Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Trial) Act 2003 - NSW ...

We appreciate that this may be a complicated task. Clearly it is necessary given the unacceptably high proportion
(75% or more) of usually very public and potentially embarrassing searches conducted by police that do not result
in the seizure of drugs, and the fact that the NSW Police Force does not currently appear to have any effective
strategies for addressing this critical issue.
4.4. Recording of searches on COPS
NSW Police Force policy states that all searches — whether drugs are located or not — should be recorded on the
Computerised Operational Policing System (‘COPS’). 230
Police officers record searches conducted during drug detection operations by creating a COPS event with a
‘Person Search’ and/or ‘Vehicle Search’ incident.
If drugs are located, police are directed to create a COPS event containing a ‘Powers — Person Search’ (or ‘Vehicle
Search’) incident with further classification ‘Item/Object Found’. Police are also advised that ‘[t]here is no need to
create an incident for drug detection, as this is covered by the “person search” incident.’ 231
If drugs are not located, police are directed to create a COPS event containing a ‘Powers — Person Search’
(or ‘Vehicle Search’) incident with a further classification ‘Item/Object Not Found’. 232
In addition, police are directed to enter details of the drug dog team (the handler’s police registration number and
the name of the drug detection dog) in the ‘Search Details’ section.
4.4.1. Examination of recording practices
We examined all search records on COPS made by police as a result of operations. 233 We found that police
generally recorded searches appropriately.
However, for one operation, we discovered some concerning recording practices. Of the 35 events recorded on
COPS for this operation, almost two-thirds (22 of 35) contained an incident category ‘Actual Drug Detection’ with a
further classification ‘Other Drug Detection/Seizure Offence’ in circumstances where no drugs were seized and no
drug offence detected. A closer examination of these 22 events revealed:
• Six events where the person/s made some admission of prior drug use (smoking cannabis) or being around
or near others in possession of, or using prohibited drugs. 234
• Nine events where the person/s made no admissions of prior drug use or contact 235 — the event narrative
usually stated:
The [person of interest] denied being near or consuming any illegal drugs.
• Six events with no reference to any admissions of prior drug use or contact where the narrative suggests that
the person/s may have had previous drug contact 236 — the event narrative usually contained the statement:
It appears that [name of person] may have had residue from an illegal substance.
• One event with no narrative which appears to be incomplete. 237
• All 22 events were checked by a Sergeant.
The following case studies illustrate the type of information police recorded in the event narratives.
Case study 6
No drugs located, admission of prior use 238
A drug detection dog indicated the presence of a scent of a prohibited drug while screening a 24-year-old
male motorcyclist. The COPS event narrative, with an incident category of ‘Actual Drug Detection’, states:
The [person of interest] was cautioned and then asked several questions. The [person of interest] informed
police that he had been smoking cannabis the previous night. A search of the [person of interest] was
conducted however nil illegal drugs were located. [The person of interest] was allowed to leave the location.
Nil offences detected.
NSW Ombudsman
Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Trial) Act 2003
45