcohol/cannabis was some time before you were driving; the time when you consumed the substance is not an element of the offence.

I think the core of any objection would be to argue that a concentration of 1ŋg/ml is too low; there is no evidence that driving with this concentration of cannabis is associated with poorer driving. (I've no idea what the science says about this, but I think you'd have to try to make the case that its unreasonable to penalise people for driving with this concentration, because there is no reason to think that driving with this concentration presents any risk to anyone.) However I don't think you'd get very far in court with this; the court would take the view that weighing up the scientific case and deciding at what concentration driving should be forbidden is a matter for the legislature, not for the courts.

I don't know if anybody has ever attempted to challenge the drink-driving laws on the grounds that the level is set too low but, if they have, they obviously didn't succeed.

ted1 wrote: »

Exceeding the limit would tick that box.

No, it wouldn't. If they prosecute you for the s. 4 offence they do have to prove that you were incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

Back in the day, they proved this by giving evidence about how you drove the car, or about your state when the stopped you (slurred speech, couldn't walk in a straight line, that kind of thing).

Driving with an excessive blood/alchohol concentration is an entirely separate offence. To get a conviction, they just have to prove the concentration of alcohol in your blood.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Interesting. Food for thought. I can't see how a court could rightly convict of the second offence due to the lack of research and proof showing that 1ng/ml is the limit.

The court can easily convict you. It's not the court's job to say what should be illegal; just to say whether you have or have not done the thing the legislature has made illegal. If your point is that this shouldn't be a crime at all, the court will tell you to take your complaint to the legislature. If you want to thrash this out in court, you'll have to mount an argument that, constitutionally, the legislature lacks the power to make this a crime.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Indeed, a quick search and reading of some material, and it seems it's basically impossible to set a limit because of too many varying factors. I'm sure 'll find out all about it if I ever get nabbed, but if I do, I'll be sure to post the outcome here! :pac:

One difference I suppose is there have been many tests, studies and evidence that the min amount of alcohol as per current levels can be enough to impair driving, whereas there's nothing to prove the drug limit.

Well, if you want to run the argument, you'll need to do more than a "quick search and reading of some material".

If we assume that there is some level of cannabis concentration is associated with poor driving, then it's reasonable for the legislature to ban driving while having an excessive cannabis concentration. It's then up to the legislature to decide what that level should be, and the fact that it's difficult to draw the line doesn't mean that they have no power to draw any line at all. They're entitled to draw a line, and they're entitled to err on the side of caution and draw it possibly lower than it needs to be rather than higher than it ought to be. The courts are not going to second-guess that.

I think you have a better chance of getting the law changed if you argue that there is in fact a clear scientific case as to what the limit should be, and that it's well above 1ƞg/ml. But that wouldn't be a legal case for striking down the law so much as a political case for changing the law.

paw patrol wrote: »

can somebody tell me what is meant by "strict liability" ?

it means there is no mental element to the offence; your state of mind is irrelevant. If doing X is a strict liability offence, then to convict you they don't have to prove that you intentionally, or recklessly, or carelessly, or dishonestly did X, or that you did X with any particular state of mind; just that you did X.