The cold nose of the law.

Article for the free press: Protest use of dogs, breach of civil liberties, unauthorised searches, harm maximisation & community targeting.

Sniffer dogs have been sniffing around citizens recently in some unlikely places. They have been used in King Street Newtown, Newtown and Redfern Railway Stations, Happy Valley Dance party, Oxford Street Darlinghurst, (on the weekend before Mardi Gras) and on the NSW North Coast at Nimbin, Lismore and Byron Bay. Targeted communities are in uproar about this affront to their peaceful activities.

Now you may think that someone would have to be stupid to need a $90,000.- trained dog to find Cannabis in Nimbin but the NSW Police have about thirty of these hounds which they are searching people, cars and venues all over the place. In one instance a popular rock and roll venue had the doors sealed by police while officers and handlers took the dogs through searching the black clad cultural fringe.

Under the law, any search for drugs should be based on "reasonable suspicion", that is a suspicion held on some objective fact or observation. While many legal professionals believe that a trained dog sniffing a person is a drug search, this view has not yet been tested in the courts. Even if these "searches" are legal, they run counter to the spirit of the law and the concept of a free democratic society when people are in fact being searched and treated as under suspicion simply for doing something legal like having a drink in a bar.

There are other reasons why many people find this practice unacceptable. It targets recreational drug users. This may lead to drug users increasing their harm, by taking all their drugs at once soon after purchase and it may also increase the number of unsafely disposed syringes if users are afraid of being stopped and asked to turn out their pockets.

The police dogs cost $90,000 each. When added to the cost of the support team of officers, handlers and the cost of courts to process offence this makes a considerable sum. Communities must ask themselves if this an appropriate allocation of police resources or if the prosecution of simple drug possession offences is a police or community priority.

People charged with simple possession offences make up the vast majority of people who are detected through sniffer dog squad activities. A criminal record is likely to have negative consequences for their employment, educational participation and family relations. It is unlikely that charging people with simple possession offences reduces the number of people who consume drugs or the amount of drugs consumed.

The communities targeted are right in their questioning of the selection of their community for this special treatment or to ask why wealthier suburbs are not being targeted.

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties is asking for reports of any incidents in which people have been searched as result of a dog sniff and no drugs have been found. We would also suggest that people ask the police why are they being sniffed by a dog. People found with more than certain prescribed quantities of some drugs are charged with "deemed" supply, a very serious charge. However, in effect this policy is really targeting recreational users of drugs who are the least threat to society while placing innocent people in the atmosphere of a totalitarian police state.

If approached by a sniffer dog team people should indicate that they do not wish to participate in a random search. If the search proceeds they should ask that their objection to the search be recorded. If people are charged they should not say anything beyond their name and address until they have sought legal advice.

email your complaint