Compulsory roadside oral fluid (saliva) drug testing; Police Reply

Police National Headquarters
180 Molesworth Street. PO Box 3017, Wellington 6140, New Zealand.
Telephone: 04 474 9499. Fax: 04 498 7400. www.police.govt.nz
IR-01-26-573
16 February 2026
Ann
[email protected]

Dear Ann
Thank you for your Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) request received 8 January 2026
in which you asked about roadside oral fluid testing. I have answered each part of your
request below.

This request seeks clarification of New Zealand Police policy, authority,
governance, and duty of care in relation to:
• compulsory roadside oral fluid (saliva) drug testing;
• potential health harm arising from such testing;
• refusal to engage with attorneys (as distinct from lawyers); and
• Police entry onto clearly marked private trust property asserting non-
consent.

1. Representation: Attorneys vs Lawyers
a) Copies of any policies, directives, or internal guidance stating that Police
will engage only with “lawyers” and not with attorneys acting under
private mandate, trust authority, or power of appointment.
Police has no policies, directives, or internal guidance that state Police will engage only
with lawyers and not with attorneys acting under private mandate, trust authority, or
power of appointment.
Accordingly, this part of your request is refused under section 18(e) of the OIA, as the
document alleged to contain the information requested does not exist or, despite
reasonable efforts to locate it, cannot be found.
However, I draw to your attention to section 21 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act
2006 which can be viewed online here:
https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0001/latest/DLM365726.html
b) Clarification of whether Police recognise a distinction between a lawyer
regulated under statute and an attorney acting under trust or private
authority.
This part of your request seeks clarification and interpretation rather than information held
by Police. The OIA applies to information that is held, not to the creation of new
information or the formation of legal opinions or interpretations.
As such, this part of your request is refused under section 18(g) of the OIA, as the
information is not held by Police.
c) Copies of any legal advice or internal memoranda relied upon to justify
refusing engagement with attorneys.
Police does not hold any copies of legal advice or internal memoranda relating to the
matters described in your request.
Accordingly, this part of your request is refused under section 18(e) of the OIA, as the
document alleged to contain the information requested does not exist or, despite
reasonable efforts to locate it, cannot be found.

2. Meaning of “Doing Things Legally”
a) Explanation of what Police mean when stating enforcement is being done
“legally” while declining engagement with attorneys.
This part of your request requires Police to form an opinion or provide an explanation, so
to create new information to answer the request, and accordingly is not a request for
official information.
As such, this part of your request is refused under section 18(g) of the OIA, as the
information is not held by Police.
b) Confirmation of whether Police policy treats statutory compliance alone
as sufficient, or whether lawful process also requires consideration of
representation, notice, property rights, health risk, and duty of care.
Police does not hold any policy documents that address or describe the matters you refer
to, including whether statutory compliance alone is treated as sufficient or whether lawful
process requires specific consideration of the factors you list.
Accordingly, this part of your request is refused under section 18(e) of the OIA, as the
document alleged to contain the information requested does not exist or, despite
reasonable efforts to locate it, cannot be found.

3. Identity and Composition of Oral Fluid Test Devices
a) Manufacturer, model, and specification sheets for each oral fluid testing
device used.
Roadside screening device is manufactured by Securetec AG, and the model is
DrugWipe 3 S – a drug screening test that detects the presence of specified drugs in
saliva at or above a threshold built into the device. The screening test currently tests for
THC (cannabis), cocaine, methamphetamine (meth) and MDMA (ecstasy). Noting that
meth and MDMA are detected in the same channel by the device. Laboratory testing is
required to confirm the roadside drug screening results and also tests for all (25) drugs
allowed by law.
The list of ingredients used by Securetec AG is confidential and is proprietary information
and therefore cannot be provided, as Police do not hold this information. As such, this
part of your request has been refused pursuant to section 18(g)(i) of the OIA in that the
information requested is not held by Police and I have no grounds for believing that the
information is held by any other agency subject to the OIA.
Police can confirm that the driver will only be in contact with the device pads which do not
contain any harmful ingredients and have been verified as being biologically safe.
To use the test, the driver self-administers the test by briefly wiping the sample collector’s
pads down their tongue to absorb saliva. The sample collector is handed over to the
officer and clicked back into the device which releases the saliva onto the test strips for
screening. Detection of drugs is indicated by a positive line against a specified drug.
For the laboratory-confirmatory saliva sample, the Pathtech Oral Fluid Collection Kit will
be used, utilising the Quantisal collection device and buffer transport tube. The Quantisal
collection device consists of an absorbent collection pad in a plastic stem. The pad (or
swab) is made from untreated filtration paper that is not treated with any salts, citric acid
and/or gelatine.
The driver collects the sample by wiping each side of the collection pad on their tongue
and then placing it under their tongue to absorb saliva. The collection pad is then handed
to the officer who places the stem and pad into the buffer transport tube which is sent to
the laboratory for analysis.
Please find attached the MSDS_QS Quantisal Quantisal I Quantisal II Oral Fluid
Collection Device Safety Data Sheet.
b) Full list of chemical reagents, indicators, antibodies, preservatives,
stabilisers, or substrates contained in the test devices.
The oral fluid testing devices used by Police are approved drug detection devices that
have undergone safety and performance assessments in accordance with international
standards prior to delivery. These assessments include evaluation of materials intended
for contact with the human mouth to ensure they are non-toxic and safe for short-term
use. Police holds no evidence indicating that the pads transfer harmful chemicals into the
mouth or cause ingestion of substances. The devices are designed and certified to meet
health and safety requirements for their intended purpose.
The list of ingredients used by Securetec AG is confidential and is proprietary information
and therefore cannot be provided, as Police does not hold this information. As such, this
part of your request has been refused pursuant to section 18(g)(i) of the OIA in that the
information requested is not held by Police and I have no grounds for believing that the
information is held by any other agency subject to the OIA.
However, Police can confirm that the driver will only be in contact with the device pad/s
which uses no chemical ingredients.
The DrugWipe 3 S and the Pathtech Quantisal Oral Fluid Collection Kit have been
manufactured to comply with biological safety standards to allow the manufacture and
selling of devices that come into contact with a person.
c) Confirmation of whether devices contain DNA-binding agents or
biological collection media.
Police can confirm that the DrugWipe 3 S does not contain any DNA binding agents or
biological collection media.

4. Health Risk, Harm, and Biological Safety
a) Copies of health and safety assessments, toxicology reviews, biological
safety evaluations, or risk analyses.
Please find included with my response:
1. 20161213 DW II TWIN_Gluten_Lactose
2. 201880220 Confirmation letter – no allergic reaction
3. 20190128 Statement of no allergical reaction
4. MSDS_QS Quantisal Quantisal I Quantisal II Oral Fluid Collection Device
Safety Data Sheet
b) Confirmation of whether devices are classified as medical, biological, or
chemical testing devices.
The DrugWipe is not classified as a medical, biological or chemical testing device, the
DrugWipe is a drug detection device.
c) Hygiene, contamination, storage, and handling standards for roadside
use.
Police adheres to the handling, retention, and disposal requirements specified by the
manufacturer and supplier, the AS/NZS 4760:2019 Australian/New Zealand Standard:
“Procedure for specimen collection and the detection and quantification of drugs in oral
fluid”, as well as the associated Land Transport regulations. These regulations outline the
processes for handling, retention, and disposal, and can be publicly accessed here:
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2025/0248/latest/LMS1539262.html.
Police must handle, retain, transfer, or dispose of a saliva (oral fluid) sample obtained in
accordance with the applicable procedures prescribed in the Land Transport (Oral Fluid
Samples) Regulations 2025.
Roadside screening devices (whether positive or negative) are disposed of by Police at
the end of the shift in which they were used. These devices are not stored, retained, or
returned to the driver after testing.
Saliva samples collected for laboratory analysis are sent to the New Zealand Institute for
Public Health and Forensic Science (PHF Science) for drug detection purposes, or, in the
case of elective samples, held on behalf of the driver for potential private analysis.
If the saliva sample did not produce a positive result in the laboratory (i.e., did not detect
drugs at or above its respective threshold), the saliva sample is disposed of by PHF
Science as secure biohazard waste as soon as reasonably practicable after it is analysed
as per the Land Transport (Oral Fluid Samples) Regulations 2025.
If the saliva sample produces a positive result in the laboratory (detects a drug(s) at or
above its respective threshold), the saliva sample is disposed of by PHF Science as
secure biohazard waste no sooner than six months after it was received as per the Land
Transport (Oral Fluid Samples) Regulations 2025. PHF Science will dispose of saliva
samples following their internal procedures for biohazard waste, likely on a monthly basis.
Elective samples collected for private analysis, are also sent to PHF Science and held
should the driver choose to undertake independent testing of their elective sample. If a
driver does not undertake independent testing, their elective sample will also be disposed
of as secure biohazard waste after six months.

5. Adverse Effects, Monitoring, and Causation
a) Whether Police record adverse health effects or complaints.
b) Number of adverse effect reports received.
Police does not record adverse health effects arising from oral fluid testing. As Police
does not record this type of information, the information you have requested is not held.
Accordingly, this part of your request is refused under section 18(e) of the OIA. as the
information requested is not held.
c) Evidential basis relied upon to exclude the test as a cause of harm.
Police is not aware of any information indicating the devices transfer harmful chemicals
into the mouth. The devices used by Police are designed and certified by the
manufacturer to meet applicable health and safety requirements for their intended
purpose. Accordingly, this part of your request is refused under section 18(e) of the OIA,
as the information requested is not held.

6. Safety, Welfare, and Property Protection
a) Procedures for assessing safety when a person is prohibited from driving
for up to 12 hours.
b) Steps taken where a person is stranded or vulnerable.
c) Responsibility for vehicle safety and contents.
Under the roadside drug testing regime, a driver who returns two positive drug screening
tests receives a 12-hour driving prohibition. The vehicle is not automatically impounded or
towed. It generally remains the responsibility of the driver unless it creates a safety risk,
for example, if it is left in a dangerous location or the driver cannot arrange for it to be
moved. Where towing is required for safety reasons, this is managed under standard
Police procedures, and the vehicle owner is responsible for any towing and storage costs.
Police does not provide transport or accommodation as part of issuing a 12-hour
prohibition. Drivers are expected to make their own arrangements, as they would for
alcohol-related suspensions. Police may intervene to ensure immediate safety if a driver
is in a vulnerable or dangerous situation, but this is assessed case by case under general
duty-of-care obligations.
Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility to organise both their own transport and the
management of their vehicle. Police will ensure the vehicle is not left somewhere unsafe
and may provide immediate safety assistance, but they do not offer secure locations for
drivers to wait out the prohibition period.

7. Entry onto Clearly Marked Private Trust Property
a) Police policy regarding entry onto property marked as private trust
property.
Police does not hold any standalone policy that specifically addresses entry onto property
marked as “private trust property.” Entering property is in accordance with the law, either
by consent or under statutory authority.
Accordingly, this part of your request is refused under section 18(e) of the OIA, as the
document alleged to contain the information requested does not exist or, despite
reasonable efforts to locate it, cannot be found.
b) Whether such signage constitutes notice of non-consent and potential
trespass.
This part of your request requires Police to form an opinion or provide an explanation, so
to create new information to answer the request, and accordingly is not a request for
official information.
As such, this part of your request is refused under section 18(g) of the OIA as the
information is not held by Police.
c) Authority relied upon to proceed despite notice.
Police does not hold any single policy, directive, or consolidated document that sets out
the “authority relied upon to proceed despite notice” in the manner you describe.
Decisions to enter property are made on a case‑by‑case basis, and any authority
exercised, such as entry by consent or under a specific statutory power, would be
recorded within the operational records for that particular incident (e.g., an event
chronology, job sheet, or case file), rather than in a general policy document.
Consequently, the information you seek does not exist in the form requested. As such,
this part of your request is refused under section 18(e) of the OIA, as the document
alleged to contain the information requested does not exist or, despite reasonable efforts
to locate it, cannot be found.

8. Liability, Insurance, and Accountability
a) Insurance or indemnity coverage for harm or trespass.
Police does not hold a professional indemnity insurance policy. Police officers act under
statutory authority in the performance of their duties. In circumstances where an officer is
acting in good faith and within the scope of their lawful powers, liability is considered at
an organisational level rather than against the individual officer personally. No separate
indemnity scheme exists beyond this.
b) Internal risk assessments addressing liability exposure.
Police is not aware of any documents which come within the scope of your request.
Accordingly, this part of your request is refused under section 18(g) of the OIA, as the
information requested is not held by Police.

9. Funding, Procurement, and Financial Beneficiaries
a) Funding sources, including Vote Police and/or National Land Transport
Fund.
Police is provided with funding from the Government via the National Land Transport
Fund (NLTF). I refer you to the Road Policing Investment Programme, a copy of the
which is publicly available on the NZTA website: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-
investment/funding-and-investing/road-policing-investment-programme
b) Procurement contracts identifying suppliers, values, and subcontractors.
Police can confirm that they have contracts in place with:
• Pathtech Pty Ltd, an Australian-based Drug Detection and Life Science provider,
as the successful supplier of roadside oral fluid drug testing equipment.
• PHF Science for laboratory analysis and related services of the roadside oral fluid
samples collected and the analysis for all 25 drugs in the legislation.
• Oceania Medical Limited for the storage and distribution of oral fluid drug testing
equipment.
Financial information on contracts that Police have entered into with a supplier is
confidential information and is therefore withheld under section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA as
making available the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the
commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.
If you are not satisfied with the way I have responded to your request, you have the right
under section 28(3) of the OIA to ask the Ombudsman to review my decisions.
Information on how to do this is available online at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz.

Yours sincerely
Superintendent Steve Greally
Director: Road Policing
New Zealand Police