NSW Sniffer Dogs Info

[apothecary]

Hi guys,

I have been in contact with the Greens about NSW Sniffer Dogs and their legality etc etc. Here is some of the latest info gleaned from some Police Budget Estimate Questions spurred (apparently) by my angry emails to Sylvia Hale and her colleagues...

BUDGET ESTIMATES QUESTIONS

PART B : QUESTIONS 1 - 34

FOLLOWING THE HEARING ON 14 OCTOBER 2008

QUESTIONS FROM MS HALE

Use of Sniffer Dogs

11. How many police dogs and handlers attended the Enmore Theatre in Sydney on the night of 15 October 2008?

12. Why was the Enmore Theatre singled out for this operation?

13. Were the police acting on specific intelligence in conducting this operation?

14. If so, what was the nature of this intelligence?

15. How many patrons were searched?

16. How many arrests were made?

17. What charges were laid?

18. Which entertainment venues in Sydney have been subject to police operations involving the attendance of police dogs over the past twelve months?

19. How many arrests have been made and what charges have been laid as a result of these operations?

20. How many convictions have been recorded and for what offences as a result of these operations?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANSWER :

The NSW Police Force has advised me :

11. One drug dog and one handler.

12. The operation targeted Newtown Local Area Command as a whole. A number of locations, including several licensed premises, were attended by police.

13-14. Drug dog operations are conducted based on received intelligence and other relevant information. I am not going to give details of the intelligence in question.

15. 14 persons on the premises of the Enmore Theatre and 2 in the immediate vicinity of the theatre were searched.

16-17. 6 people on the premises and one in close proximity to the theatre were found to be in possession of cannabis. All 7 were issued with Cannabis Cautions.

18. Drug dogs are generally deployed in operations targeting drug supply in nominated areas, not specific premises.

19. Of incidents recorded as involving drug detection dogs for the period October 2007 to September 2008, police took action against 1050 offenders for 1,304 offences. Of these actions, court action was taken against 514 offenders for 765 offences, of which 622 were for Possess Prohibited Drug.

20. Of the abovementioned 622 drug possession matters, 70% have currently been finalised, with a conviction rate of 97%.

Sylvias adviser also included some NSW law in her latest correspondence which I thought some might find useful:

LEPRA extract

146 General authority to use drug detection dogs

(cf Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, s 4)

(1) If a police officer is authorised to search a person for the purpose of detecting a drug offence, the officer is entitled to use a dog for that purpose.

(2) A police officer is, for the purpose of detecting a drug offence, entitled to be accompanied by a dog under the officer’s control if the officer is entitled to enter, or be in or on, particular premises in the exercise of the officer’s functions.

(3) Neither the State nor a police officer is liable to any action, liability, claim or demand merely because a dog entered, or was in or on, premises as provided by this section.

147 Use of dogs for general drug detection authorised

(cf Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, s 6)

A police officer is authorised to use a dog to carry out general drug detection, but only as provided by this Division.

148 General drug detection with dogs in authorised places

(cf Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, s 7)

(1) A police officer may, without a warrant, use a dog to carry out general drug detection in relation to the following persons:

(a) persons at, or seeking to enter or leave, any part of premises being used for the consumption of liquor that is sold at the premises (other than any part of premises being used primarily as a restaurant or other dining place),

( persons at, or seeking to enter or leave, a public place at which a sporting event, concert or other artistic performance, dance party, parade or other entertainment is being held,

© persons on, or seeking to enter or leave, a public passenger vehicle that is travelling on a route prescribed by the regulations, or a station, platform or stopping place on any such route.

(2) In this section:

public passenger vehicle means a train, light rail vehicle or bus that is used to provide a public passenger service.

149 General drug detection with dogs by warrant

(cf Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, s 8)

(1) A police officer may use a dog to carry out general drug detection if authorised to do so by a warrant under this section.

(2) A police officer who has reasonable grounds for believing that the persons at any public place may include persons committing drug offences may apply to an authorised officer for a warrant under this section.

(3) An authorised officer to whom such an application is made may, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so, issue a warrant authorising any police officer to use a dog to carry out general drug detection in the public place during the period or periods specified in the warrant.

(4) An application for a warrant under this section must disclose whether any general drug detection to be carried out under the warrant will be part of a covert police operation.

150 Provisions relating to general drug detection

(cf Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, s 9)

(1) A police officer carrying out general drug detection under this Division is to take all reasonable precautions to prevent the dog touching a person.

(2) A police officer is required to keep a dog under control when the officer is using the dog to carry out general drug detection under this Division.

(3) General drug detection under this Division may be carried out as part of a covert police operation, but only if it is authorised by a warrant under this Division.

(4) The provisions of this Division do not affect:

(a) the search of a person whom a police officer reasonably suspects is committing a drug offence, or

( any search of premises that does not involve a search of persons in or on the premises.

(5) Nothing in this Division confers on a police officer a power:

(a) to enter any premises that the officer is not otherwise authorised to enter, or

( to detain a person who the officer is not otherwise authorised to detain.

I have some questions remaining but thought I would post up here to see if anyone else has any queries. Sylvia is one of the few politicians who members of the public can actually approach expecting proper straight answers sans insinuation of being a dirty junkie, and I for one really appreciate that. She actually went and hounded the NSW Police Minister for those answers!

EDIT: I would just like to point out again the above laws are specifically for NSW they are NOT federal laws, so please consult your local and state laws, do NOT consider this thread legal advice.

EDIT2: Would also like to point out that 7 people charged out of 16 people searched is less than half success rate, abysmal (but still better than the NSW Ombudsmans report which placed success rates a

Edited November 26, 2008 by Sina

[apothecary]

greencave, I really would not be comfortable with hurting a dog regardless of what it had been trained for.

But I am also interested in your query about how they decide when the dog is ready and will include it when I get a chance to send the next email.

[Torsten]

Incredible to think that a 75% error rate is acceptable in a democratic society. Most of those dogs should be retired simply because they are crap at doing their job.

[FancyPants]

^^^ It would seem that anything "anti-drug" is allowed much error, while anything "pro-drug" must pass rigorous testing and 100% success rates to be accepted.

I can't really think how to word that properly, so meh.

[Neoshaman]

Incredible to think that a 75% error rate is acceptable in a democratic society. Most of those dogs should be retired simply because they are crap at doing their job.

75% error rate

well that makes sense I remember being picked by one of the little canine bastards , had nothing on me or in the car but i was still bombarded by questions by about 6 of the biased blue basatrd NSW police for a good 15 mins , which really pisses me off if the error rate was so high , so in other words the whole dog thing is a completely piss week , unproven method of street drug detection , which police have and continually do use to strip individuals of their personal freesdoms.

so how much is wasted on the training of these drug detection muts , that seem to be in my opinion directly targeted at the individual users ,I'm imagining that the funds could be far better spent on brining down large criminal syndicates who traffic in highly addictive drugs. But no they would rather bust teenagers for taking a few pills and smoking a few pipes on the weekend or better still scare the hell out of them before a festival so they dump everything their carrying at once and end up od in a fucking hospital bed, I know its wrong to do anything that harms an animal but is there some way to temporarily ( like several hours ) confuse or block its sense of smell without causing any harm to the animal.

[Chiral]

I hear citronella works quite well..

H.