http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,2577401%255E2,00.html
THE use of police sniffer dogs in random drug searches is to be challenged in court after claims that police have been acting illegally.
More than 20 people have been advised by the Redfern Legal Centre in Sydney they have a case against police after being searched by the dogs.
They include a DJ from a city nightclub who was told to stop playing to a large audience before being searched by a police with a dog.
Another man lost his job after he was searched at a Surry Hills hotel and accused of associating with people who had used drugs.
Lawyers from the centre claim the act of a dog sniffing a person constitutes a search but there is currently no legislation covering such action.
Police use 12 drug sniffing dogs across the state to search for illegal substances which include cannabis and ecstasy.
NSW Council for Civil Liberties president Cameron Murphy said today random drug searches by police dogs were an unnecessary invasion of privacy.
"You don't go round searching everybody until you find someone that's guilty of something," he said.
"It's supposed to work the other way around and you only conduct things like searches when you've got evidence of wrongdoing and the way the police are using these dogs at the moment is just to search first and then make people turn out their pockets.
"We have got advice that suggests that when the dog actually sniffs, it is conducting the search under the control of the police officer.
"So there is no reasonable suspicion, they are just searching large numbers of people."
Under the NSW Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act (1985), police are allowed to stop, search and detain people if there is a reasonable suspicion they are carrying prohibited drugs.
Mr Murphy said police were wasting time and money using the sniffer dogs to catch people with small quantities of drugs.
"We've got people who work in hospitals and other environments where they are [working with] drugs all day that the dogs will pick up," he said.
"They are being forced to justify their actions.
"Police have charged a lot of people with possession and the only dealers that they've managed to get out of this are people charged with supply offences.
"It's just laughable to suggest that someone caught with two ecstasy tablets in their pocket is a dealer.
"The whole policy of drugs has shifted away from targeting users toward the 'Mr Bigs'.
"They are spending an awful lot of money trying to justify this canine unit.
"All they are doing is targeting users. It clogs the court system up, most of these people will plead guilty and they'll get a criminal record or a fine and it takes up an enormous amount of court time.
"Meanwhile, the Government is moving away from this by having a cannabis cautioning program, a drug court and they are looking at a cautioning program for other drugs.
Mr Murphy said the sniffer dog exercise "seemed to be a colossal waste of resources".
"When there are unsolved murders and rapes that do need resources, why are the police wasting money on this?"
THE use of police sniffer dogs in random drug searches is to be challenged in court after claims that police have been acting illegally.
More than 20 people have been advised by the Redfern Legal Centre in Sydney they have a case against police after being searched by the dogs.
They include a DJ from a city nightclub who was told to stop playing to a large audience before being searched by a police with a dog.
Another man lost his job after he was searched at a Surry Hills hotel and accused of associating with people who had used drugs.
Lawyers from the centre claim the act of a dog sniffing a person constitutes a search but there is currently no legislation covering such action.
Police use 12 drug sniffing dogs across the state to search for illegal substances which include cannabis and ecstasy.
NSW Council for Civil Liberties president Cameron Murphy said today random drug searches by police dogs were an unnecessary invasion of privacy.
"You don't go round searching everybody until you find someone that's guilty of something," he said.
"It's supposed to work the other way around and you only conduct things like searches when you've got evidence of wrongdoing and the way the police are using these dogs at the moment is just to search first and then make people turn out their pockets.
"We have got advice that suggests that when the dog actually sniffs, it is conducting the search under the control of the police officer.
"So there is no reasonable suspicion, they are just searching large numbers of people."
Under the NSW Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act (1985), police are allowed to stop, search and detain people if there is a reasonable suspicion they are carrying prohibited drugs.
Mr Murphy said police were wasting time and money using the sniffer dogs to catch people with small quantities of drugs.
"We've got people who work in hospitals and other environments where they are [working with] drugs all day that the dogs will pick up," he said.
"They are being forced to justify their actions.
"Police have charged a lot of people with possession and the only dealers that they've managed to get out of this are people charged with supply offences.
"It's just laughable to suggest that someone caught with two ecstasy tablets in their pocket is a dealer.
"The whole policy of drugs has shifted away from targeting users toward the 'Mr Bigs'.
"They are spending an awful lot of money trying to justify this canine unit.
"All they are doing is targeting users. It clogs the court system up, most of these people will plead guilty and they'll get a criminal record or a fine and it takes up an enormous amount of court time.
"Meanwhile, the Government is moving away from this by having a cannabis cautioning program, a drug court and they are looking at a cautioning program for other drugs.
Mr Murphy said the sniffer dog exercise "seemed to be a colossal waste of resources".
"When there are unsolved murders and rapes that do need resources, why are the police wasting money on this?"
