Greens MLA claims sniffer dogs are a publicity stunt

[Verybuffed]

Just heard on JJJ that Lee Rhiannon from the Greens has claimed that the police using sniffer dogs is all a publicity stunt to make it look like the police are actually doing something.

She quoted that in 2 years the dogs have identified 10,000 people as possibly carrying drugs. Out of that 10,000 there have only been 19 convictions. She also said that three quarters of the people who the dogs identified as possibly carrying drugs weren't in the possesion of any.

I am trying to type as much as I remembered. Hopefully someone else can give us some more details?

 

[Splatt]

Funny how if you walk past a Brisbane dog with no phat pants nothing happens, but if you're wearing phat pants they come and sit next to you.

I'm not doubting the dogs are trained to smell drugs, but I think they are also trained to spot humans in a different state of consciousness, like anxious states, fear states, and basically people munted out. Dogs can pick up on those things naturally. I know whenever I am tripping or coming down from meth dogs seem to wanna bark at me a lot more and go a little crazy.

 

[Bent Mk2]

The full NSW Ombudsman's report can be found here...

Just starting to read it now, there's some very interestings stats indeed.

 

[Verybuffed]

Funny how if you walk past a Brisbane dog with no phat pants nothing happens, but if you're wearing phat pants they come and sit next to you.

I'm not doubting the dogs are trained to smell drugs, but I think they are also trained to spot humans in a different state of consciousness, like anxious states, fear states, and basically people munted out. Dogs can pick up on those things naturally. I know whenever I am tripping or coming down from meth dogs seem to wanna bark at me a lot more and go a little crazy.

Isn't that what the handlers are trained to spot?

 

[Tronica]

NEWS: Sydney Morning Herald "Snigger dogs 'of little value'"

Sniffer dogs 'of little value'
Sydney Morning Herald
Tim Dick
September 14, 2006 - 2:43PM

The Ombudsman says there is little value in trying to identify drug dealers by screening people with drug detection dogs in public places.

The Ombudsman says there is little value in trying to identify drug dealers by screening people with drug detection dogs in public places.

Drug sniffer dogs do little to identify drug dealers and often falsely identify people as carrying illegal drugs, a report by the Ombudsman said today.

It found only 19 people out of about 10,000 indicated by dogs as carrying drugs were successfully prosecuted for supplying drugs, despite the sniffer dogs program costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The two-year investigation has questioned the need for laws which allow drug dogs to sniff people in public to detect drugs.

"Despite the best efforts of police, the evidence suggests that there is little value in trying to identify drug dealers by screening people with drug detection dogs in public places," the Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour, said in a statement today.

"I am particularly concerned about whether indications [by dogs] are accurate. Our review found most people who where indicated by drug detection dogs, when searched, were not found to be carrying drugs."

In 74 per cent of cases, no drugs were found. In the quarter of times that they were, by far the most common was cannabis (84 per cent), followed by ecstacy (8.5 per cent) and speed (7.7 per cent).

It said there was anecdotal evidence to suggest sniffer dogs were unintentionally encouraging users to engage in "risky drug taking practices".

The acting NSW Police Minister is expected to respond shortly.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sniffer-dogs-of-little-value/2006/09/14/1157827074300.html

 

[Prince Planet]

I think the sniffer dogs are great value. The Chaser's War on Everything proved they are amazing at finding things stuffed down peoples pants!:D

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/war/video/default.htm See 17 February 2006
at the bottom of the page

 

[phase_dancer]

Allowing for the supposedly few innocents who've been inconveniently searched and humiliated, if sniffer dog responses are deemed by police/politicians to be successful despite the small number of convictions, then surely this also implies the dogs identify not only those in possession of drugs, but also those who've had some recent association with drugs e.g. a bong or line before going out.

On this reasoning, the overwhelming majority of those sniffed and searched but not convicted, must therefore be taking drugs regardless, but doing it in a manner that avoids getting caught. I don't know what the general means of obtaining pills is these days, but I'd doubt it is via buying in clubs. Most organised people would be sorted well before they go out.

Therefore, one has to ask just why so much money is put into a system that fails, catching mostly only the low end of the user spectrum; those who either simply don't know about the dogs, or who, do to circumstance, could not not consume their drugs before leaving home. IMO, the money spent on these circus like parades could be far better spent on increasing the number of standard police foot patrols and other real crime prevention strategies.

 

[ilikeacid]

^Man I love Chas! Those coppers looked pissed as! But yeah, siniffer dogs do little but annoy people who smoked some joints before attending major events and give the cops a feeling that they can actually stop dd getting in... one event I attended this year I met this dude who had 200pills on him, sniffer doggs were there too... obviously didn't stop him, so wont stop others..

 

[hoptis]

Sniffer dogs barking up wrong tree: report
Tim Dick
September 15, 2006

THE drug sniffer dog program is an expensive waste of money that fails to catch serious drug dealers but manages to embarrass thousands doing nothing wrong, a NSW Ombudsman investigation has found.

The Government believes the dogs interrupt the supply of illegal drugs, but the two-year investigation found they stop three times as many people who are not carrying drugs as those who are.

During the study, 10,211 people were stopped at train stations, in pubs and on streets - but only a quarter of those searched were carrying illegal drugs.

Almost all of those were carrying cannabis, and mostly in small amounts, with cocaine and heroin discovered on fewer occasions than prescription drugs.

The Drug Detection Dog Unit cost $870,000 in 2002-03, but over the study period, just 19 people were convicted for supplying drugs. Most of those were carrying drugs for their friends rather than for sale, the report found, with only three sentenced to periodic detention.

The Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour, made 55 recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the program, but questioned the worth of keeping the enabling laws at all.

"Despite the best efforts of police, the evidence suggests that there is little value in trying to identify drug dealers by screening people with drug detection dogs in public places," he said.

However, the acting police minister, David Campbell, said sniffer dogs were an effective deterrent that saved lives and interrupted the supply of drugs.

The 19 convictions for supply was an "entirely satisfactory outcome", he said.

From Sydney Morning Herald

 

[static_mind]

So its worth spending $870,000 to catch 19 people most of witch were carrying drugs for there friends. Sounds to me like there trying to covere there asses for wasteing so much money. Id much rather them spend that much money on more cops patrolling the streets!

 

[Bent Mk2]

$870,000 - 10,211 people stopped and searched for a total of 3 who actually got jail time. wow what a stunning result! go team!

 

[Verybuffed]

$870,000 - 10,211 people stopped and searched for a total of 3 who actually got jail time. wow what a stunning result! go team!

Hey it's an "entirely satisfactory outcome"

Amazing! What a waste of money.

 

[ilikeacid]

They use the "deterrence" angle. "without the dogs, people would just feel free to safely bring anything they like in with them" - sounds good in the Herald Sun.
Gov's dont bow to this type of pressure... its all about the message it sends, if they stop with the dogs it'll be portayed (at least in their minds) that it's the drug users who've won.. It's fucking attrocious tho

 

[potato]

Governments DO bow to this kind of pressure. A goverment appointed regulatory body has made a recommendation, and a strong one at that. The report is extensive, was conducted over 2 years, and was required by the actual Drug Dogs Act itself. Thus it carries some weight.

If a few hundred people wrote a letter to their MP referencing the ombudsman's report, it is not inconcievable that changes may be made. Now is the time to act, however people are lazy and generally will not write such letters. Hell, there could even be enough NSWs bluelighters alone to make some difference if they alll wrote a letter.

 

[Nevr_Mined]

It's a dog's life

Lies, lies and statistics. I don't believe the statistics the Ombudsmans have used, 5000 ppl went to [EDIT: No event names. hoptis] and the cops got 25...

Also, I dont think it matters what they/we say, the govt aren't going to get rid of the dogs. They're just part of life as we know it.

If they legalised it, then they'd save the $ on dogs and make money on tax... Hmmm, no that'd take the fun out of getting into the rave...

 

[ayjay]

^ actually, that's 19 people convicted of charges relating to supply (ie dealing).

Most of these people were getting drugs for friends (yes that's trafficking, according to the law).

Most of these 19 did not get a custodial sentence, too (I think a few got periodic detention).

 

[static_mind]

hmmm they will probably just make harsher punishments for drug use so they can put a higher number of convictions up and say "hey look the sniffer dogs are doing great now"

 

[ilikeacid]

potato

If a few hundred people wrote a letter to their MP referencing the ombudsman's report, it is not inconcievable that changes may be made. Now is the time to act, however people are lazy and generally will not write such letters. Hell, there could even be enough NSWs bluelighters alone to make some difference if they alll wrote a letter.

Do it then bl'ers of NSW! I wish the same report was here in VIC.. I'd be on the phone to every civil libity group in the state exclaiming my outrage! For once an official report is on our side, use it while it lasts ppl

 

[ilikeacid]

The dogs are everywhere!!

My gf and a bunch of her friends were searched today in Melb CBD, probably because an event occurring in nearby parklands.. She just rang me, apparently there were at least two separate dog patrols, one outside the event and one at Flinders station- plain cloths police present and cops doing pat downs on the steps up too the station!!
What act allows the dogs to keep operating in VIC?
A friend has already had pills confiscated and has to go to drug re-hab programme just from this mornings intrusions! (does this give him a criminal record- it wasn't deemed supply quantity)
I think its pretty fucked up!! My gf said she saw heaps of ppl just dumping all their pills before heading in cause the word spread that the dogs were at the gate!! So much for prevention, tomorrows news headlines: "5 overdose, proving the danger of E", more like proving the danger of frightened drug users not wanting a criminal record!
In the case where the dog stops you (like my gf, thankfully she had nothing on her but smoked a bit before leaving :D ) do you have to provide them with a name and address? The NSW Ombudsman report states:

Nor did the police inform the person that they did not have to provide those details (personal).

It follows with this disturbing point:

Many people appaered unaware that the information that they volunteered to the police would be added to records on the police computer system

My gf thought she had to give them her name and address, and because of the high level of scrutiny she was under she volunteered an explanation that she was around people smoking a day ago... She will now be in the COPS database as a potential drug user... this is FUCKED UP!
My point: Is the Drugs dog act apply in VIC, if so has it changed from its nearly form?

 

[hoptis]

Hey, I was at this event yesterday and didn't see any dogs, though I was definitely on the lookout.

It really, really annoys me when I hear they were at Flinders Street... once again it has to be asked, what's the point of pushing the "drug driving is dangerous" message when they're going to target people getting off trains with sniffer dogs? Stupid.

A friend has already had pills confiscated and has to go to drug re-hab programme just from this mornings intrusions! (does this give him a criminal record- it wasn't deemed supply quantity)

1.) Sorry to hear, 2.) it sounds like just a warning for personal use quantities as they usually do with people they catch with the dogs. I don't think a conviction is recorded but details are kept on record if that makes sense. I'm not sure if this turns up in future employment checks, best get legal advice on that one.

In the case where the dog stops you (like my gf, thankfully she had nothing on her but smoked a bit before leaving :D ) do you have to provide them with a name and address?

Absolutely, this is the one thing you must always do when police ask.

I'll have a look at your other questions when I get home.

Just be glad your g/f didn't have anything on her, it could be a lot worse.