So we sent WAVE AFTER WAVE OF MEN AT THEM
About three weeks ago the NSW Ombudsman released a report on the efficacy of sniffer dogs in NSW. Interesting point being the actual overall success rate of sniffer dogs detecting drugs on people, which was 24%. (Oh and the document was also made in Pages)
That's right. These dogs are accurate 24% of the time. Which means 76% of the time individuals suffer an embarrassing and invasive search for no real reason. Lets look at some of the powers that the police have under the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) act of 2001:
The Drug Dogs Act provides for general drug detection with a dog to be carried out in specified places without a warrant and in other public places only if police have obtained a warrant under section 8. To apply for a warrant a police officer must have:
reasonable grounds for believing that the persons at any public place may include persons committing drug offences.
Also, those warrants, well unlike normal warrants:
The Drug Dogs Act provides that Part 3 of the Search Warrants Act 1985 ‘applies (with any necessary or prescribed modification) to a warrant issued under’ the Drug Dogs Act. The Drug Dogs Regulation specifies that section 15A and 16 of the Search Warrants Act do not apply to warrants issued under the Drug Dogs Act. Section 15A is a requirement that police must announce their authorisation to enter premises and give a person on premises an opportunity to allow entry.
Section 16 of the Search Warrants Act states: A person executing a search warrant shall produce the warrant for inspection by an occupier of the premises if
requested to do so by that occupier.Since this section does not apply to warrants issued under the Drug Dogs Act, it would seem that police have no obligation to show a copy of the warrant to persons they search during its execution.
So you could technically be searched illegally by the police with a sniffer dog without a warrant and not have the right to know.
There are some limitations on powers, for example:
To use the drug detection dog on a public street, police must first have obtained a warrant under section 8 of the Drug Dogs Act. The warrant will specify the areas where the drug detection dog may be used and the dates and times during which the dog may be used.
Which is, you know, a slight safeguard for our civil liberties, but shit starts to get pretty trippy after that:
Police may use drug detection dogs on railway stations or trains along most CityRail routes without obtaining a warrant. Police often patrol in station ticketing areas and on station platforms. When a train arrives the handler will often position the dog in a place where passengers need to walk past the dog to exit the railway station. Once a person is indicated by a drug detection dog, the person might be searched on the spot, or police might conduct the search in nearby toilets, a room allocated for police use, or another area of the station away from public view.
Or:
Police do not need a warrant to use drug detection dogs at licensed premises. Once in the premises, it is common for one police officer to speak with the manager or licensee of the premises. Sometimes police will also conduct a licensing check while they are at the premises. If the venue is very crowded, dark and loud, this can present difficulties for the handler and the drug detection dog. Sometimes handlers will not take their dogs into particularly crowded premises.
So if you own a place and decide to get a liquor license, your property is no longer your own!
Police may use drug detection dogs without a warrant at dance parties. We observed two police operations at dance parties. One dance party had a number of indoor dance venues and a large outdoor area with stalls, food outlets and areas to ‘hang out’. At that operation, police patrolled the queues of people seeking to enter the party as well as outdoor areas using the drug detection dog. If the drug detection dog indicated a person, police generally either took the person to a more private area of the grounds or took the person to a room allocated for police use to search the person. Rarely was a person searched where the indication occurred.
Having hundreds of cops stop the scourge of drugs at 'dance parties' is worth the grotesque impingement of our civil liberties? Hardly.
A further insanity of this document is the way in which the authenticity of the results of the dogs is upheld: The classifications for those who do not have any drugs on them, but have been indicated by the dog is "Drug contact admitted" or "Drug contact denied". Great going, gentlemen.
There is some good news, the ombudsman's report does take into account complaints made against the police for the use of drug sniffing dogs:
False Indications: 24 Complaints (47%)
and
Civil Liberties: 24 Complaints (47%)
This is over the period of five years. It's simply not good enough. The fact of the matter is these dogs do not have the efficacy rate to trust such a grotesque infringement on our civil liberties. Sure they should be used at the borders or in ports to enforce the government's morality there, but using a system proven to be flawed and treating it as a necessity is despicable.
If there is one thing you can take from this post, it is this: You need to complain. You need to contact the NSW police ombudsman EVERY time you see a sniffer dog out and about and complain about how it is a complete waste of the police department's time and money.
The police's time is finite, and it should be directed to crimes far more serious than people wanting to use drugs. If a single assault, rape, or murder goes unsolved because of a lack of police presence or resources due to this grotesque waste of money and time, then it shows just how deeply fucked up the morals of our current government are.
Popularity: 26% [?]