Sniffer dogs get it wrong four out of five times

Anna Patty | SMH | December 12, 2011



Police say ''accurate'' … a sniffer dog at a festival. Photo: Dean Sewell

A RECORD 80 per cent of sniffer dog searches for drugs resulted in ''false positives'' this year, figures show.

The figures obtained from the state government in response to parliamentary questions on notice show 14,102 searches were conducted after a dog sat next to a person, indicating they might be carrying drugs. But, in 11,248 cases, no drugs were found.

Only 2854 searches - 20 per cent - in the first nine months of this year, resulted in drugs being found, the figures show.

Last year, of the 15,779 searches conducted after police-dog identification, no drugs were found in 11,694 cases. Drugs were found in 4085 cases, resulting in a ''false positive'' rate of 74 per cent, said the Greens MP David Shoebridge, who obtained the figures.

Matthew Pels, 22, of Erskineville, a hospitality student, said he was one of the thousands searched in a public place and found not to be carrying drugs.

Mr Pels said a police dog sat next to him at Redfern station before he underwent a search about six months ago. When his pockets were emptied, a packet of dog treats was found.

''The whole thing was unnecessary,'' he said. ''I think it was a violation of my privacy.''

Mr Shoebridge said the figures showed thousands of innocent people were being ''ritually humiliated'' publicly.

''No test which has an 80 per cent error rate could be considered a reasonable basis on which to conduct an intrusive public search of a citizen going about their daily business,'' Mr Shoebridge said.

''Now that we know the error rate is so high, the program needs to be halted. Because of where they operate, police sniffer dogs tend to target young people and Aborigines. If this was happening in the car parks of merchant banks, there would be outrage.''

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

But police strongly defend the use of the dogs, saying they are reliable and can detect remaining traces of drugs on people, even after they have been disposed of.

Inspector Chris Condon of the NSW Police dog unit said the detection dogs were extremely accurate, adding that more than ''80 per cent of indications by the dogs result in either drugs being located or the person admitting recent contact with illegal drugs.

''Any suggestion otherwise is incorrect,'' Inspector Condon said. ''Drug-detection dogs are an important facet of the overall harm-minimisation strategy of the NSW Police Force. Drug-detection dogs are an extremely effective deterrent to persons transporting drugs for the purpose of supply.''

The NSW Police Association supports the dogs' use. Its president, Scott Weber, has said they have been valuable deterrents at events such as The Big Day Out.

A spokesman for the NSW Police Minister, Mike Gallacher, said the government fully supported the use of dogs because police had found them effective.

Don Weatherburn, the director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, has said the high number of searches relative to detections is not an indication of failure. ''The question is how many people would carry drugs if not for sniffer dogs,'' Dr Weatherburn said.

Barely a sniff of trouble, so Greens say it's time to call off the dogs

Anna Patty | SMH | 9 July 2011

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.''