sir pacman
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
Accuracy of police sniffer dogs called into question
By Amy Simmons and staff
Updated December 12, 2011 18:29:22
Hairy debate: Police back their drug detection dogs but experts say they fail to deter drug users.
There are calls for police sniffer dog operations to be stopped as fresh figures show the canines get it wrong in the majority of cases.
So far this year New South Wales police officers have carried out 14,102 searches on people as a result of a sniffer dog indicating the presence of an illegal drug.
Of those searches, illicit substances were not found on 11,248 occasions - that means four out of five times the dogs are getting it wrong.
Experts say sniffer dogs do not even act as a deterrent for the majority of drug users, while the Greens and civil libertarians say innocent people are being "ritually humiliated" by police searches.
Daniel Ryan from Port Lincoln in South Australia told ABC News Online he was embarrassed at a work Christmas party when a dog wrongly detected drugs in his pocket and car.
And Sean Bradbery from Earlwood in NSW says his friend, "a family man who has never been in trouble with the law, never touched a drug in his life", was insulted when he was fully searched by police.
NSW Upper House Greens MP David Shoebridge, who requested the latest sniffer dog figures from police, says on average inappropriate searches are being undertaken 40 times a day in his state.
"No test which has an 80 per cent error rate could be considered a reasonable basis on which to conduct an intrusive public search of a citizen going about their daily business," he said.
"In the first nine months of this year, a total of 11,248 people were wrongly identified by dogs as carrying drugs.
"Every one of them was then subject to a humiliating public search, some were taken aside for a full strip search, only to be found to be carrying no drugs at all."
Mr Shoebridge says the sniffer dog schemes unfairly target young people and Indigenous communities.
"If this was happening in the car parks of merchant banks there would be outrage," he said.
"Now that we know the error rate is so high, the program needs to be halted."
And the dogs come at a cost.
Last financial year in New South Wales alone, $10.1 million was spent on the total dogs unit - which includes drug, firearms and explosives detection dogs. A total of $878,000 was spent on drug detection dogs alone.
Users unfazed
Dr Matthew Dunn from Deakin University who authored a 2009 study on ecstasy users and drug detection dogs says the majority of surveyed users were undeterred.
He says, if anything, the dogs encouraged drug users to find ways around being caught.
"What we found was that the majority had come into contact with a drug detection dog in the six months preceding the interview, but they don't really see them as a deterrent," he said.
"If they knew dogs would be in an event that they were attending they would conceal their drugs better, avoid the dogs, take their drugs before they went to the event or change some pattern about what they did."
Dr Dunn says of the 100 ecstasy users he questioned, none had been caught by sniffer dogs.
He says the Drug Dogs Act, which came into force in 2002, was designed to help police catch drug dealers and prevent drug trafficking.
If that is still its purpose, he says drug detection dog schemes are not working very well.
"We know that people that deal drugs or traffic drugs don't do that on the street. By in large the high-end people police are trying to get aren't anywhere near the drugs or the dogs," Dr Dunn said.
He says police could be just as effective without their canine counterparts.
"If the purpose is to get drug dealers and traffickers, the dogs are not serving their purpose," Dr Dunn said.
"If the purpose is to be a visual deterrent, I think just having police out is enough of a deterrent. I don't think they need to have the dogs there as well."
Effective deterrent
Police, however, say their furry friends are essential.
Inspector Chris Condon of the NSW Police dog unit says detection dogs are extremely accurate.
He says more than 80 per cent of indications by the dogs "result in either drugs being located or the person admitting recent contact with illegal drugs" and that "any suggestion otherwise is incorrect".
''Drug detection dogs are an important facet of the overall harm-minimisation strategy of the NSW Police Force," Inspector Condon said.
"Drug detection dogs are an extremely effective deterrent to persons transporting drugs for the purpose of supply."
The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics says sniffer dog programs should not be judged solely by the number of successful searches and resulting arrests.
Bureau director Don Weatherburn told ABC Radio's 702 that drug arrests were not the only reason dog programs existed.
"Just like RBT, most of the RBT tests turn up negative but no-one would suggest we abandon RBT," he said.
"The argument police would mount perhaps with some justification is that by having these sniffer dogs people are less inclined to walk around carrying illegal drugs."
ABC News Online has contacted police media in South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia for their sniffer dog figures.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-12/accuracy-of-police-sniffer-dogs-called-into-question/3726228/?site=newcastle
By Amy Simmons and staff
Updated December 12, 2011 18:29:22
Hairy debate: Police back their drug detection dogs but experts say they fail to deter drug users.
There are calls for police sniffer dog operations to be stopped as fresh figures show the canines get it wrong in the majority of cases.
So far this year New South Wales police officers have carried out 14,102 searches on people as a result of a sniffer dog indicating the presence of an illegal drug.
Of those searches, illicit substances were not found on 11,248 occasions - that means four out of five times the dogs are getting it wrong.
Experts say sniffer dogs do not even act as a deterrent for the majority of drug users, while the Greens and civil libertarians say innocent people are being "ritually humiliated" by police searches.
Daniel Ryan from Port Lincoln in South Australia told ABC News Online he was embarrassed at a work Christmas party when a dog wrongly detected drugs in his pocket and car.
And Sean Bradbery from Earlwood in NSW says his friend, "a family man who has never been in trouble with the law, never touched a drug in his life", was insulted when he was fully searched by police.
NSW Upper House Greens MP David Shoebridge, who requested the latest sniffer dog figures from police, says on average inappropriate searches are being undertaken 40 times a day in his state.
"No test which has an 80 per cent error rate could be considered a reasonable basis on which to conduct an intrusive public search of a citizen going about their daily business," he said.
"In the first nine months of this year, a total of 11,248 people were wrongly identified by dogs as carrying drugs.
"Every one of them was then subject to a humiliating public search, some were taken aside for a full strip search, only to be found to be carrying no drugs at all."
Mr Shoebridge says the sniffer dog schemes unfairly target young people and Indigenous communities.
"If this was happening in the car parks of merchant banks there would be outrage," he said.
"Now that we know the error rate is so high, the program needs to be halted."
And the dogs come at a cost.
Last financial year in New South Wales alone, $10.1 million was spent on the total dogs unit - which includes drug, firearms and explosives detection dogs. A total of $878,000 was spent on drug detection dogs alone.
Users unfazed
Dr Matthew Dunn from Deakin University who authored a 2009 study on ecstasy users and drug detection dogs says the majority of surveyed users were undeterred.
He says, if anything, the dogs encouraged drug users to find ways around being caught.
"What we found was that the majority had come into contact with a drug detection dog in the six months preceding the interview, but they don't really see them as a deterrent," he said.
"If they knew dogs would be in an event that they were attending they would conceal their drugs better, avoid the dogs, take their drugs before they went to the event or change some pattern about what they did."
Dr Dunn says of the 100 ecstasy users he questioned, none had been caught by sniffer dogs.
He says the Drug Dogs Act, which came into force in 2002, was designed to help police catch drug dealers and prevent drug trafficking.
If that is still its purpose, he says drug detection dog schemes are not working very well.
"We know that people that deal drugs or traffic drugs don't do that on the street. By in large the high-end people police are trying to get aren't anywhere near the drugs or the dogs," Dr Dunn said.
He says police could be just as effective without their canine counterparts.
"If the purpose is to get drug dealers and traffickers, the dogs are not serving their purpose," Dr Dunn said.
"If the purpose is to be a visual deterrent, I think just having police out is enough of a deterrent. I don't think they need to have the dogs there as well."
Effective deterrent
Police, however, say their furry friends are essential.
Inspector Chris Condon of the NSW Police dog unit says detection dogs are extremely accurate.
He says more than 80 per cent of indications by the dogs "result in either drugs being located or the person admitting recent contact with illegal drugs" and that "any suggestion otherwise is incorrect".
''Drug detection dogs are an important facet of the overall harm-minimisation strategy of the NSW Police Force," Inspector Condon said.
"Drug detection dogs are an extremely effective deterrent to persons transporting drugs for the purpose of supply."
The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics says sniffer dog programs should not be judged solely by the number of successful searches and resulting arrests.
Bureau director Don Weatherburn told ABC Radio's 702 that drug arrests were not the only reason dog programs existed.
"Just like RBT, most of the RBT tests turn up negative but no-one would suggest we abandon RBT," he said.
"The argument police would mount perhaps with some justification is that by having these sniffer dogs people are less inclined to walk around carrying illegal drugs."
ABC News Online has contacted police media in South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia for their sniffer dog figures.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-12/accuracy-of-police-sniffer-dogs-called-into-question/3726228/?site=newcastle
