important development re sniffer dogs

[happyguppy]

by way of background.........

some of you may be aware that in nsw in 2001 a local court magistrate held that the use of sniffer dogs to identify drugs constituted an unlawful search. the case has been appealed several times, from both parties, and below is the link to the latest update in the plight of mr darcy ...........


http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/11/28/1101577355043.html?oneclick=true


the court of appeal has not found in mr darcy's favour (don't be fooled by the first two paragraphs!) it's likely that mr darcy will appeal to the high court. in order to have standing to bring a case to to the high court, special leave must be granted. that basically means that the high court must decide if the legal issue on appeal is significant to the public. i understand that this case was set up as a test case with the intention of going to the high court, so it's expected that leave will be granted and mr darcy will embark on round four. a decision from the high court will directly affect the rest of the country.

the judgment isn't available on line you but i'll post a link when it is. i'm reluctant to provide any more commentary at this stage because i haven't read the full judgment.

so yet again, we wait patiently for change..........

 

[alexkid]

You need to register before you can read atricle

 

[happyguppy]

here it is.....


Ferret in the groin dogs judges
By Stephen Gibbs
November 29, 2004, SMH

A sniffer dog repeatedly "pushing and ferreting" at a nightclub patron's groin was not only conducting an unlawful search but committing battery, a judge has found.

In a Court of Appeal judgement, Justice Roger Giles held that encouraging Rocky the labrador to search for cannabis by nudging around a student's genitals was "a battery by the police".

But he was overruled by justices David Ipp and Ruth McColl, who found 21-year-old Glen Darby had not been unlawfully busted with speed (amphetamines) and cannabis outside an Oxford Street nightclub.

The majority decision upheld a Supreme Court order that Darby should again face two charges of possessing methylamphetamine and cannabis that were dismissed in Downing Centre Local Court.

In November 2001, deputy chief magistrate Mary Jerram refused to admit evidence of drugs being found on Darby because she ruled it had been gathered after an unlawful search.

When Rocky encountered Darby queuing outside a Darlinghurst nightclub at 1.55 am in February 2001, the dog had flared his nostrils and sniffed the air, indicating he detected drugs.

Leading his plainclothes handler, Rocky put his nose on Darby's pocket and began nudging his nose at Darby's genitals in a manner described variously as sniffing, bunting, pushing and ferreting.

Darby's lawyer, Philip Stewart, submitted, and Ms Jerram agreed, that evidence of what was subsequently found in his client's possession was inadmissible because it was preceded by an unlawful search.

That search began when Rocky sought to find the source of a cannabis scent and touched Darby, identifying him. It was illegal because it alone created the reasonable suspicion police needed to stop and search Darby.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the Supreme Court, where Justice Barry O'Keefe found Ms Jerram was wrong at law and sent the matter back to the local court for the drug charges to be heard again.

Darby then went to the Court of Appeal, which found in the DPP's favour, but offered support to Darby's position in the dissenting judgement of Justice Giles.

Justice Giles said that if it had been the dog's handler, and not Rocky, "pushing and ferreting" at Darby's pockets, the officer's actions would have been considered a search.

"Rocky was similarly searching, and in my opinion on the facts of this case there was a search," Justice Giles found.

Encouraging Rocky to find drugs on Darby by "bunting or nudging" his genital area constituted using the dog as an instrument to inflict unlawful force - "a battery by the police".

Justice Ipp said Rocky was "completing the identification of the person who was in possession of the drug. By doing that the dog was not carrying out a search."

 

[Bent]

I wonder who's bankrolling his defence, it can't be cheap taking it to the High Court!

 

[happyguppy]

^i'm pretty sure it's not privately funded, but i'm not sure where the money is coming from. probably some community legal organisation like the public interest advocacy group (piac)

 

[TranceNation]

Operation puppy fuck! Soak your shoes in bong water and just make the little shits go nuts!! mwahahahahahahaha!

 

[potato]

bwhahahaha thats awesome! only problem is when you actually ARE carrying illicit substances.

 

[fcuking_in_heaven]

If a dog like that came anywhere near my genitals it would want to be able to move pretty fast to avoid a swift kick to the balls. Any good lawyer could argue that a dog "ferreting" around the genital area when in (out of?) control of its owner, is unlawful. Fuck having a dog sniffing my nuts.

fuck in heaven

 

[BigTrancer]

They put a lot of money into training snifferdogs, I suspect if you kicked one you'd be charged with assaulting a police officer.

BigTrancer

 

[Biscuit]

I really hope this goes to the HCA. Often if a case such as this goes to the top, prominent QCs will offer to argue it for free before the full bench, especially if there are some solicitors behind the scenes who have done sufficient leg work.

This is absolutely vital for civil liberties in this country. You can bet that if the HCA rules that this is lawful, we will have dogs running around left, right and centre.

If Mr Darcy find the means to appeal this decision, he will be granted special leave for certain. We need a slush fund. Add a buck to every ticket sold for dance and club events etc! It effects all of us citizens who for all intents and purposes are law-abiding, very decent and fair people.

 

[sonicnature]

^^ You realise if this occured you would have every toothless-bum dragging the police to court for waking them up, spending your hard earned dollars.