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

For reasons that are not readily apparent, the above COPS event also contains the notation ‘Warning Given’.
Police also created a COPS event with the incident category ‘Actual Drug Detection’ after a 33-year-old male — who
had been searched with no drugs located — stated that he had not used cannabis or any other drug for many years
after having been charged previously. 244
Another example of inaccurate recording involved a 38-year-old female patron of licensed premises. The COPS
event, with an incident category ‘Actual Drug Detection’ and further classification ‘Other Drug Detection/Seizure
Offence’, contains the following narrative: 245
The drug detection dog indicated upon the person of interest [name of person] [who] was subjected to a
search. Whilst no prohibited drugs or paraphernalia were found on the person of interest she did have in her
possession a great deal of literature related to prohibited drugs.
The exact nature of the literature referred to in the narrative is unclear. In addition, the event contains the notation
‘Warning Given’ although the reasons for this are also unclear.
Police also created a COPS event with the incident category ‘Actual Drug Detection’ in circumstances where they
believed a person was in possession of prohibited drugs but had an opportunity to dispose of the drugs before
being searched — see case study 2 above (at paragraph 4.2.1).
4.4.2. Impact of inaccurately recorded events
There are many cogent reasons for ensuring that the information recorded on COPS is sufficiently detailed and
accurate. The misleading recording practices identified above are concerning for three reasons. First, the information
in the COPS event narratives reveals that some police consider an indication by a drug detection dog, of itself, as
evidence that a person has been in possession of a prohibited drug despite the fact that on some occasions there
was no evidence or admissions on which to base such an inference or conclusion.
Second, the recording of misleading or inaccurate information on a person’s COPS record has the potential to
prejudice future police dealings with the person. For example, when police conduct radio checks on a person in the
field, police radio (VKG) operators might conduct a quick scan a person’s record and note the incident category
‘Actual Drug Detection’. If this information is relayed back to the officer in the field, without further elaboration of the
exact nature of the previous incident, the officer may decide to conduct a search of the person and/or their vehicle in
circumstances where they may ordinarily not have taken that course of action. 246
Third, we note that the NSW Police Force extracts from COPS the number of drug detection and person search
incidents for publication in their annual report. 247 For example, last year the NSW Police Force reported that there
were 20,210 drug detection incidents in their Annual Report for 2006–07. 248 Accordingly, the discrepancies noted
above cast some doubt on the accuracy of the figures used by police.
In our view, the NSW Police Force should take steps to correct the discrepancies identified above and implement
training and education aimed at ensuring information recorded on COPS for incidents involving drug detection dogs
adequately reflects the incident and any information gathered by police.
The NSW Police Force advised that the 22 incorrectly recorded events will be reviewed and amended to more
accurately reflect what occurred. In addition, the NSW Police Force will consider sending out a state-wide memo to
reinforce the correct recording policies and procedures for person and vehicle searches. 249
4.5. Privacy of searches
Section 13 of the Drug Detection Trial Act provides:
A police officer who exercises a function under an authorisation must ask for the person’s co-operation and
carry out the function:
(a) in a way that provides reasonable privacy for the person subject to the exercise of the function, and
(b) as quickly as is reasonably practicable.
The privacy of searches continued to be a challenge for police during the drug detection trial as demonstrated by the
following case study, which also raises issues about the protection of a person’s belongings during searching. 250
NSW Ombudsman
Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Trial) Act 2003
47