A word of caution re: clubs and drugs

[dabb]

^Oh well if you have pre-warning you're going to be searched there is really no way you should get caught with anything, just throw away two pills if you have to, it's no big deal, i would pay a 100 times the cost of two pills to have never been done.

 

[BigTrancer]

In a club raid, the usual scenario is that the police raid with dogs and then spend the rest of the evening picking up and recording bags of pills that everyone has thrown on the ground in order to avoid being busted in possession by a snifferdog search.

There's no need to expose yourself to a risky situation in which you have eaten a large dose of pills just to avoid being caught, if you can throw them away discreetly, walk to another part of the room, and ignore the loss of money.

BigTrancer

 

[gazmobile]

Yeah, I guess you just have to look at this way...is your life worth $30? If you think it is, then by all means pop away, if not, do as BigTrancer advises and throw 'em away and forgot your losses...

 

[Red Koi]

^aye aye to that. Cut those losses
Having drugs charges.. ewven possession can be a royal pain in the arse. Closes LOTS of doors

 

[eccitude]

I seem to remember when ARQ nightclub in Sydney was going through a series of raids the Police media releases were stating something along the lines that the baggies retrieved off the floor would undergo fingerprint and DNA analysis. Something to bear in mind as you ditch your stash onto the floor perhaps?

 

[phatwithapkoolwithak]

^I was thinking that as I wrote my post earlier. I was going to type something, but thought better of it.

Test the fingerprints against what? Are they gonna collect everyones prints as they mill around outside/inside? Or hold it on file until one day you do something stupid again, are fingerprinted, and then they can lay additional charges on you? Think of the resources and manpower for individually bagged mystery drugs.

 

[charlesbronson]

Originally posted by zag0r
anyone know what your options are if they refuse to comply with your requests:
a) submit to the search anyway?
b) non-violently attempt to prevent the search?

Yeah, submitting to the search is one option. Some people choose violent resistance depending on one's individual persuasions.... others still might run like the wind into free anonymity, getting away with their stash too.

Perhaps the most entertaining and enforcing (and effective) option in most situations is to be non-violently disobedient.... e.g. lie down on the floor and don't move if they want to search you - it means they have to use force to search you because you refuse to empty your pockets, they might have to turn you over, whatever, and that might make them hesitant because there are strict rules regarding when a police officer may physically contact you in situations where the contact is not intended as a signal to gain your attention (like a tap on the shoulder). Despite any encounters you may have had with police where they have grabbed you or pulled you around or something, they aren't allowed to handle you like that unless they place you under arrest first.

Having said that, avoid resisting in this way unless you are prepared to go to court over any incident that might ensue, because some police can really be unlawful pricks when you don't bend to their requests, and you may well have to put up with quite a bit of grief even if your actions are not unlawful or inappropriate.

Here, read this (judgement by magistrate) about a case arising from a police request to search some people:

(Streat v. Bauer. Streat v. Blanco at p.13). The defendants in that case refused to get out of the car for several minutes; when they got out of the car they locked it but left the engine running; they challenged the police to arrest them or let them go; when they were not arrested they walked off; they returned at the request of the police; they refused to open the car; they lay down on the ground and curled up so that it would be difficult for the police to search. All this was described as “bold and irritating” but not enough to found a reasonable suspicion. The defendant’s behaviour – riding off, verbal abuse, refusal to be searched – is not enough to justify a reasonable suspicion that he may be carrying an offensive implement.

Originally posted by dabb
Under NSW law you can get done for self-administration of a prohibited drug i'm not sure if they would try prove this by a blood test but if you grabbed something out of your pocket and swallowed it right in front of an cop when an he told you he was about to search i doubt it would be the end of your problems.

Yeah you're right about it being a crime to self-administer a prohibited substance. Here is the relevant legislation:

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

12 Self-administration of prohibited drugs

(1) A person who administers or attempts to administer a prohibited drug to himself or herself is guilty of an offence.

(2) Nothing in this section renders unlawful the administration or attempted administration by a person to himself or herself of a prohibited drug which has been lawfully prescribed for or supplied to the person.

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

As for how they would prove it if you denied it, I don't know, but I'll keep an ear peeled because it's an interesting question. I wonder if they can force you to undergo a blood test just on the basis of suspicion of the offence of self-administration.... silly shit if they can. Maybe if they think you just downed the pills they crank some happyhard through the patrol car stereo and see if you can keep still, but if you start raving uncontrollably then they pepper-spray you and lock you up.