I have successfully defended numerous cases involving urine tests, particularly when a short period of time exists between the two samples. This case study explains a recent case of mine (2015) which, I believe, is representative of the mistakes made by the police when taking urine specimens.
When one of my clients came to me, he had provided a breath specimen which showed him to be over the limit, and had then taken the ‘statutory option’ to replace that breath specimen with one of urine. All details concerning the urine sample – including the involvement of the police officer and nurse – must be duly recorded on a MGDDB document, and I was suspicious as to whether this had been done or not.
If you have been charged with drink driving and your case involves urine specimens, my advice is to challenge the evidence. You may be surprised at what the police have done wrong. It is very important to instruct a solicitor that fully understands the documentation that should be completed by the police. The MGDDA (breath procedure) and MGDDB (urine procedure) documentation totals around 40 pages. I regularly win cases by finding mistakes within this documentation.