Drug Driving Debacle

TripleH

Might they have done a saliva test at the scene? Or if it was a moped and not wanting to remove a crash helmet, done a blood test because it was deemed a safer option?

It could be as simple as the driver lied and said your brother was wobbling all over the place before impact, so the police opted to test to be safe and a blood test was deemed the better option.

If your brother was a regular user, might levels in his blood be higher / his tollerance be higher, so a saliva test would be negative but ablood test positive?

Exodi

LightFlare said:

Exodi said:

I'm just going to be totally honest, I am suspicious on the accuracy of this account.

You say he was totally stationary and was hit by a car - so he was the victim? The police, despite not conducting a roadside test, randomly decide to follow the victim to the hospital to drug test them? That's extremely peculiar, and the coincidence that their suspicions were correct. 

I'm not sure why you dramatise the police's efforts to get an official reading at the station - given that roadside tests aren't admissible in court, and every minute that a suspect doesn't provide an official reading is a minute closer to being under the legal limit -it is very obvious why suspects may want to delay this process (and why police will often give short shrift to someone who is struggling to tell them their name, as in your brothers case).

On top of the incredulity of the above, it is similarly suprising he failed on the official reading, if he had not smoked any cannabis the whole day, and only the night before. There are minimum limits, so either he really really loaded up the night before, you are downplaying your brothers actions, or he has lied to you.

On the bit about stating the intital drug test location, it is pretty minor, I'm not sure why some think that you can have court cases thrown out because of typo's in letters and other trivial errors.

And then to top off my suspicion of this whole thing - if he was genuinely hit while stationary (aka the victim), it is totally incompatible with how you end your post...

Yes, I'm incredibly disappointed in him and hate the idea he could have harmed another road user with his lunacy. I've made it VERY plain that he has messed up and needs to face the consequences, so please don't judge too harshly. He is so down that I'm trying to find something to tell him before (we fear) he does something silly to himself. I know a lot of you will say he deserves a driving ban for it all and I don't disagree!

This reads as if he caused the accident as I don't understand why you'd say any of this if you genuinely believed he was the victim? It's hard to suggest he messed up by getting hit by a car while stationary?? Nonetheless it is  at odds to the rest of your post and if I'm being honest, I think we're not getting the truth here.

This is an anonymous forum, we read all sorts, we don't judge. But we can only offer the best advice if you give us the truth. It will not be helpful to give advice framed around him being the victim if it transpires he caused the accident.

 Perfectly feasible - cannabis stays in the system far longer than alcohol and 48 hrs is typically the “safe” period. 

He was on his way to work - so very possibly <12hrs since his last puff 

I specifically mentioned minimum limits and the possibility of him loading up the night before, so it's frustrating you're countering my point which you bolded with the point I followed it with.

I don't smoke cannabis, but a cursory google suggests the norm being 4-6 hours before being under legal limit from the majority of sites (48 hours as you suggest I can only see from one website from a solicitors described as 'extremely conservative'), which suggests he either smoked in the morning, or he had a significant amount the night before, which is what I said. The latter has since been confirmed:

"He claims he smoked several bongs the night before"

doodling said:

Hi,

It is unusual for the police to drug test victims of motor accidents unless there is some suspicion.  At the very least they would normally have done a saliva test before taking him to a police station.  If he declined one of those then I can imagine that would increase suspicion substantially.

Are you certain that there was absolutely nothing about him that indicated that he used drugs?  There was nothing on his person (or his bike) that anyone might have noticed, there was none of the charactistic smell of cannabis, he was completely normal in his appearance?

It is possible that his mental issues might have resulted in behaviour that some could have interpreted as being drug related.  That is unfortunate but I'm not sure that anything can be done about that.

I don't think the OP said there was absolutely nothing about him that indicated that he used drugs.

And from living in a flat in the past - it's dead obvious to anyone that doesn't smoke whether someone smokes Cannabis, because it absolutely reeks (seemingly to the surprise of the smoker).

If I was a betting man, considering he loaded up the night before, I'd imagine they could smell it on him (but it wasn't appropriate to drug test someone that was unconscious at the roadside - hence effectively following him to the hospital).

sheramber

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/alcohol-drug-driving/ #:~:text=The police can stop you and conduct a roadside screening,in a road traffic collision

Drugs

The police can stop you and conduct a roadside screening test or a field impairment test, both of which may result in your arrest if:

• they think you have taken drugs
• you’ve committed a traffic offence
• you’ve been involved in a road traffic collision

Officers can test for cannabis and cocaine at the roadside, and screen for other drugs – including ecstasy, LSD, ketamine and heroin – at a police station.

Even if you pass the roadside check you may still be arrested if the police suspect that your driving is impaired by drugs and you can be taken to a police station for further tests.

silvercar

Having tested positive for drugs, he can hardly claim that he didn’t look drugged up so the police shouldn’t have tested him! The fact he was found to be positive justifies the police deciding it was worth testing him.

silvercar

TheSpectator said:

Options are plead not guilty and find a solicitor who may get him off on a technicality and risk a harsher sentence if found guilty or take responsibility and admit they were driving when they shouldn't have been.

I agree with this. The fact there are errors in the report could be used to discredit the report, it won’t stop him being charged with driving while under the influence.

EnPointe

DE_612183 said:

Why did they drug test him if he was stationary and was the subject of the accident - that doesn't seem right ( is that the whole story )?

You can of course register a complaint with the relevant police force.

it is standard policy   that if any  driver / rider in a collision is breathlysed / drugs tested  then all  the drivers are, this is to prevent accusations that  someone  whom it is suggested was the  cause of the collision  is  breathalysed / drug tested  and  found to be under the influence  and iother drivers / riders were not tested -  thus introducing reasonable doubt 

 this leads to a scenario where I was Breathalysed  in public, in full Uniform following a  Collision where i was the driver of a Blue  light vehicle involved in a collision ( standard practice of the Force area in question  with any Polcol regardless of the service in question ) 

EnPointe

Exodi said:

Torry_Quine said:

I know that any driver involved in an accident is normally breathalysed so testing for drugs could be the same.  

I was not breathalyzed in my last car accident where the police where present - I don't think that's a hard and fast rule, I'd imagine they do if they have any reason to suspect the drivers may be intoxicated.

it;s more a case of if one  driver / rider is tested they all are  to prevent accusatiosn of bias/ profiling