Review of the Police Powers (Drug Premises) Act 2001 - NSW ...

(e) evidence that there was found on the premises, or in the possession of a person on the premises, a firearm or prohibited
weapon the possession of which is unlawful,
(f)
evidence that there was found on those premises any documents or other records, including computer records, that appear
to have been kept or used in connection with the unlawful supply or manufacture of a prohibited drug,
(g) evidence that there was found on the premises any large amount of money that is not accounted for by the owner or
occupier of the premises,
(h) evidence that there were found on those premises persons who appeared to be affected by a prohibited drug.
It is important to note that while certain features, such as fortifications, are commonly noted in police descriptions of drug premises, the
Act does not stipulate that drug premises must show evidence of fortifications or of any other particular characteristic.
Regard may also be had to other evidence in determining if premises are being used for drug manufacture or supply, such as a series of
undercover drug buys conducted by police or evidence of people coming and going from the premises.
NSW Police has advised us that the following indicia were most commonly used to define drug premises:
• fortification of premises such as the presence of steel doors and barred windows
• regular attendance at the premises by known drug users
• the number of drug affected people in the vicinity
• occupancy by a high risk offender
• number of nearby arrests for possession of drugs
• presence of syringes in the vicinity and
• ability to use evidence provided by members of the public. 261
Some of the above characteristics are indicia in the Act, and others, such as regular attendance at the premises by known drug users,
information from the public and occupancy of the premises by a “high risk offender”, are not.
A submission to our discussion paper from a LAC in Northern Region listed the indicia most commonly used by police in that area to
determine whether to apply for a search warrant under the Act. Evidence such as constant human traffic to and from premises, and the
presence of fortifications also figured strongly for these police:
The indicia used to determine whether or not a search warrant will be applied for under the conditions of the act are: community
information about drug dealing from the location; Police observations of traffic to and from the location; Police observations
of known drug dealers and users frequenting the location; blacked out windows, security devices and other indications that a
premises is fortified to a degree beyond that typical of legitimate premises of this nature in that area; and drug paraphernalia (used
syringes etc) left around and near the premises. 262
There is no compelling evidence emerging from this review that any of the indicia that may be used to define drug premises is
inappropriate, or that any particular indicia should be removed from the Act.
Specific concerns were raised in submissions to our discussion paper and elsewhere about indicia such as fortifications, syringes and the
presence of drug affected people. However, we did not find evidence that the use of any of these indicia had operated unfairly. It is clear
that user/dealers were charged and convicted under this Act, so items such as syringes that were found on drug premises may equally
have been an indicator of their drug use, as of drug supply. However, we did not find any evidence that syringes alone, or in combination
with another factor like the presence of drug affected people, had been successfully used to prove that premises were drug premises. It is
unlikely that a prosecution that relied on these facts alone would be successful.
Our research findings strongly suggest that evidence of people coming and going from premises, and staying for a short period of time,
is a common characteristic of drug premises. In particular, it is a common indicator in applications for drug premises search warrants.
Therefore, we recommend that Parliament consider the inclusion of this as indicia of drug premises in section 11 of the Act.
It is noted that this indicia is included in legislation relating to drug premises in the Northern Territory. This Act stipulates that excessive,
frequent or suspicious vehicular or pedestrian traffic to or from the premises may be an indicator of drug premises. 263
261 Submission, NSW Police, received 12 August 2003.
262 Submission, Northern Region LAC, received 30 July 2003.
263 Misuse of Drugs Act (NT) s.11C(1).
54
NSW Ombudsman
Review of the Police Powers (Drug Premises) Act 2001