Which statement is true regarding arrest without a warrant under S6D provisions?

• A. A constable may arrest without a warrant if they reasonably suspect alcohol or drugs exceed the prescribed limits.
• B. A warrant is always required to arrest before any test.
• C. Testing cannot occur without a prior warning.
• D. Only urine tests justify arrest.

Answer: (D)

The key idea here is the narrow scope of arrest without a warrant under S6D in road traffic enforcement: the power is tied specifically to obtaining a bodily sample for evidential testing to determine alcohol or drugs in a driver. Under S6D, the act of arrest without a warrant is justified when it is necessary to secure a urine sample for testing. This makes the statement that only urine tests justify the arrest the best fit, because urine sampling is the evidential procedure that S6D explicitly authorizes without a warrant in this context.

Other options overstate or misstate the powers: simply suspecting that alcohol or drugs exceed limits doesn’t automatically grant an arrest without a warrant; a warrant isn’t always required in every testing scenario, and there isn’t a blanket rule that testing cannot occur without prior warning. The specific statutory trigger for arrest under S6D revolves around obtaining a urine sample for testing, which is why that option is the correct one.