Drug driving blood test

Carawaystick wrote: »

So how is the doctor covered?


Lets say a person gets their blood taken, is below the legal limit, and then complains to the medical council stating they did not freely consent to the medical procedure undertaken by the doctor.

Or if there are side effects from the procedure, is the state or the doctor liable?

The Guard makes the legal demand to the arrested person to provide a specimen to the doctor, who is a registered doctor who is designated by the guard to take the specimen. His role is not for the medical purposes of the arrested person. The arrested person can have their own doctor present too at their own expense, if they wish. It is an offence not to comply with the Guard's requirement to provide the specimen, and it carries a 4 year driving ban, if convicted.

The arrested person does not sign a consent form. The doctor completes the form, which is sent with the specimen to the Medical Bureau for Road Safety for analysis.

BaronVon wrote: »

The Guard makes the legal demand to the arrested person to provide a specimen to the doctor, who is a registered doctor who is designated by the guard to take the specimen. His role is not for the medical purposes of the arrested person. The arrested person can have their own doctor present too at their own expense, if they wish. It is an offence not to comply with the Guard's requirement to provide the specimen, and it carries a 4 year driving ban, if convicted.

The arrested person does not sign a consent form. The doctor completes the form, which is sent with the specimen to the Medical Bureau for Road Safety for analysis.

I never did road traffic offence cases but listened to colleagues discuss the mechanics of them. I remember one specific issue of someone smoking or chewing gum or something similar before the breathalyser in the station and it was dismissed as there should be nothing eaten or swallowed. I could have picked it up wrong.

But me being me, I throw different scenarios around in my head to see if they would work. Now I have to preface this as purely academic and not suggesting it. If it is a breach of any rules then Mod have no problem deleting. So I was thinking that the roadside test is only indicative and not admissible as evidence in court. Now heard so many stories about wanting to be spoken to in Irish and want to read the Legislation in Irish as a delay tactic. Not the best. But if a person when arrive in station and before any interaction suddenly collapsed and had to be rushed to hospital where they were unconscious and unresponsive for over 3 hours, then any blood test is past the time period. It would be illegal to take blood without consent. Be a good one for a play, but not in real life.

joeguevara wrote: »

I never did road traffic offence cases but listened to colleagues discuss the mechanics of them. I remember one specific issue of someone smoking or chewing gum or something similar before the breathalyser in the station and it was dismissed as there should be nothing eaten or swallowed. I could have picked it up wrong.

But me being me, I throw different scenarios around in my head to see if they would work. Now I have to preface this as purely academic and not suggesting it. If it is a breach of any rules then Mod have no problem deleting. So I was thinking that the roadside test is only indicative and not admissible as evidence in court. Now heard so many stories about wanting to be spoken to in Irish and want to read the Legislation in Irish as a delay tactic. Not the best. But if a person when arrive in station and before any interaction suddenly collapsed and had to be rushed to hospital where they were unconscious and unresponsive for over 3 hours, then any blood test is past the time period. It would be illegal to take blood without consent. Be a good one for a play, but not in real life.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Refusing to give a sample is itself an offence which attracts a similar penalty to giving a sample and failing. To refuse you don't have to say "I refuse"; just to behave in a way that means a sample can't be taken. So if you were to fake unconsciousness, you'd be guilty of that offence. And if you think you can spend three hours in hospital faking an unconscious collapse and not have the medics aware that you are faking it, think again.

Plus, if you're brought in unresponsive to A&E they'll be taking bloods anyway, for diagnostic purposes. Your consent is presumed in those circumstances. Oh, gosh, look, here's a blood sample that was taken within the 3-hour window; we can test that.

Might be a good one for a play, but it wouldn't be a very realistic play.

the preferred method to test if somebody is unresponsive is to rub your knuckles down their breast bone. If you are faking it you will be found out immediately.

joeguevara wrote: »

But if a person when arrive in station and before any interaction suddenly collapsed and had to be rushed to hospital where they were unconscious and unresponsive for over 3 hours, then any blood test is past the time period. It would be illegal to take blood without consent. Be a good one for a play, but not in real life.

In such a scenario the designated doctor/nurse may refuse to allow a sample to be taken. The Guards could then drop the case or proceed under S 4(1) and give evidence of their belief the suspect was under the influence.

A doctor or nurse would be able to tell if the person is acting the mick or in need to urgent medical attention. If it was the case the person was faking and refused to provide a sample they would be charged for failure to provide a sample which has significantly higher penalties

phildub wrote: »

Hi all, I know this thread is a few months old but I didnt want to start a new one on a similar topic! Does anyone know an independent lab where you can send the sample the police give you to get tested?

The Medical Bureau of Road Safety conduct the tests on behalf of the gardai. They have some info on their website regarding the sample provided to you. Pay particular attention to storing the sample correctly and not breaking the seal

https://www.ucd.ie/mbrs/faqs/

phildub wrote: »

Yes but they do not recommend an independent lab, I just need to know a plave I can send the second sample to, they say to check the accreditation website but non are specifically drug later, wondering has anyone ever sent their sample in for testing

They tell you where you can get the information you require. They are obviously not going to recommend individual laboratories.

Q5: Where can I get this independent testing done?

A. The MBRS does not recommend any particular laboratory; however, it is strongly advised that a laboratory accredited to ISO 17025(2017) is used. The Irish National Accreditation Board (www.inab.ie) or the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (www.ukas.com) has information on service providers and the analysis they offer.

Just came across this and thought i would offer my own story!

I was approaching a checkpoint this time last year and knowing that i had smoked a joint earlier , i panicked and exited at the roundabout before the checkpoint. I didn't speed or drive eratically or anything. I just casually indicated to turn right which would bring me into an apartment complex where i then parked up.

Little did i bloody know that my front headlight was gone and they had noticed this and followed me. They pulled up beside me and mentioned the headlight. They then smelled cannabis from the car and arrested me and took me back to the station.

I admitted to smoking a joint earlier that night, but the smell of cannabis from the car was from me foolishly allowing a passenger to smoke a joint while i dropped him home 10-15 mins prior to being arrested.

In my opinion the guard was smug initially and was rubbing it in my face how stupid i was with him even saying to me "why didn't you get out and run because i wasnt running after you"

Back at the a station a few of the guards were openly telling me not to worry as i may be under the limit and one or two even joked about smoking cannabis themselves and asked me was it "good stuff"

My results came back after about 2 months and i contacted a solicitor who told me that the the test they carried out is for a metabolite called THC-COOH and the limit was 5ng. My reading was 6ng and i was over by 1ng. He said i was extremely unfortunate but that by law, once your over the limit you are over the limit and that i face a minimum 12 month ban!

My case has not yet been heard so have no update regarding the outcome yet!

I feel its very unfair as i have never been in trouble in my entire life and i know 100% i was not impaired. I also feel stupid because i was so niave. Believe it or not i had no idea what the consequences were. I had heard of people receiving bans for drink driving but never heard of anyone being prosecuted for having cannabis in their system.

I was using cannabis at the time to treat anxiety and depression. I would have typically smoked most nights before bed so i would never have been driving afterwards but on this particular night i was asked to give a friend a lift and i felt fine so figured i would be ok. I have never touched a joint since that night. The past year has been horrible thinking about the consequences this will have on me and having anxiety has only multiplied the magnitude of this.

If anyone is thinking "if you genuinely suffer with depression and anxiety you would be on medication". Well, i have been a good few years ago but did not like the side effects or how i felt in general whilst taken them.

I do not condone drug driving for a second but i personally think its wrong that someone can virtually have there life ruined without any evidence of impairment. I recently read that Jack Grealish crashed his car and was intoxicated at the scene and slurring his speech. He received an 8 month ban and less then a weeks wages, fine!

Meanwhile i am looking at a 12 month ban minimum, a fine of up to 5,000 euro, a criminal conviction which could cause me issues for the next few years aswell as potentially losing my job and all because iam 1ng over the limit which is 1 billionth of a gram.

Nobody to blame but myself of course but its a hard pill to swallow!

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Hopefully you'll get a decent judge, but I reckon like the solicitor because you're over you're getting done. I would ask the solicitor to question the Garda on the day in court over any evidence of impaired driving, while not required it may help paint you in a better light. Make sure you solicitor explains to the judge everything you've just explained here. At most though I'd say it'll just keep the fine down (I've never heard of anyone getting the full fine, usually it's a few hundred).

Let us know how you get on, like yourself I try not to drive after smoking, and have been 99.9% successful on that account. The only time in the last while I did drive with it in my system was after a night smoking and 6 hours sleep. I would have been over, but far from under the influence. And I agree, it's crazy that the limit is that low, and considering how long it can stay in your system for, I reckon if I stopped smoking right now, it would still be detectable in 2 months. Cannabis based driving offences should 100% come with evidence of impaired driving imo (unless you're multiples over the limit, in which case evidence would be all over the shop for impaired driving then).

Best of luck with it.

being impaired due to drugs is a separate offence. As you say where you are over the proscribed limit the issue of impairment does not arrive as it is not a necessary element of the offence.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

being impaired due to drugs is a separate offence. As you say where you are over the proscribed limit the issue of impairment does not arrive as it is not a necessary element of the offence.

I am sure this is an extremely weak argument but given that iam only over by approximately 1.1ng and the limit is already set at a rather low 5ng is there anything to be said for challenging the court that it would be impossible to suggest that my driving would be deemed to be affected at 6ng but iam ok to drive at 5ng ?

I guess this brings impairment into it...... however it ultimately is about impairment because its not a crime to have 5ng in your system. Its only a crime once you go over that limit because your clearly deemed as being impaired!

baalad wrote: »

I am sure this is an extremely weak argument but given that iam only over by approximately 1.1ng and the limit is already set at a rather low 5ng is there anything to be said for challenging the court that it would be impossible to suggest that my driving would be deemed to be affected at 6ng but iam ok to drive at 5ng ?

I guess this brings impairment into it...... however it ultimately is about impairment because its not a crime to have 5ng in your system. Its only a crime once you go over that limit because your clearly deemed as being impaired!

It is a crime to have more than 5ng in your system. that is the problem you have. you were tested and found to have more than this amount. there is a separate offence of being impaired due to drugs where the amount of drugs in your system is not relevant.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

being impaired due to drugs is a separate offence. As you say where you are over the proscribed limit the issue of impairment does not arrive as it is not a necessary element of the offence.

I understand that, but cannabis is far from alcohol, where the limit is fair across the board. But with cannabis, one could still be at the limit days or even weeks later depending on so many factors. As I said, I would still test positive after 2 months because I would be considered a heavy smoker. Drink is gone after a few days. I feel like the person who came up with the legislation just picked an arbitrary figure. IMO cannabis driving convictions should always have evidence of impaired driving.

I'd nearly be willing to give it up for 2 months if I could find someone to take a blood test every day to get the limits. Here is an estimate for how long cannabis stays in someones system, but it's only an estimate as it is genuinely impossible to make even a rough guide:

One time only: 4-8 days!
2-4 times per month: 11-18 days
2-4 times per week: 23-35 days
5-6 times per week: 33-48 days
Daily usage: 49-70 days after last use

To make it even crazier, some chronic users with a high tolerance can clear their system in the same time as a one time only user. Genetics also play a big part. The more weight you have, the longer you will test positive. But it doesn't matter, alcohol is completely gone from your system within a few days, but cannabis is being treated the same as alcohol, which is wrong, regardless of what the law says or how you feel. It's not a simple yes/no drug for being over some arbitrary limit. Even the one they test, THCCOOH, stays far longer in your system than the main delta-9 THC. The half life of THCCOOH is 20-57 hours for occasional users. That's a crazy amount of time, which is why I say that it should always include evidence of impairment. It would take a lot of time, money and effort to bring this through the court.

That's the thing too, you'd need a medical expert to explain all this, backed with hundreds of thousands of pages of trials and experiments to prove this, and no district court in Ireland could bothered, so you'd end up in the circuit or higher, which also means increased costs and time. It's a losing battle from the get go really.

Has anyone ever had a successful defence so or is it literally a case of praying they made a mistake once your bloods test positive for being over the limit??

There was an article in the paper earlier this week involving a 71 yr old man who was pulled over and asked to produce papers as he was driving a uk reg vehicle. He stopped the car but moments later he took off and ran a red light until the patrol car eventually caught up with him and stopped him.

He was looking at a fine plus driving ban but his solicitor'd defence was that that man was a farmer with a sick wife who needed his licence and that he experienced a rush of blood to the head and took off and it was out of character. The judge over turned the ruing and he was left off with just a fine.

Yet i and many others will have their lives turned upside down over a plant! I know this changes nothing but i honestly believe that its wrong prosecuting someone with zero evidence of impairment. I think you should receive an on the spot fine and matters should only be taken further if your impaired

US2 wrote: »

Luck can have the same affect as getting punished though. I learned my lesson without losing my license.

Thats what i was getting at in a commented i posted earlier. I feel like i have already been punished. The last year has been horrible having this hanging over me, constant worry! Im not looking for sympathy but my anxiety made this situation ten times. Its honestly been hell!

I have twice considered seeking medication just to try and deal with the over thinking, stress etc but i absolutely hate the idea of relying on meds especially after past experiences. I cant say cannabis was much better given the trouble it brought me but at least there was no nasty side effects and it was effective at doing what i needed it to do!

I am likely to contest the case purely just because its my only hope of escaping punishment and just cross my fingers theres a technical hick up somewhere that gets the case struck out but its a long shot and i almost feel stupid because the bloods say i am guilty and thats all that matters to the court! Just cannot believe 1 billionth of a gram is the difference between no punishment and having your life turned upside down.

This messes up my chances of finding a new job, may even mess up my chances of moving in with my partner if her landlord Garda vets me! Let alone losing my licence is going to be a nightmare

I should have listened to Mr Macky in South Park all those years ago