Police use technology to target drug users

[Bread Filter]

Found this over on Bluelight and thought I'd post it up.

Police use technology to target drug users

WA police are using numberplate recognition technology to spot motorists with drug convictions and then subject them to roadside saliva testing and vehicle searches.

Sgt Steve Palmer said the technology scanned a vehicle's numberplate and then listed the convictions against the owner of that vehicle, any outstanding warrants, whether they had a valid drivers licence and whether the vehicle was licensed.

Sgt Palmer, from the traffic enforcement group, said police were testing the technology in vehicles and could soon roll it out in traffic cars across the State.

Police yesterday set up the technology at the Mitchell Freeway off-ramp at Powis Street and scanned almost 4000 cars in about three hours.

Police charged 18 drivers who were driving either an unlicensed vehicle or without a valid drivers licence.

Four motorists were charged with drug possession after the technology flagged them as having drug convictions.

Sgt Palmer said the motorists' convictions provided police with the "reasonable suspicion" necessary to conduct a search.

The four drivers had also been given saliva tests to determine whether they were driving under the influence of drugs but all returned negative samples.

He said the technology was enhancing the ability of police to conduct "intelligence-led" operations.

"Before this we had to pull drivers over one by one in a more random manner and it could then turn out that we had wasted our time," Sgt Palmer said.

"With this technology we can screen the traffic as it goes past and then target those drivers who we know deserve our attention."

Police Minister Rob Johnson said he supported the police use of technology being used to target suspected drug-affected drivers.

But shadow police minister Margaret Quirk said she was not convinced police had the legal right to search private vehicles solely on the basis that the driver had a drug conviction.

Ms Quirk said the new system was likely to be challenged.

"I think that this should be legally tested," she said.

"This needs a legal opinion or advice from the State Solicitor's office."

Source

[ThunderIdeal]

Four motorists were charged with drug possession after the technology flagged them as having drug convictions.

Sgt Palmer said the motorists' convictions provided police with the "reasonable suspicion" necessary to conduct a search.

The four drivers had also been given saliva tests to determine whether they were driving under the influence of drugs but all returned negative samples.

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

cunts

i don't live in WA, but i am going to be outraged if police start pulling me over for searches because i have a drug conviction, and i suggest WA residents be outraged as well.

[qualia]

"I think that this should be legally tested," she said.

fuck yes it should.

looks like the age old fallacy "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" remains just that,,,

[naja naja]

or get their mums to register their car for them

Edited July 27, 2011 by naja naja

[synchromesh]

 

[7baz]

we are losing our rights and freedom day by day.

like i said in a different post... im pretty damn sure the files the cops access has info about you that you are not even aware of.. like possible drug related activities even thou i have never been convicted nor charged nor have i ever been caught.. yet year after year when ever i get question by police they always bring up drugs.

this is purely dictatorship.

however its not all bad news.

in WA police have no power , they are no longer under the crown.

you can therefore sue a police officer under common law.

[SunChaser]

i don't live in WA, but i am going to be outraged if police start pulling me over for searches because i have a drug conviction, and i suggest WA residents be outraged as well.

 

lol, if you get angry with them they'll just tell you your being defensive, which apparently gives them more reasonable cause.

Peace

[qualia]

does anyone know the legality of having a spy cam on you so you can film incidents?

i seen spy cams on the web built into pens (that work), so just wondering if filming being harassed by the cops by a spy cam in your top pocket would be illegal?

[Undergrounder]

You know what's also bullshit, how police across the country are now doing random drug testing at RBT stops. They test for marijuana, speed/meth and ecstacy with a mouth swab. If they don't like the look of you they can also get you to piss into a cup and test you for heroin, OTC pain killers and cocaine.

Now I would think this was OK IF the amount of the drug in your system was enough to be causing impairment. People that are jacked up or stoned should not be driving.

But the charge is 'driving with the presence of a prohibited drug', and the mere presence is enough to be prosecuted. So if you had a spliff on Friday night and drove to work on Monday, and the drug was detected at all, you would be charged.. and then you would be searched to see if they can put a possession charge on you as well.

It's ludicrous... it's got nothing to do with driving impairment. NOTHING. You might have had a pill last week, tried to be responsible about it, NOT driven, and then a week later get pulled over in an RBT, randomly tested and charged.

And the charge is much worse than your standard drink driving charge, you have to go to court, you'll lose your license for 6+ months, pay more than a thousand dollars in fines and you'll have to live with a 'drug related' charge on your sheet for the rest of your life.

Not only would everybody that sees your rap sheet (future and current employers) assume that you were a drug addict, they would also assume that you were irresponsibly driving around town while jacked up on a 'prohibited drug'... Imagine trying to go for a job interview and explaining 'driving with the presence of a prohibited drug' on your record. That shit can be life destroying. The punishment does not fit the fuckign crime.

[synchromesh]

Not only would everybody that sees your rap sheet (future and current employers) assume that you were a drug addict, they would also assume that you were irresponsibly driving around town while jacked up on a 'prohibited drug'... Imagine trying to go for a job interview and explaining 'driving with the presence of a prohibited drug' on your record. That shit can be life destroying. The punishment does not fit the fucking crime.

 

Surely a stoner somewhere has sued for libel?

[Undergrounder]

Surely a stoner somewhere has sued for libel?

 

Well libel is suing for damages done because someone's said something about you that can be proven to be untrue.

1. Prospective employers don't give you reasons for not employing you, they just don't ring you back.

2. Current employers will usually have you sign something in your contract that states that you can be fired if you commit an offence. So the mere occurrance of the charge would be enough in most cases for you to potentially lose your job.

So in the situations that really matter, just the assumptions are enough to badly impact your life... Noone needs to say anything bad about you, they just point to the offence and chuck your application in the bin.

[Jonstn]

*Sigh* WA have also increased their charges for cannabis possession, they are coming down hard.

It's a load of ballbags, certain chemicals yes but all they are after is $$$ and to shove more people behind bars for next to no reason

[synchromesh]

Thanks, Undergrounder. Enlightening post.

Jonstoned - Australia really needs an equivalent to LEAP, eh?

[Bread Filter]

*Sigh* WA have also increased their charges for cannabis possession, they are coming down hard.

 

Dopes to feel the heat under new pot laws

MAXIMUM fines for possessing small amounts of cannabis will increase more than 10 times when new WA drug laws come into force on August 1.

After 2 1/2 years of promising to get tough on marijuana users, dealers and growers, the Liberal-National Government's "war on drugs" is about to begin.

The penalty for possessing less than 30g of cannabis will jump from a $100 fine to a maximum of $2000 and the possibility of two years in jail.

The penalty for growing up to two marijuana plants is a $200 fine, but that will jump to a maximum $2000 fine and prosecution with the prospect of two years behind bars for growing any number of plants.

And the penalty for businesses caught selling smoking implements to children will increase from $25,000 to a possible $120,000 and two years jail.

"We are declaring war on drugs and this is just the beginning," Police Minister Rob Johnson told The Sunday Times yesterday.

As well as beefed-up fines, anyone found with more than 10g of the drug will be charged with drug possession and face court. If found guilty, they will get a criminal record. Presently, anyone caught with 30g or less receives a small fine and no record.

Other changes include:

* People caught with 10g or less will have to attend mandatory education sessions.

* The sale of smoking implements to adults will also be outlawed, with fines of up to $50,000. At the moment it is an offence only to sell smoking paraphernalia to children.

Mr Johnson admitted the laws had been a long time coming, but said they were vital for WA.

"Just ask any parent whose son or daughter's use of cannabis led to an addiction to harder drugs or caused serious health or mental health problems such as schizophrenia," he said.

"They will tell you that illicit drugs have ripped their family apart and ruined many lives. We owe it to our children to do everything we can to protect their future, which is why this Government makes no apologies for its tough approach on drugs."

But drug experts yesterday cast doubt on whether the laws were sensible.

Steve Allsop, director of the National Drug Research Institute, said cannabis use had declined after the introduction of the laws by Labor in 2003.

"There is no evidence it (Labor's cannabis policy) encouraged use," he said.

He also questioned whether police could enforce the laws.

"Tougher penalties are not likely to have an impact because only about 3 per cent of people who use cannabis are detected by police," Prof Allsop said.

"Directing them all to treatment might not be the best use of limited resources and may limit access to treatment for those who voluntarily seek help.

"Getting a criminal record can have disastrous implications, reducing job options and so on.

"Some might say fine, they broke the law. But a criminal record can marginalise a person, increasing, not decreasing, risks and harm for all of us."

Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan said he welcomed "any law reforms that will help combat the scourge of this insidious criminal industry in WA".

Under the new laws, the only reprieve for offenders convicted of minor cannabis possession offences is that they will be able to apply to have a conviction spent after three years, provided they are not convicted for further offences in that period.

"I am particularly heartened by the decision that gives people convicted of minor cannabis possession offences (the right) to apply for a spent conviction after three years, which gives them a much better second chance at turning their lives around than the current 10-year wait to earn a spent conviction," Mr O'Callaghan said.

 

Source

[synchromesh]

I wonder if SA could sue WA for discrimination?

"Just ask any parent whose son or daughter's use of cannabis led to an addiction to harder drugs or caused serious health or mental health problems such as schizophrenia," he said.

So he's talking about something like 0.001% of Australia's population?

"They will tell you that illicit drugs have ripped their family apart and ruined many lives. We owe it to our children to do everything we can to protect their future, which is why this Government makes no apologies for its tough approach on drugs."

Welcome to Redundancy City

Warning: Deja vu may occur frequently

* People caught with 10g or less will have to attend mandatory education sessions.

"Tougher penalties are not likely to have an impact because only about 3 per cent of people who use cannabis are detected by police," Prof Allsop said.

Nice statement.

Edited July 27, 2011 by synchromesh

[Bretloth]

Thanks, Undergrounder. Enlightening post.

Jonstoned - Australia really needs an equivalent to LEAP, eh?

 

There's a L.E.A.P Australia ~ http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leapaustralia.org%2F&h=KAQDq-Ibp

A rep from L.E.A.P spoke at the Melbs Marijuana Law Reform Rally back march and another will be speaking at the one Nov 19th. ~ http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=117438611672249

WA laws seem to just get worse and worse, hit the streets WA!

[synchromesh]

That's good to know man! Cheers!

[Bush Turkey]

Its so so stupid!!! I mean everyday i am reading about someone being stabbed, robbed in perth. A couple nights ago a 71 year old man was bound and gagged and his guns out of his gun cabinet were stolen a couple streets away from me. Why go waste resources on this camera sting! Perth has become so bad for violence! focus on that~!

[dworx]

abandoned

Edited April 4, 2013 by dworx

[ballzac]

The problem with things like this is not primarily the methods. We hear about stuff like this, and we feel that drug users are being persecuted, so we say how terrible the methods are when really it gets back to the fact that possession and use of drugs should not be a crime in the first place. This is a spot fire, and we really need to get to the root of the problem.

I honestly would not have a problem with convicted child molesters' computers being randomly searched for child-porn. I wouldn't have a problem with convicted murderers being pulled over and searched for weapons. If smoking weed was immoral, I would have no problem with convicted drug users being pulled over and searched for drugs. The problem with this reasoning is the erroneous assumption that using drugs is immoral. It's this that we really need to battle. If society did not have a negative attitude towards drug use and drug users, then it wouldn't be illegal, and this would be a non-issue.

[Mycot]

If smoking weed was immoral, I would have no problem with convicted drug users being pulled over and searched for drugs. The problem with this reasoning is the erroneous assumption that using drugs is immoral. It's this that we really need to battle. If society did not have a negative attitude towards drug use and drug users, then it wouldn't be illegal, and this would be a non-issue.

 

Moral panic engendering fascism.

What an alter to worship at.

[SunChaser]

The problem with things like this is not primarily the methods. We hear about stuff like this, and we feel that drug users are being persecuted, so we say how terrible the methods are when really it gets back to the fact that possession and use of drugs should not be a crime in the first place. This is a spot fire, and we really need to get to the root of the problem.

I honestly would not have a problem with convicted child molesters' computers being randomly searched for child-porn. I wouldn't have a problem with convicted murderers being pulled over and searched for weapons. If smoking weed was immoral, I would have no problem with convicted drug users being pulled over and searched for drugs. The problem with this reasoning is the erroneous assumption that using drugs is immoral. It's this that we really need to battle. If society did not have a negative attitude towards drug use and drug users, then it wouldn't be illegal, and this would be a non-issue.

 

I don't think it's actually that simple.

I mean, imo, being a convicted murderer or sexual predator gives police clear reasonable cause you could be a danger to society. But if you have a history of speeding in your car (which is also illegal and anti-social behavior), that is clearly no reason to be harassed by police.

Same thing with the drug issue. Personally, I wouldn't have any problem if police were only trained to seek out and harass people with convictions of importing large amounts of cocaine or having 150 plant gardens in there garage. 

The problem is police aren't trained to actively seek out big time drug dealers who are usually clean cut and drive BMW's and shit, but rather there trained to simply harass people that look poor and have a history of drug use. In other words, since people that look poor or have a minor history of drug use are the people in our society that are most likely to be mentally ill or have serious family issues, the police are actually trained to harass and drag the most vulnerable people in our society though the criminal justice system. 

It's a completely disgraceful tactic which only helps the police  budget and personal careers of police, it also gives police a simple way of manipulating crime statistics. But then society is left to clean up the mess the police leave behind. I don't see how anyone (whether you think drugs should be illegal or not) could possibly see these thug police tactics as beneficial to society.

A lot of people that look lower class have far to much issues to simply smile and say whatever when there been stood over by two aggressive coppers for no good reason, which is obviously what the police rely on.

Peace

[Alice]

The problem with things like this is not primarily the methods. We hear about stuff like this, and we feel that drug users are being persecuted, so we say how terrible the methods are when really it gets back to the fact that possession and use of drugs should not be a crime in the first place. This is a spot fire, and we really need to get to the root of the problem.

I honestly would not have a problem with convicted child molesters' computers being randomly searched for child-porn. I wouldn't have a problem with convicted murderers being pulled over and searched for weapons. If smoking weed was immoral, I would have no problem with convicted drug users being pulled over and searched for drugs. The problem with this reasoning is the erroneous assumption that using drugs is immoral. It's this that we really need to battle. If society did not have a negative attitude towards drug use and drug users, then it wouldn't be illegal, and this would be a non-issue.

 

Well said Ballzac, you are wise beyond your years.

[ballzac]

I mean, imo, being a convicted murderer or sexual predator gives police clear reasonable cause you could be a danger to society. But if you have a history of speeding in your car (which is also illegal and anti-social behavior), that is clearly no reason to be harassed by police.

 

Well I don't know that speeding is such a useful example because I can't think of a scenario where pulling a person over who has a history of speeding is going to help prevent crime. Perhaps drink driving is a better example. I personally think it would be okay to pull over people who have drink driving convictions and breathylise them. No problem with that whatsoever IMO. Of course, the extent to which your crime endangers others in society should dictate the extent to which you forfeit certain rights to privacy. One minor shoplifting charge from 20 years ago should not mean that the police can pull you over whenever they want and search your car. So it's a sliding scale. But my point is that if it's okay to pull people over because they have drug possession charges (which obviously some people think it is otherwise this wouldn't be happening) they must think that drug possession is not only immoral, but also fairly high up on the scale.

[Teljkon]

sdfsdsd

Edited December 19, 2021 by Teljkon