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

… the nature of the legislation and associated [policies and procedures] continue to restrict the ability of police
to adopt a roving and proactive approach to vehicle drug detections. … despite the introduction of a new
operational power to remove and re-establish a check point … traffic control and OH&S requirements make it
impractical to pack up and move to a new location. 302
This view was echoed by a senior officer we interviewed:
… as far as moving the whole [check point] within that area, it wasn’t an option, we just weren’t going to do that
… [because it would take] half an hour to pack up and then reset somewhere else …especially with the strict
policy in how we operate these [operations], it’s just not practical to move around.. 303
In addition, the NSW Police Force noted: 304
and:
Despite the increase in size of search areas [from 1 km 2 to 5 km 2 ] and number of allowed check points,
flexibility and mobility of operations is limited by the significant human and other resources required to
conduct these operations …
Also, costs continue to be a factor in determining the scope and frequency of [drug detection trial] operations,
particularly those associated with securing the assistance of dog teams in remote areas.
The opportunities presented by flexible and mobile deployments are generally limited, not only by the
requirement to mobilise significant numbers of police and equipment, but by the availability of drug
detection dogs. This is particularly so in remote areas. 305
The NSW Police Force made the following comments when asked whether the legislative changes made
operations less predictable and more difficult to evade: 306
… the changes have made the conduct of operations less predictable in that there may be numerous
state-wide locations which are the subject of an operation.
However, legislative and other requirements and the use of large static locations [which are impractical
to re-locate] make it inevitable that police activities will become readily known, even being published on
commercial radio stations. Presently indictable quantities of drugs being targeted are not being detected,
despite intelligence holdings that particular transport routes are being used for the transport of such drugs.
It may be reasonably deduced that persons transporting indictable quantities of drugs are successfully
evading [drug detection trial] operations.
In addition, the NSW Police Force suggested that heavy vehicles could easily avoid operations by stopping and
waiting for the operation to finish, or taking an alternate route. 307
In relation to the increase in the size of search areas and the number of check points permitted, the NSW Police
Force advised that the changes have had ‘little impact’ on the planning and execution of operations:
… due to the existing obligations to comply with the policies and procedures relating to traffic control and
OH&S and other safety requirements. The significant resources involved in planning, setting up and managing
a static site can preclude the expansion of [drug detection trial] operations beyond a sole static site. 308
The NSW Police Force did acknowledge that:
… the ability to establish more than one check point … created opportunities for police to counter driver
avoidance tactics by establishing a presence at locations where vehicles congregate in an attempt to ‘wait out’
[drug detection trial] operations. However, this course of action is similarly dependent upon the availability of
human and other resources and an ability to predict the locations to which vehicles will be diverted. 309
In relation to the removal of the signage requirement at check points, the NSW Police Force advised this change
‘appears to have had minimal impact on the conduct of operations’. The NSW Police Force observed that signage
may still be required in order to comply with occupational health and safety obligations and the new legislative
requirement (in section 10(2) of the Drug Detection Trial Act) that police take adequate measures to ensure the safety
of persons and vehicles approaching the check point. 310
The NSW Police Force also identified some of the positive effects of the changes. For example, police noted that the
change from obtaining a warrant from a Supreme Court judge to conduct a drug detection operation to obtaining an
authorisation from a NSW Police Force designated officer appears to be beneficial:
Apart from the ease in accessing [a designated officer], police now also have the opportunity to discuss
issues in the planning stage with that officer and discrepancies and oversights can now be corrected before
60
NSW Ombudsman
Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Trial) Act 2003