The Herald reports:
The AA will take a cautious look at a bill which closes a drink-driving loophole.
Coromandel MP Scott Simpson’s Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill, drawn from the parliamentary ballot last week, would widen the circumstances where a positive evidential breath test is admissible evidence in drink-driving prosecutions.
Under current law, a positive breath test is not admissible in evidence if the suspect opts to have a blood test, but there have been a small number of cases where police were unable to get blood tests after suspects had chosen to have them, and had not been able to fall back on breath test results to prosecute.
Mr Simpson cited one 2005 case, where police had struggled with a suspect whose blood sample was gained only after several attempts.
I believe there is also a problem sometimes with drug addicts whose arms are so wrecked that finding a vein to draw blood from is near impossible.
So the law change is pretty simple – they can use the breath test as evidence, if it proves impossible to get a blood sample. Not sure anyone will be against that.