Sniffer Dog Checks Bite Into Our Civil Liberties

[User]

One day last month I arrived at Camden Town tube station, north London, on my way to attend meetings about developing some new drug treatment initiatives. At the top of the escalators, I found the way barred by a number of police officers and a dog. I strode past them, only to hear the dog bark loudly.

I was approached by two officers and informed that I had been selected for a search by the dog. As if trying to elicit, without caution, some sort of confession from me, I was asked if I was aware of any reason why the dog should have selected me. I replied: "No more reason than if he'd selected you."

Although tempted to refuse to be searched and see what would follow, I consented as I had meetings scheduled. I was then ushered into the stairwell, where many searches were taking place. I observed the legs of a man sticking out from behind a corner - they were thrashing as if he was having some sort of seizure. I mentioned this to the two officers and they said it was being taken care of. I was patted down and my pockets were emptied; they contained nothing illegal. They did, however, contain a wallet, credit cards, driving licence and car keys - the insignia of respectability.

With the search coming to an end, the male officer observed to his colleague that there was no need to do a PNC on me. The term refers to a check of the Police National Computer, on which criminal records are stored.

When I asked, they confirmed that they were looking for small amounts of cannabis. I counted at least 12 police officers inside the station and there were more outside. I asked how long the operation (code name Perish) was to go on for, and was told about five or six hours.

These on-the-spot checks are becoming a familiar tactic to those of us who use the capital's public transport system, but its encroachment on our receding civil liberties is considerable. For one thing, the technique of placing a sniffer dog at the top of an escalator constitutes "funnelling", and is contrary to the Association of Chief Police Officers' dog training guidelines.

These guidelines are the only source of information regarding the use of sniffer dogs. There is no legislation that allows the use of such dogs, and parliament has never debated the validity of such techniques. It is largely an unregulated area of police detection. Release, in conjunction with Amber Marks, author of Headspace: On the Trail of Sniffer Dogs, will soon be publishing detection cards, advising people of their rights in such encounters.

When I returned to the office, I telephoned Marks to ask her if it could have been the packet of black peppercorns in my pocket that triggered the dog's reaction. "Don't make the mistake of assuming there is any good reason for the dog's indication," she told me. In Australia, 74% of people searched as a result of dog indications are found not to have any drugs on them.

More broadly, one must call into question the point of exercises such as this. Is this an effective use of 12-15 police officers for half a day? Or is it an easy way of meeting performance targets?

Big dealers are unlikely to use public transport. Even the local small-time cannabis dealers in Camden must surely be aware of these operations. The objective may be to prevent drug use, but the drug trade is resilient to such measures. The real casualty is our freedom to go about our business in the city without unwarranted harassment.

News Hawk: User: http://www.420magazine.com/
Source: Guardian
Copyright: 2008 Guardian News and Media Limited
Contact: the Guardian
Website: Sniffer dog checks bite into our civil liberties

[Jimbo]

What's next? Fingers up your ass? These people need to get a life and go after the real threats to society!!!

[Johnny]

Is this an effective use of 12-15 police officers for half a day?

That's exactly the problem... while those 12 to 15 police officers were searching for a little bit of pot, who knows what crimes were going on? There could have been some type of major crime in progress.

What happens when the dispatcher calls and says, "There's a bank robbery in progress... get as many officers as you can to this address A.S.A.P."? What is the voice on the other end going to say? "Well... 15 of us are out looking for marijuana, but Jerry, Carl, and I can come."

Obviously that's an overexaggeration, but still... that is an extreme waste of time and officers. If you're going to do it at all, why not send maybe 4 or 5 officers? I mean, is it really necessary to use 12 to 15?

Also, there was actually quite a legal battle going on in Canada over drug-sniffing dogs violating our civil rights. It may still be going on, but I'm can't really remember. It's been awhile since I've heard anything about it.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

What's next? Fingers up your ass? These people need to get a life and go after the real threats to society!!!

That's actually been routine for awhile under some circumstances, Jimbo.

For instance, if you're travelling from one country to another, when you cross the border, if the officials suspect you of any crime, they can pull you over and perform a full-body cavity search on you. They did it to my grandmother years ago when she was going to visit family in the U.S. And this was in the 60s or 70s. Now it's worse because of all of the terrorist incidents within the last while. Security is extremely tight at borders, and when you cross, it seems as if you are pretty much forfeiting your rights.