INLANDSAIRWATER COUNSEL

Beneficiary Notice – Roadside Oral Fluid Testing

Date: 23 February 2026

Classification: Internal – Beneficiary Record

Dear Beneficiaries,

This notice provides a structured explanation of the recent Official Information Act (OIA) response received from New Zealand Police regarding roadside oral fluid (saliva) drug testing and related authority matters.

The purpose of this notice is to clarify governance, procedural, and trust considerations arising from the Police response, and to outline what this means for beneficiaries.

1. Representation and Authority

Police confirmed there is no written policy refusing engagement with attorneys acting under private mandate. However, they rely on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 when referring to regulated legal practice and declined to clarify whether they recognise a distinction between lawyers and private attorneys.

Trust Issue: There is no documented prohibition against attorney representation, yet no formal recognition outside the statutory lawyer framework. This creates structural ambiguity rather than outright exclusion.

2. Meaning of Acting ‘Legally’

Police declined to explain what they mean by acting ‘legally,’ stating that the OIA does not require them to provide interpretive opinions.

Trust Issue: Their operational model rests entirely on statutory compliance. There is no broader policy addressing notice, fiduciary representation, or customary trust frameworks. The working assumption appears to be that statutory authority alone constitutes lawful process.

3. Device Safety and Composition

Police identified the manufacturer and model of the oral fluid testing device and confirmed laboratory confirmation testing is required. However, ingredient lists are not held by Police and are considered proprietary to the manufacturer.

Trust Issue: Police rely on manufacturer certification and regulatory standards. They do not independently hold full chemical composition data or independent toxicology assessments beyond supplied documentation.

4. Health Monitoring

Police confirmed they do not record adverse health effects arising from oral fluid testing and are unaware of evidence of harm.

Trust Issue: The absence of recorded adverse effects reflects absence of monitoring rather than confirmation of absence of harm.

5. 12-Hour Driving Prohibition

Police confirmed that drivers are responsible for their vehicle and transport arrangements during a 12-hour prohibition period. Police intervene only where there is immediate safety risk.

Trust Issue: The enforcement model reflects a narrow statutory duty-of-care limited to immediate safety considerations.

6. Entry onto Private Trust Property

Police confirmed there is no standalone policy regarding entry onto property marked as private trust property. Entry authority derives from consent or statutory powers exercised case-by-case.

Trust Issue: Trust designation does not alter statutory enforcement powers in Police operational understanding.

7. Liability and Insurance

Police confirmed they do not hold professional indemnity insurance. Officers act under statutory authority, and liability is considered at an organisational level when acting in good faith.

Trust Issue: Protection relies on statutory authority and organisational liability rather than individual officer indemnity.

8. Funding and Procurement

Police confirmed funding is derived from public sources, including the National Land Transport Fund. Contractual financial details are withheld under commercial confidentiality provisions.

Trust Issue: Procurement transparency is limited by commercial confidentiality, though funding is publicly structured.

Overall, the Police framework is entirely statutory in nature. There is no recognition of parallel trust jurisdiction, and enforcement authority is grounded exclusively in legislative powers and regulatory compliance.

Further steps will be discussed with trustees before any additional action is taken.

Respectfully,

Michael

Director

InLandsAirWater Counsel