Is roadside drug testing lawful?
Updated 20 December, 2025
When Parliament passed the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill – it paved the way for randomised roadside drug testing where oral fluid drug testing can legally take place on New Zealand roads.
In December 2025, the New Zealand police began a DrugWipe 3S device roadside drug testing campaign, starting deployment in greater Wellington in December 2025 and due to spread to the rest of the country in 2026.
Arguments against the rollout of the roadside drug testing.
Click on these points below and memorise as much as you can. It may come in handy.
The New Zealand police are carrying out these tests without:
- performing a physical sobriety test first (the point of this campaign is supposed to be to reduce accidents so why go straight to a test that has a track record of false positives?)
- disclosure of the device's reliability limits
- disclosure of other substances capable of causing false positives
- confirmation of calibration, storage, or expiry
- mentioning the implications of positive testing
Before undergoing any invasive test, New Zealanders have the right to know every compound and ingredient on that test.
The New Zealand Police, at this point, have not disclosed:
- The full list of materials and compounds used in the pad.
- Any chemicals, reagents, preservatives, or stabilisers present.
- Any biological agents, antibiotics, or antimicrobial substances contained in or applied to the pad.
- Any known health risks, side effects, or contraindications associated with use of the pad.
- Copies of safety data sheets (SDS), manufacturer specifications, or certification documents relating to the pad.
- Any internal Police or Ministry of Transport documentation assessing health or safety risks of the pad.
- Details of **health and safety procedures** followed by Police during roadside drug testing, including:
- Hygiene protocols for administering the test.
- Training provided to officers on safe handling of the pad.
- Procedures for managing individuals with medical conditions or vulnerabilities.
- Any risk assessments or occupational safety guidelines applied to officers and members of the public during testing.
In 2015, the Securetec DrugWipe 3 S device when tested in the UK revealed that every second person tested positive in December of that year when screened with the device.
Before beginning their own campaign in December 2025, New Zealand had to know about these false results. which begs the question, why are they still doing it?
The manufacturer say that their tests have a 95% success rate, but even then, that would mean 1/20 people would be falsely accused of something they haven't done.
What assurances do the New Zealand Police and Minister of Transport have that similar false positives won't happen? Who bears the cost of that?
How much will all this cost?
The New Zealand Police, at this point, have not disclosed:
- What happens to saliva samples sent away for analysis.
- Is DNA extracted and stored somewhere? (Is personal privacy being invaded)
- How much does this analysis process cost each time?
- What correlation does any result have with a driver's impairment on New Zealand roads?
As a driver of a vehicle in New Zealand, you will know at very short notice what is about to happen before a drug or alcohol test because you will meet a lineup of at least 5 police cars and officers waving to pull you over.
The message here is STOP or you will be criminalised, despite not having actually committed a crime.
Therefore your stopping is one that is taking place by coercion, not genuine consensual agreement.
And from there, it is up to the police officer's discretion as to whether you are criminalised or not. They do not guarantee fair testing or a promise not to commit foul play; you are at their mercy, and their judgment will assume the tests are fully reliable.
This is a scenario that will not be accepted by the public as more and more become aware of what is taking place.
You are immediately criminalised if you refuse to take a roadside oral fluid drug test.
It's an on the spot $400 fine and 75 demerit points for simply refusing the test, which requires each individual to lick a chemically activated object and provide it saliva containing DNA.
Over 50% of New Zealanders in a 2023 OECD survey declared either a Neutral or Low to no trust in the New Zealand Government, with even less supporting the coalition majority National Party (41%), which means that over half of New Zealanders potentially would be averse to following a Government mandate such as submitting to an invasive roadside drug test.
This is especially so after the COVID-19 response divided the country and created individuals who now permanently distrust the Government.
If someone refuses the test, they will be issued a $400 fine as well as 75 demerit points. For context, a loss of 100 demerit points means a loss of licence.
This is discrimination against those who already have little or no trust in the Government, because they do not believe in the measures being applied.
For context, if you accrue over 100 demerit points in any 2 year period, that is an automatic driving suspension for 3 months.
With the loss of mobility as well as the added costs of a $400 fine and extra transport / babysitting / caregiving costs resulting from such a burden, what is the cost to New Zealanders affected by this?
By threatening fines and demerit points for non-compliance, are the New Zealand police coercing New Zealanders into undergoing an invasive procedure that they may not want?
The New Zealand Law society believes that the Land Transport (Drug Driving)
Amendment Bill (which has been passed through parliament)
"is inconsistent with sections 21, 22 and 25(c) of the New Zealand Bill of
Rights Act 1990 (Bill of Rights). Uncertainty about the reliability and accuracy of
Oral Fluid Testing devices (OFT devices) is one factor underlying these Bill of
Rights concerns, and the Bill reduces the stringency of approval criteria for OFT
devices"
A summary by the Ministry of Health of 'Fatalities involving Drugs in the driver system' in recent years:
| Year / Period | Approx. Number of Fatalities Involving Drugs in Driver System |
|---|---|
| 2019–2021 average | ~101 per year (≈30% of road deaths) Ministry of Transport |
| 2023 combined alcohol & drugs | 155 deaths — ~32% involved drug use |
Why It’s Tricky
Government and transport agencies often report that “around 30% of fatal crashes involve drivers who had consumed impairing drugs” — but this does not always equate to the drugs being the direct cause of the crash, because toxicology may detect drug traces long after impairment has faded.
Key Points to Understand
These figures do not exclusively isolate drug impairment as the single cause — they reflect that a driver in these fatalities tested positive for drugs at levels suggesting recent use.
Historically, reporting has grouped alcohol and drugs together and identified the presence of drugs more than definitive impairment as a cause.
There are about 3.6 million licensed drivers in New Zealand, and approximately 100,000 new driver licence holders each year. With that in mind, let's look at fatalities again:
| Year / Period | Approx. Number of Fatalities Involving Drugs in Driver System |
|---|---|
| 2019–2021 average | ~101 per year (≈30% of road deaths) Ministry of Transport |
| 2023 combined alcohol & drugs | 155 deaths — ~32% involved drug use |
Taking the 2023 death toll as an example, that would be 40 (32% of 155) out of 3.4 million licensed drivers killed that year because they tested positive for having drugs in their system - not because they were impaired by drugs but because they were tested as 'positive' for drugs.
And this does not include the 600,000 foreign tourists who drive on our roads every year.
In comparison, 1 out of every 3 New Zealanders is considered obese and obesity is one of the leading contributors to Cardiovascular deaths, cancer deaths, and diabetes death... So WHY are there no police checkpoints at supermarkets ensuring that they are not promoting and selling obesity causing foods?
Again...
Government and transport agencies often report that “around 30% of fatal crashes involve drivers who had consumed impairing drugs” — but this does not always equate to the drugs being the direct cause of the crash, because toxicology may detect drug traces long after impairment has faded.
Also...
These figures do not exclusively isolate drug impairment as the single cause — they reflect that a driver in these fatalities tested positive for drugs at levels suggesting recent use.
AND...
Historically, reporting has grouped alcohol and drugs together and identified the presence of drugs more than definitive impairment as a cause.
In 2024, a new $1.3 billion Road Policing Investment Programme was funded, targeting drunk and drugged drivers.
Keep in mind, we are talking about testing measures that have no correlation with impairment, accuracy, or how long whatever substance may be in there has been in there.
Police estimates from a regulatory impact analysis suggest that police costs alone for enhanced drug-driver testing could be several million per year once fully operational (e.g., $4.5 m+ annually across road policing efforts).
Also,
Ongoing costs
Police will run up to ~50,000 oral fluid tests per year once fully deployed nationwide. The Beehive
Each positive roadside test triggers lab analysis of saliva (to test up to 25 substances), so laboratory costs add to the total, though specific per-test lab fees are not yet publicly disclosed.
Future potential costs to the taxpayer
The long-term future costs depend on:
Scale of testing police carry out (initial target ~50,000 per year). The Beehive
Lab analysis volume — every positive roadside test creates additional lab work.
Enforcement back-end costs — processing fines, demerit points, court actions if contested, justice system processing, and possible corrections involvement for serious cases.
Regulatory assessments have previously suggested:
Costs for police might scale from single-digit millions in year 1 to higher amounts depending on test volume. FYI
Additional costs could arise for NZTA (education and promotion), Ministry of Justice (prosecutions), and Corrections (if drug-related offences rise). FYI
There’s no official published estimate yet for total lifetime costs, but overall it represents an ongoing addition to police road safety enforcement budgets.
The Minister of Transport, Chris Bishop, says that drug-impaired drivers should expect consequences with roadside drug testing underway in the Wellington district before rolling out across the country.
"The rollout of roadside drug testing delivers on a key commitment to crack down on dangerous driving that puts innocent New Zealanders at risk", says Bishop.
Police minister Mark Mitchell says roadside drug testing will give Police the tools they need to better detect and deter drug-impaired drivers.
"Testing drivers at the roadside will help reduce the deaths and serious injuries caused by drug driving", says Mitchell.
Drivers who refuse or fail to comply with a roadside drug test will be issued with a $400 infringement and 75 demerit points.
Skeptics of this roadside drug testing regime and its consequences for non-compliance argue that it violates numerous New Zealand laws, among them The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the New Zealand Human Rights Act.
