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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

They’re not too bad — but it was scary for the little one — he’s six. 439 Some respondents (10) made negative comments: It’s your property, you should be able to say no. It’s degrading. 440 Ridiculous, appalling. 441 There’s a lot more serious crime that needs to be targeted. Going for large quantities is good. It should be different — there were at least 15 officers there all day being paid — there’s lot’s more serious stuff for them to do — it’s stupid, a waste of resources and time. 442 Invasion of privacy, I’m not totally for the powers. What if you’re off to somewhere — it’s inconvenient and invasive. 443 I understand that they have to do things but it’s not right pulling everyone over. 444 Some respondents (6) were more positive: Good — great — should be more of it. 445 Got to be done — I understand that. 446 Good thing given the crap that’s getting around — like ice, truckies with amphetamines — I am concerned about it. The execution of the powers could save people. 447 How police treated participants Most participants (21) reported that police treated them well: Police conducted themselves very well; they were very nice, friendly and explained the powers. 448 Police were good, treated me well, no conflict, no drama. 449 Happy with police, they asked before going through anything. 450 Other participants’ responses were mixed (7 comments): Pretty good. Maybe one or two tagged me as being guilty already because the dog sat next to me. 451 One officer was very good; one was a bit in your face. 452 All right — one joked with me, another was an arsehole to me and my mate. 453 A few were solely negative about their experience with police: Police were pretty rude. It’s like power goes straight to their heads. I was treated like a criminal. 454 They treated me like I was a liar. They treated my property disrespectfully — spread it out and left it all over the place. 455 5.7.3.5. Case studies The following two case studies illustrate some of the unintended or unexpected impacts of being stopped and searched by police during drug detection operations. Case study 13 Stopped and searched in community where business located 456 A local businessman reported being detained for approximately one to one and a half hours. He commented that his vehicle stands out as he uses it to promote his business. The man and his vehicle were searched on the main highway into and out of town. He said that his vehicle was expensive and that the bumper had been scratched and a hole made in a leather seat by the drug detection dog. The man said he had a number of confidential business documents in the vehicle and police searched where the documents were kept. He was concerned about the confidentiality of his clients being breached, how being detained in a very public place would be perceived by current and potential clients, and how this would impact on his business. He said that he received 25 phone calls from clients and friends asking what was going on. NSW Ombudsman Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Trial) Act 2003 77
Case study 14 Delayed by search 457 A 25-year-old man was on his way to a job interview when he was detained. He told us that a friend was driving him to the interview when they were pulled into the check point. They were detained for about 40 minutes and the vehicle, passengers and driver were searched. No drugs were seized. As a result of being detained the man was late for the job interview. He said he felt he couldn’t tell the prospective employers why he was late and instead told them that he had car trouble. He didn’t get the job and didn’t know if the reason was his lateness for the interview. 5.7.4. Additional policing activities during operations In addition to screening vehicles with a drug detection dog, police conducted a range of other activities during drug detection operations. For example, police regularly conducted random breath testing as well as licence, registration, log-book and heavy vehicle compliance checking. As noted above (at paragraph 3.4.2), police laid at least 12 drink driving charges and issued in excess of 110 traffic infringement notices. A number of other non drug-related offences were also detected during operations. One senior officer we interviewed noted: I think if [drug detection operations] don’t do anything else it certainly shows that the NSW Police Force are out and about and they’ve got these massive operations going and they go ‘What’s going on here?’. … [However], you can do that without this legislation, you can show there’s 100 police doing roadside breath tests. 458 The NSW Police Force noted the following: 459 A number of non-indictable drug offences, including traffic infringements, minor drug possessions, cannabis cautions and intelligence reports, have also been detected/generated during [drug detection trial] operations. And any large-scale operations have the potential for reducing road trauma due to a visible police presence. Whilst the true measure of this specific legislation is the identification and removal from the road of vehicles carrying indictable quantity of prohibited drugs/plants, the inclusion of other benefits, including those described above, in any discussion of the overall effectiveness of these operations enhances their perceived success. However, it is noted that these additional benefits may just as well as have been derived from non-[drug detection trial] related operations. There is little doubt that any police activity has the potential to detect offences unrelated to the primary purpose of the operation. However, as the NSW Police Force observed, the unplanned peripheral benefits achieved during drug detection trial operations could also have been achieved during other operations, which would have been cheaper and far less resource intensive to conduct. In addition, high visibility policing activities during drug detection operations have the potential to adversely impact on the primary purpose of the operation given the fact that generally well-organised and sophisticated drug couriers may take evasive action upon seeing or hearing about a highly visible operation (see paragraphs 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 above). In our view, while noteworthy, the peripheral benefits associated with drug detection operations should be afforded little or no weight in any assessment of extensively planned, cost and resource intensive operations aimed at detecting persons involved in the trafficking of indictable quantities of prohibited drugs given that these benefits could just as easily have been achieved by police conducting ordinary duties such as patrolling highways. For example, during one mobile operation, conducted over two nights involving 19 police officers and two drug detection dogs at a total cost in excess of $10,000, police did not seize any prohibited drugs. However, police did detect two persons drink driving and issued two traffic infringement notices. It is arguable that a highway patrol officer, deployed for the same period of time in the same location may well have achieved the same result without the attendant cost and resource impost. That it to say, it is usually a matter of good luck, rather than detailed planning and execution, that persons were detected committing drink driving and traffic offences during drug detection operations. 78 NSW Ombudsman Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Trial) Act 2003
Page 1 and 2:
Review of the Police Powers (Drug D
Page 3 and 4:
Any correspondence relating to this
Page 5 and 6:
2 June 2008 Level 24 580 George Str
Page 7 and 8:
Foreword The vehicular trafficking
Page 9 and 10:
Chapter 4. Issues identified during
Page 11 and 12:
or is to be, used on a regular basi
Page 13 and 14:
Issues identified during the drug d
Page 15 and 16:
Conclusion A critical examination o
Page 17 and 18:
viii NSW Ombudsman Review of the Po
Page 19 and 20:
The bill proposed a number of chang
Page 21 and 22:
4 NSW Ombudsman Review of the Polic
Page 23 and 24:
In addition, if the authorisation i
Page 25 and 26:
2.1.9. Reporting and record keeping
Page 27 and 28:
If the drug detection dog indicates
Page 29 and 30:
41 Police Powers (Drug Detection Tr
Page 31 and 32:
3.2. Number of vehicles and persons
Page 33 and 34:
Table 3 details drugs seized, legal
Page 35 and 36:
Local area command/s where operatio
Page 37 and 38:
One person was charged with resist/
Page 39 and 40:
In addition, a driver of a Pantec t
Page 41 and 42:
118 Pursuant to s.12 of the Crimes
Page 43 and 44: Getting an authorisation is a lengt
Page 45 and 46: (b) the likelihood of success of th
Page 47 and 48: Case study 1 Grant of authorisation
Page 49 and 50: 4.1.5. Capacity of designated offic
Page 51 and 52: The officer will then stop each veh
Page 53 and 54: mindful to ensure that they do not
Page 55 and 56: We raised this issue during the bor
Page 57 and 58: In circumstances where a person sea
Page 59 and 60: During pre-operational briefings Om
Page 61 and 62: In addition, boredom, motivation, f
Page 63 and 64: Case study 7 No drugs located, no a
Page 65 and 66: Case study 9 Persons searched withi
Page 67 and 68: 4.7.2. Police views A number of sen
Page 69 and 70: However, the NSW Police Force noted
Page 71 and 72: 203 See paragraph 12.4 ‘Requestin
Page 73 and 74: 56 NSW Ombudsman Review of the Poli
Page 75 and 76: • One or more drugs were located
Page 77 and 78: … the nature of the legislation a
Page 79 and 80: We also got some specific [intellig
Page 81 and 82: I think that was something that rea
Page 83 and 84: … if they’re serious about the
Page 85 and 86: This view was echoed by officers co
Page 87 and 88: We raised the issue of regional sta
Page 89 and 90: Table 4. Operational costs Operatio
Page 91 and 92: 5.7.2. Community support 5.7.2.1. P
Page 93: According to survey participants, t
Page 97 and 98: … a reduction in costs and resour
Page 99 and 100: Case study 17 Police seize $875,000
Page 101 and 102: 366 Interview A transcript, pp.18-1
Page 103 and 104: 86 NSW Ombudsman Review of the Poli
Page 105 and 106: There are also a number of seemingl
Page 107 and 108: Appendix 1. Memorandum of Understan
Page 109 and 110: MOU between NSW Police and the Ombu
Page 119 and 120: Other information requirements
Page 121 and 122: Appendix 4. Sample of an authorisat
Page 123 and 124: 106 NSW Ombudsman Review of the Pol
Page 125 and 126: Appendix 6. Telephone survey tool.
Page 127 and 128: Acknowledgments This report was res
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?