A Wellington police superintendent was within his rights to refuse a breath test but was guilty of misconduct, the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) has found.
Graham Thomas was seen driving erratically after drinking in a Wellington police bar in December 2008.
When the responding officers came to his home at Churton Park, north of the capital, to breath-test him he refused as he was outside the bounds of a pursuit.
The IPCA which investigated the police response, found that while Mr Thomas' actions "may have been lawful" they "fell short of the standards expected of police officers, particularly senior officers in his position, and amounted to misconduct".
The IPCA also said the decision not to press criminal charges "may have been ultimately correct", but appeared to have been made without a thorough investigation or independent advice being obtained.
The PCA also expressed concern it was not notified of the incident until almost three months later.
The police handling of the case was criticised at the time with Labour's law and order spokesman Clayton Cosgrove asking whether it was evidence of a double standard with one set of rules for the general public and another for police officers.
In March last year Police Commissioner Howard Broad told a parliamentary law and order select committee there were exceptional circumstances in the case, which would probably never be made public.
However, Mr Broad said Mr Thomas had a moral obligation to take the breath-test and, despite being cleared by an internal investigation, Mr Thomas kept his rank of superintendent but removed from his job as national manager of the police prosecution service.
Mr Broad today said police were considering the recommendations of the IPCA report but he was pleased the officers who attended the incident were found to have acted appropriately.
"The officers involved in the investigation on the night discussed the matter with their supervisor. Their decision was then referred to an inspector for review. This inspector's report was subsequently reviewed by the District Commander who occupied a more senior role than Superintendent Thomas."
He said it was unclear "to me, or my legal advisers," what further investigation could have been done at the time,
"I will be following this up with the authority."
No explanation was given for why the IPCA was not notified immediately after the incident.
