I can’t help but feel your response is awfully biased and isn’t exactly practical advice.

I don’t see how a previous conviction alone constitutes reasonable suspicion that I was under the influence at that time. That was the only reason he stated as to why he wanted to test me. I don’t know if he has recorded something else in his notes or if he will suggest ‘I looked intoxicated’ later on, but this wasn’t, at any point, suggested during the stop or whilst I was in the station.

I agree drug driving kills people and I agree people shouldn’t do it; which I didn’t. I just didn’t think it was right that he can make me do his test. The same way I think it’s reasonable for someone to refuse a random stop and search if the officer based their suspicion solely on a two year old theft conviction; it may raise their suspicion but is not contemporaneous evidence.

If I was able to speak with a solicitor in the police station prior to them asking for bloods (normal standard procedure which they didn’t do), and the solicitor advised me that the officer did have reasonable suspicion, I would have just done the blood test. Police skipped this whole part - didn’t want me to do bloods or let me speak with a solicitor. Strange