How long do blood tests take?

June 3rd, 2012 at 9:17 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Outrageous Fortune star has described herself as ”bloody idiot” after testing over the legal limit at a random breath test at a downtown Auckland checkpoint last month.

Malcolm has not yet been charged with any offence relating to the tests but agreed to make a statement to the Sunday Star-Times after it learned of the incident.

Malcolm took the evidential breath-test at a checkpoint in Hopetoun St, Auckland, on May 19 at about 10pm.

”I had been routinely stopped and breath tested and found to be over the legal limit for alcohol,” Malcolm said in a statement. 

”It was, and is my intention to front up the media about this as I have no interest in hiding what happened. However I was advised by my lawyer not to comment until I had been charged.  

”As this issue will now be made public prior to any charge, I would like to front up regardless.

”I had been out for dinner with colleagues on the night in question. I was driving a friend home when I was stopped at a routine checkpoint. I was not speeding or driving in a dangerous manner. I told the police officer that I had been out to dinner, and had drunk wine.   

”I was subsequently breath tested at the check point, and have given a blood test. I am currently awaiting the results to the blood test. At this stage I have not been formally charged with anything.

Does it normally take two weeks to get the results of a blood test? I don’t know from personal experience, but I have worked in a medical laboratory and most testing is done within 48 hours.

It will be interesting to see what the actual level recorded in the blood test is. While both are illegal, there is a difference between being marginally over (one glass too many) and being way over.

Tags: ,

47 Responses to “How long do blood tests take?”

  1. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    Good heavens. She’s got a friend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. TimG_Oz (925 comments) says:

    But the main question should be: Was it an electric car? Or a gas-guzzling 4WD????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. davidp (3,574 comments) says:

    >Malcolm took the evidential breath-test at a checkpoint in Hopetoun St, Auckland, on May 19 at about 10pm.

    The buses would still be running then. She is a spokesperson for the Greens. Why wasn’t she taking public transport?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. labours a joke (442 comments) says:

    Yes , I thought the watermelons walked everywhere. Hypocrites.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Elaycee (4,352 comments) says:

    I can’t work out how a second rate actor from a low ranking effort shown on TV3, can be described as a ‘star’ – but Stuff doesn’t exactly have a reputation of letting the facts get in the way of a good story, does it?

    I wonder whether the dopey bint will lose her contract as the centrefold for Turf Digest?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. labours a joke (442 comments) says:

    Its probably just a stunt to keep the hag in the loop. ” oh isnt that Robyn Malc a rebel , a greenie , a radical chic “…Im gona get me hair cut the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    yes it does take two weeks, they are done by the ESR not any clinic.

    ..While both are illegal, there is a difference between being marginally over (one glass too many) and being way over……………..

    Just like I only murdered him a wee bit,, for a supposedly intelligent person David, you say some things that are just fucking dense. A line was drawn in the sand for the legislation and that’s that, NZ breath / blood levels are very high when compared world wide, we are point 8 here , Australia is point 5 etc etc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. AG (1,823 comments) says:

    “I can’t work out how a second rate actor from a low ranking effort shown on TV3, can be described as a ‘star’ …”

    Perhaps because she was the central figure in a show that, for its final episode, attracted 725,000 viewers: http://www.throng.co.nz/2010/11/outrageous-fortune-ends-with-highest-ratings-graph/. Or, to put it another way, if she isn’t a “star” actor in the NZ context, who is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. labours a joke (442 comments) says:

    “if she isn’t a “star” actor in the NZ context, who is?”

    David Shearer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Chuck Bird (4,830 comments) says:

    “Just like I only murdered him a wee bit,, for a supposedly intelligent person David, you say some things that are just fucking dense. A line was drawn in the sand for the legislation and that’s that, NZ breath / blood levels are very high when compared world wide, we are point 8 here , Australia is point 5 etc etc ”

    PEB, DPF made a very good point. We are not talking about pregnancy.

    Using your logic someone doing 105 kph is as much a menace as someone doing 206\5 kph.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. AG (1,823 comments) says:

    ““if she isn’t a “star” actor in the NZ context, who is?”
    David Shearer.”

    To be a “star”, people need to know who you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    You have to be pretty drunk to blow 0.05 (QLD/NSW/VIC limit) – so drunk that I wouldn’t consider driving. When we borrowed a breatho from work one night I was surprised how low I was blowing – I blew 0.047 after a day drinking mid strength beer at the races. Blowing 0.08 is pretty inexcusable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. labours a joke (442 comments) says:

    I was sorta referring to the ” actor ” bit..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Nick K (1,218 comments) says:

    Police interview notes leaked:

    Did you eat meat at the restaurant?
    Was it organic wine?
    Why weren’t you driving a hybrid?
    Do you intend to march up Queen Street protesting at the police brutality relating to them sticking a needle in your arm?
    As you are against roads, will your defence be based around the roads are immoral and illegal and therefore the police had no right to be conducting a road block on immoral and illegal roads?
    Do you intend to recycle the blood that was taken from you?

    As pauleastbay says, you are over the limit, or you aren’t. The law has no discretion on this, except for sentencing when a smaller level can mean a reduced fine. The mandatory disqualification applies, regardless (subject to section 106(3) of the Sentencing Act, and Police v Stewart).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. tvb (4,319 comments) says:

    Blood takes about 6 weeks, it could be 10% higher than breath, and on conviction costs about an extra $200. Until the result is known there will be no charge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,878 comments) says:

    This one will take quite a long time. It’s a rare specimen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. jims_whare (403 comments) says:

    Well apart from the innocent sounding double speak Ms Malcolm puts across in this bit of PR dribble lets consider what we know.

    She has opted for a blood test – this only occurs as she failed an evidential breath test and chose to go for a blood test instead (which is the only reason she hasn’t been charged yet)

    Its possible that the blood test has already come back however the cop involved possibly hasn’t caught up with Ms Malcolm yet to hand her a summons to go to court.

    I believe from memory that blood tests often return a higher reading than if she had stuck with the breath test result.

    So basicly she went out on the town, got plastered, got stopped and processed for excess blood alcohol. (Allegedly of course….)

    Then using wonderful PR skills tries to front foot the gossip by putting an innocent sounding spin on it all.

    (To her credit she hasn’t sought name suppression yet……..)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Christopher Thomson (376 comments) says:

    She failed the breath screening test, that is all. That then alows the cop to take her to the station for evidential breath or blood or both.

    At the station if her evidential breath is way over she is charged for that. If it is between two lower parameters the cop can ask for blood. If below the lower she is released.

    If she performs like a trained seal to avoid the evidential the cop can demand blood.

    At any time she can throw a hissy-fit and demand to give blood.

    I shall go get the exact wording of the legislation if anyone wants it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Scott Chris (6,018 comments) says:

    Yes , I thought the watermelons walked everywhere. Hypocrites.

    Idiot. The rational green ethos stipulates moderation not abstinence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Idiot. The rational green ethos stipulates moderation not abstinence.

    Well, we should all remind Gareth Hughes of that the next time he talks about fracking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. burt (8,190 comments) says:

    She’s a celebrity…. it’s not like she broke her partners back or sexually molested an underage girl or anything…. Both more serious things that celebrities have got away with… I’m picking that she won’t be charged.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. burt (8,190 comments) says:

    Christopher Thomson

    At the station if her evidential breath is way over she is charged for that.

    “way over” is that the celebrity measure because for normal folk its “over” period.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    I’m picking that she won’t be charged.

    Well she certainly made us laugh over the whole Hobbit fiasco, so I guess that means she does have a valid defence [in front of at least one Judge it would seem]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Elaycee (4,352 comments) says:

    “Perhaps because she was the central figure in a show that, for its final episode, attracted 725,000 viewers…”

    Whaaat? The show had one episode over 6 seasons (the final episode) that attracted similar viewer numbers as an average rugby league test. Indeed, to put this into perspective, over 2 Million viewers (yes, 2 million) watched the All Blacks Versus Tonga game that opened the RWC. Not the RWC final, but the first game. Or almost three times as many viewers as a one off ‘good riddance’ to the programme shown on TV3.

    Malcolm is not a ‘star’ in any sense of the word – she was an overpaid, over rated actor who happened to have a part in a taxpayer funded TV production. Indeed, Taranaki’s Melanie Lynskey (who played the stalker Rose in the TV show Two And A Half Men), would have far greater credentials to be labelled a TV ‘star’… but Malcolm? Forget it – she’s not even close.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Christopher Thomson (376 comments) says:

    No, just my use of the language.

    re micrograms of alcohol in the breath;

    below 150, she walks

    150 – 400, blood call optional for cop

    over 400 (my way over the 150 level) test is conclusive, cop doesn’t need to ask for blood.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    Idiot

    Ad hom: CHECK
    Hypocrite: CHECK
    Pedantic Headmaster Syndrome: CHECK

    laj

    You should use the chortle font in future. People without a sense of humour (eg no friends) might otherwise miss the point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Christopher Thomson (376 comments) says:

    She will most certainly be charged if she meets the blood level criteria.

    And, without knowing what she blew, it was my experience that blood was always better as it returned a higher reading. We loved it when they thought blood was the way to beat the system.

    And my pesonal thought about this happening to her; schadenfreude.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. duggledog (1,498 comments) says:

    That’s embarrassing for Robyn Malcolm. I’d bet she was only just over the limit but too bad. She’s gonna get hammered for this.

    So when you get stopped at one of those checkpoints you state your name and address into the little machine, this indicates immediately the presence of alcohol (so the Police can process drivers quickly). If you show alcohol they direct you to a lay by where you undergo the roadside test. If this shows 400 or above (for a fully licensed driver) you go to the station to blow into the machine for an official evidential breath test.

    They take the lower of two readings (just to give you a fighting chance) but this is the one with the bit of paper that goes to court as evidence.

    You can choose to go blood, in which case I think the breath test is null and void. It’s a bit of a risk for obvious liver-related reasons but if you are just over 400 then what the hell (Robyn’s lawyer may well have advised her to do it). The Police give you ten minutes to make up your mind if that’s the case and of course there are duty solicitors. Blood results take two or three weeks but it can take months for this to actually get through court. Lawyers can delay these things for ages.

    She’ll get a fine and a six month suspension but on first offence you apply for the ‘work license’ so it doesn’t put you out too much.

    The whole costly, lengthy process could surely be avoided with a simple declaration at point of issue for licenses. Something like ‘I agree to forfeit my license for 12 months upon receipt of an EBA test that shows in excess of 400 mg’. Same for speeding.

    The legal profession would hate it. And no I have never been done for drink driving

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    We loved it when they thought blood was the way to beat the system.

    Isn’t it a timing thing Christopher? If you blow over, but close, to the limit, then the time taken to administer the blood test could see you come in under the limit? (With a strong emphasis on blowing close to the limit)

    Mind you it is also an opportunity for a procedural error to be made which the lawyer can then use to get you off completely. I recall such a case making the papers recently. (In that case, though, the procedural error was with respect to administering the evidential breath test.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. AG (1,823 comments) says:

    ” Indeed, Taranaki’s Melanie Lynskey (who played the stalker Rose in the TV show Two And A Half Men), would have far greater credentials to be labelled a TV ‘star’…”

    Viewer figures for “Two And A Half Men” on Friday, June 1: 363,300. Half that of the Outrageous Fortune final episode, and well below the average viewer figures for each episode of the final three series.

    Face it, Elaycee … you may not like Malcom, but in the NZ context if she is not a “TV Star”, then there aren’t any.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird @10:11 am .. Pauleastbay@10:03 am is right .. if your drunk your drunk .. Under 1999 drink driving legislation if your caught drunk driving .. even one glass to many .. a first offence .. automatic 6 months loss of licence .. … no exceptions.
    DPF should not marginalise her drink driving by saying “there is a difference between being marginally over (one glass too many) and being way over”. As Pauleastbay suggested.. its a pretty dense thing for a supposedly intelligent person to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. labours a joke (442 comments) says:

    heh..point taken davinci…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. kowtow (8,175 comments) says:

    “Bloody idiot”….. at least she got that right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Elaycee (4,352 comments) says:

    AG: From Entertainment Fix http://entertainment.msn.co.nz/article.aspx?id=8417387

    “Fears that the show would lose its popularity following the loss of leading man Charlie Sheen are so far unfounded, with over 63 per cent share of available viewers in the 18-39 demographic surveyed by TVNZ tuning in to watch the hit programme. Although Two and a Half Men picked up more viewers than any other series on New Zealand television in this demographic last year, with the series earning an average 48 per cent share of the available viewers in 2011, last night the show trumped that. The new season has been hugely popular worldwide, with 27 million viewers tuning in to the season premiere in the United States”.

    Malcolm’s effort was not exactly stellar by comparison….

    But you are correct, there are no local ‘stars’ on NZ TV – despite the trash magazine and MSM best efforts to portray some of the Autocue readers and presenters as ‘celebrity stars’…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. WineOh (626 comments) says:

    Hopefully enough to bust her down from her moral high horse for at least a few weeks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. jims_whare (403 comments) says:

    Not to push to fine a point…..but from my memory of processing a fair number of drunk folks it sort of goes like this:

    Car gets stopped: Driver talks into the breath machine comes up fail.

    Cop then requires an EBT on the roadside = fail

    Cop then requires to accompany them for breath test/blood test or both + Bill of Rights

    They head back to the station.

    Prior to the EBT the cop reads out the Bill of Rights again gets it signed and then the driver can talk to a lawyer if they want.

    If they don’t they do 2 breath test blows.

    If both blows are over 400mg/litre of breath then the machine takes the lower blow as the reading.

    The cop then reads out the Positive advise form after which the driver has 10 minutes to decide to stick with the breath test result or request a blood test.

    If at any time they request a blood test then the breath test result gets set aside and a nurse comes in to take the blood sample. (The breath test then can only be used to suspend the licence if blow over 650mg/litre of breath)

    If after the 10 minutes (noted by cop on form as normally 11+ minutes as cases have been thrown out on this point) they haven’t chosen a blood sample, then the breath test stands and they get summonsed to court on the charge.

    If the driver refuses to blow into the machine then the cop can officially warn them that they are going to take a blood sample instead

    They can be arrested and charged for refusing a blood sample not for refusing a breath sample

    Also can be arrested for failing to accompany to the station

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Nick K (1,218 comments) says:

    Yes , I thought the watermelons walked everywhere. Hypocrites.

    Idiot. The rational green ethos stipulates moderation not abstinence.

    Rational and green in the same sentence are mutually exclusive. There is nothing rational about the Watermelons.

    The latest proof is the conviction of a Christchurch mother for disciplining her son. It went all the way to the Court of Appeal. Something Comrade Bradford would never happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    This is hilarious! Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving person….
    Those here defending Malcolm have clearly been living on the moon for the past few years. This deluded Greenie and alleged ‘TV Star’ has spent the last few years pontificating to fellow New Zealanders on everything from how we drive our cars to how we raise our kids- Seemingly because she was once on fucking Shortland Street gives her the right to tell us how to lead our lives….

    Enjoy your crash to earth ‘Your Highness!’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. WineOh (626 comments) says:

    Does the evidential blood test also screen for traces of marijuana?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Steve (North Shore) (4,543 comments) says:

    If charged and found guilty I hope she gets 6 months cancellation of License and 3 months Periodic Detention – slashing gorse in the Woodhill forrest for 8 hours every Saturday, no excuses.
    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander etc.

    Can’t see that happening though, Outrageous

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Daisychain (3 comments) says:

    Wonder if she has the same lawyer as Lucy LAWLESS…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Chuck Bird (4,830 comments) says:

    RKBee, I know how the law works and I would bet so does DPF.

    My point is that if I know someone got convicted for 81 whatever I would look at them in a different light than if they were convicted for 281.

    I heard Judith Collins this morning and she raised a very good point which that public support is important. If the limit is dropped to 50 and good people got prosecute for 51 they would lose public support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Fletch (6,248 comments) says:

    O/T slightly, re:stars in NZ –

    The promo for the Shackleton TV movie made me chuckle a bit – Craig Parker as Shackleton? It just doesn’t work, does it…
    I still think of him as that guy from Shortland Street.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. slijmbal (1,231 comments) says:

    Had opportunity to chat to a lawyer who specialised in drink driving offences. He reckoned always take the blood test as it’s a ‘technical offence’ (his words) and they surprisingly often lost the chain of evidence. Thus not having the proof of technical offending there was no real other course to prosecute (the breath test no longer counts once the blood test is taken).

    It is also pretty much a guaranteed 6 month suspension of license and a fine of several hundred $ for a 1st offence. You would need to be massively over the limit to get more and even then it was incredibly rare to get anything other than suspension and a fine for a 1st offence.

    He also reckoned if a copper ever asked to look in your boot he had no right to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. 2boyz (258 comments) says:

    F**Ken organic wine!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Cactus Kate (550 comments) says:

    Doesn’t matter. Munter and van will break into Wayne’s cop shop and steal the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Mark (497 comments) says:

    I cant see how she could cliam she was not “driving in a dangerous manner”. If you are over the limit you are “driving in a dangerous manner”.

    I wonder home many other times she driven home after having “dinner”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.