Drivers must wait for checkpoint drug test result, Supreme Court rules

The Supreme Court has ruled that a suspected drug driver was required to wait at the scene of a roadside Garda checkpoint for the result of a drug test.
And while it was an error of law for a garda to tell the driver that he was obliged to wait for one hour for the result, the law requiring him to provide a breath specimen for the drug test encompassed a requirement to wait for the result, the court said.
The case concerned an appeal brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) against a High Court decision that found the garda was not entitled to detain the driver at the roadside for up to an hour for the test result.
However, the Supreme Court found it was a matter for the District Court to decide whether the actual period the driver had to remain at the scene – less than 20 minutes in this case – had “any material effect” on the case.
The case concerned a driver who was stopped at a roadside checkpoint for a drug test. The garda took the test and told him he would have to stay at the scene for up to an hour although the analysis of the oral specimen provided took under 20 minutes to provide a result. He was brought to a Garda station where he was required to provide a blood sample and he was later prosecuted in the District Court.
After hearing legal submissions, the District Court judge who heard the prosecution decided to refer a legal query to the High Court.
The court was asked to determine whether section 10(4) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 provides a power to a garda on checkpoint duty to make a legal requirement for a driver to remain at the checkpoint for up to an hour after an oral fluid specimen has been provided and until such time as the specimen has been analysed for drugs.
The High Court said the Act did not provide an express power of roadside detention.
The DPP appealed the decision, while the driver opposed the appeal.
In a unanimous decision on Monday, the Supreme Court said it seemed the issues in this case may have become obscured by the garda telling the driver he had to wait for an hour. That period of time had no statutory basis, said Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley on behalf of the five-judge court.
While a recent amendment to the Road Traffic Act may have clarified this situation, in the judge’s view the requirement under law at the time of this case to provide a breath specimen for the drug testing apparatus “clearly includes a requirement to wait for a result”.
The outcome, therefore, was that it was an error of law for the garda in this case to tell the driver he was obliged to wait for an hour, she said.
It was then a matter for the District Court to determine “whether or not that error had any material effect” in circumstances where the driver was indeed obliged to wait for the result, and that the actual wait was considerably shorter than an hour.