The High Court ruled that a Garda unlawfully searched an injured man’s clothing at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, but said the discovery could still support an opinion used to make a demand for a blood or urine specimen under road traffic law.
In a judgment delivered on 31 January 2014, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley answered “yes” to both questions referred by a District Judge in a consultative case stated. The court did not decide the accused’s guilt or determine the charges against him.
The case arose from a single-vehicle crash in Drogheda on 18 July 2010. The Garda travelled with the injured accused to hospital. His clothing had been cut off by medical staff and placed beside his bed. The Garda searched the pockets while seeking to confirm his identity and found two bags of white powder, described in evidence as suspicious. She then formed the opinion that he had consumed an intoxicant and demanded a blood or urine specimen. He refused.
The accused faced charges relating to refusing the specimen demand, dangerous driving and possession of cocaine. At the District Court hearing, the defence argued the clothing search had no lawful basis and that the search’s consequences, including the discovery and the later specimen demand, were tainted. The prosecution argued the search was lawful in the circumstances or, alternatively, that the discovery could support the demand even if the search was unlawful.
Justice O’Malley found the search was unlawful. The Garda had neither the accused’s consent nor any other lawful authority to search the jeans. The judge rejected the emergency justification on the evidence, noting that the accused had given his name and a vehicle-registration check had confirmed it. She also held that the fact the jeans had been cut off in hospital did not remove the accused’s privacy interest in their contents.
On the second question, the judge held that a lawful specimen demand must be authorised, genuinely and reasonably grounded, and made for an authorised purpose. But the opinion supporting it need not be based on material that would itself be admissible at trial. The rules for admitting evidence, she said, cannot simply be transferred to the formation of investigative opinions and suspicions.
The judgment therefore answered that the Garda could rely on the discovery to form the opinion required for a demand, despite the unlawful search. It left the District Court to proceed with the case; it did not rule on admissibility of the powder at trial or the outcome of any charge.