The Greens Say Get Rid Of Sniffer Dogs

[samoyedman]

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/barely-a-sniff-of-trouble-so-greens-say-its-time-to-call-off-the-dogs-20110708-1h6sv.html

POLICE sniffer dogs are only identifying drugs or weapons in a small minority of searches in which they are used.

Government figures supplied to the Greens in response to questions on notice show that last year sniffer dogs were involved in 551 searches for firearms or explosives, which identified only five positive cases.

Of the 15,779 searches for illegal drugs, 5087 identified them.

A NSW Greens MP, David Shoebridge, who obtained the figures from the state government, said sniffer dogs had been a ''clear failure'' and ''should be stopped immediately''.

''These figures prove that sniffer dogs are a waste of police resources and the government must commit to an immediate review of their use,'' Mr Shoebridge said.

''When intrusive weapons searches using sniffer dogs have a failure rating of more than 99 per cent, they are more [of] a hindrance to policing than a help.

''In more than two thirds of drug searches involving sniffer dogs, the police are finding no drugs at all.''

Mr Shoebridge said the police drug detection dog unit, consisting of 14 dogs, cost $868,037.39 in the 2002-03 financial year.

''If we assume the same costs applied in the 2003-04 financial year, then each successful supply prosecution in this period cost over $90,000 in drug detection dog costs. Most of these were for small amounts of drugs,'' Mr Shoebridge said. He said he was concerned that police may be subject to civil claims for the intrusive searches ''when the basis on which they are undertaking them is so statistically poor''.

''This has meant that thousands of NSW citizens, mainly young people out enjoying themselves, have been subject to police searches with little legitimate basis,'' he said.

The secretary for the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Stephen Blanks, said the use of sniffer dogs infringed people's civil liberties and could only be justified if they resulted in a high rate of successful detections.

Don Weatherburn, the director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, said the high number of searches relative to detections was not an indication of failure in the context of deterrence.

''The question is how many people would carry drugs if not for sniffer dogs,'' Dr Weatherburn said.

''We don't have any statistics on that.''

The president of the NSW Police Association, Scott Weber, said the police dogs were an ''extremely valuable resource'' in preventing crime.

''They stop people taking drugs into large venues such as the Big Day Out,'' Mr Weber said. ''It is hard to get tangible results of that success.

''Even if they detected one firearm or detected one drug dealer, that is protecting the community and saving lives.

''The cost of losing one life is worth more than the cost of having a sniffer dog.''

Detective Inspector Chris Condon from the NSW Police dog unit said the number of drug dog searches included all search warrants, property, motor vehicle and personal searches.

The number of firearms and explosive searches also includes all search warrants as well as hotel and other building and property clearances. He said the detection dogs were ''extremely accurate - approaching 100 per cent accuracy''.

''In the case of firearms and explosive searches, there have been no false positives,'' Detective Inspector Condon said.

''In the case of drugs, the animals even have the ability to detect the residue of prohibited drugs on people who have previously been in possession of them.

''The dogs have a strong deterrence factor: they not only lead to the seizure of drugs from dealers and users, but people also dump their drugs when they see the dogs.''

[Skitch]

I've known 9 people who have been busted by sniffer dogs. All of them were at music festivals (Big Day Out and Soundwave).. going by that, they cant be a COMPLETE failure!

[WreckitWhippet]

So what % of people that were searched by a sniffer dog, actually had drugs on their person ? and the dogs failed to find them ?

[Sue]

So what % of people that were searched by a sniffer dog, actually had drugs on their person ? and the dogs failed to find them ?

That's the same question that came to my mind.

[WreckitWhippet]

So what % of people that were searched by a sniffer dog, actually had drugs on their person ? and the dogs failed to find them ?

That's the same question that came to my mind.

The dogs could have a great strike rate

[Evolving]

I would have thought that 32% of people searched for illegal drugs being found to be carrying them is a very good for the dogs. How many people carry drugs around on them to be found in the first place?

On the explosives/gun detection I would not be that upset either as I am happy that the dogs are not finding then in the first place.

[Mags]

I would have thought that 32% of people searched for illegal drugs being found to be carrying them is a very good for the dogs. How many people carry drugs around on them to be found in the first place?

On the explosives/gun detection I would not be that upset either as I am happy that the dogs are not finding then in the first place.

Totally agree with what is said here. A 32% hit rate for drugs is concerning I would have thought and a reason to continue the dogs use - not a reason to stop them. And whilst finding 5 in 551 searches positive is a low perscentage it really concerns me that they found 5!!! As a tax payer I am more than happy to fund there continued use with these results - I can only imagine the cost if we had to use officers to do these searchs especially if they were to be as effective. Much happier in fact than I am at funding three levels of government. Perhaps Mr Shoebridge would like to justify his position in $$$$ terms as I certainly can't see value for $$$'s spent in local/state/federal parliament.

[aussielover]

Hard to say what the exact success rate is if they don't know the percentage of people carrying drugs in the first place.

[RottnBullies]

''In more than two thirds of drug searches involving sniffer dogs, the police are finding no drugs at all.''

The dogs pick up on residual odour as well, so while they may not have anything on them while searched, they more than likely been In contact with It.

The secretary for the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Stephen Blanks, said the use of sniffer dogs infringed people's civil liberties and could only be justified if they resulted in a high rate of successful detections.

IMO Bit In bold, Is what it's all about, not the rate of successful detections

''Even if they detected one firearm or detected one drug dealer, that is protecting the community and saving lives.

Absolutely!

''The dogs have a strong deterrence factor: they not only lead to the seizure of drugs from dealers and users, but people also dump their drugs when they see the dogs.''

Yes and Yes

[Christina]

They may have only found 5 in the 551 searches because there were only 5 to find.

I also believe sniffer dogs deter people or make them give themselves away by worrying about the dogs being around.

As for them infringing peoples civil liberty what right do people have to carry drugs, explosives & weapons around ?

What about the rest of us having civil liberty & the right to be protected against this kind of thing ?

I think they should get more use out of the sniffer dogs & use them to search school lockers & patrol the playgrounds. Walking them outside shopping centres & in the parts the youths hang out in gangs would be good too. More use of all dogs in the police as well.

I can't imagine them still doing their drug deals in the car parks if they were patrolled by some nice beagle sniffer dogs & some lovely huge german shepherd police dogs. In my dreams.

[espinay2]

Lets see....would I rather be searched by a sniffer dog, or subject to a pat down (or more 'thorough' search by a human). I wonder which one infringes 'civil liberties' more? ;)

As stated, without knowing the number that the dogs failed to detect the argument really is moot as there is no way of knowing the exact success rate. That they are actually detecting these substances though means they are successful.

[GeckoTree]

The greens, or a numpty in the greens?

Their is a lot of non cost effective deterrents within all services. Doesn't mean they don't have a place.

[Cody]

Government figures supplied to the Greens in response to questions on notice show that last year sniffer dogs were involved in 551 searches for firearms or explosives, which identified only five positive cases.

Of the 15,779 searches for illegal drugs, 5087 identified them.

How is that a fail? Fail would be if no-one was caught.

This moron has his head in the clouds.

[Sasby]

espinay2, I totally agree with you, I, for one, would much rather have a dog sniff me for a second then have a police officer tell me to empty out my pockets and open my handbag (or luggage if I am at the airport) just on the inkling that I might have something illegal on me. And the sniffer dogs even make me think twice as to whether I have any food in my bag when I am travelling interstate. I think this guy needs to focus on some bigger issues.

[Atanquin]

That is so silly maybe they don't find drugs because ppl don't have them? They didn't mention how many ppl had been found with drugs that the dogs didn't detect?

[GeckoTree]

Better a dog having a quick sniff of a a crotch than a pat down grab fest.. Civil libertarians

I'm all for civil liberties, but some things just stretch reason.

[Tapua]

Ah I hate politicians - after working in the areas of drug and alcohol for the last 6 years the first thing many dealers do when they see a cop with a sniffer dog is ditch the drugs. Hense you will find more drugs on the ground when there are dogs as a 'Big Day Out' or a Night Club or pub than in peoples pockets. Secondly the dogs are an active deterant and surely that is better than no deterant at all. I think the dogs rock and I fully support the sniffer dogs.

My baby boy Police Dog Merlin Served 1999-2004 NSW Police

Edited July 11, 2011 by Tapua

[mita]

Hard to say what the exact success rate is if they don't know the percentage of people carrying drugs in the first place.

Yes.

As Christina's added, too, there may have only been 5 to find. Good point, Tapua....they're not considering how quickly drugs can be discarded.

Surely, there'd be controlled testing over a sniffer dog's career to monitor performance level.

BTW Merlin is gorgeous.

Edited July 10, 2011 by mita

[m-j]

So....... they replace the one dog that can search x amount of people in a lot faster time than several police officers, who need somewhere to go to do a thorough search. Dogs can find drugs that have been swallowed, which humans can't without the aid of expensive machinery, how is that cost saving .

The US army spent $9,000,000 developing a device to detect bombs to replace the dog only to find dogs are still far more successful :D

I with those who would rather have a dog sniff them, than be subjected to a human search.

[sandgrubber]

email sent to [email protected]

You might want to look at the negative reaction to your policy on sniffer dogs.

See:

http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/223357-the-greens-say-get-rid-of-sniffer-dogs/

key points

* the statistics provided may show a good 'find' rate

* most people would rather have a quick sniff over by a dog than have a policeman have them turn out their pockets, ramsack their house, search their car, etc.

* you need to compare success of humans without dogs to success of humans working with dogs to do a fair analysis.

I'd encourage people to send email to shoebridge as well as posting . . . no point preaching to the choir.

[i'm one of those people who would like to be green, and it bugs the hell out of me to see Green representatives taking idiotic stances. The environment needs protection. I wish these idiots would do a better job on their core mission and stop playing footsie with the animal rights crowd.]