Comparing police use of drug detection dogs amongst injecting and non-injecting groups of people who regularly use drugs in Australia

Daisy Gibbs; Cate King; Caitlin Hughes; Amy Peacock; Jodie Grigg; Wing See Yuen; Rachel Sutherland

doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104223

Comparing police use of drug detection dogs amongst injecting and non-injecting groups of people who regularly use drugs in Australia

Int J Drug Policy. 2023 Dec:122:104223. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104223. Epub 2023 Oct 14.

Authors

Daisy Gibbs¹, Cate King², Caitlin Hughes³, Amy Peacock⁴, Jodie Grigg⁵, Wing See Yuen², Rachel Sutherland²

Affiliations

¹ National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: daisy.gibbs@unsw.edu.au.
² National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW, Sydney, Australia.
³ College of Business, Government, and Law, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
⁴ National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW, Sydney, Australia; School of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
⁵ National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.

PMID: 37844521
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104223

Abstract

Introduction: Drug detection dogs are utilised across multiple settings, however existing literature focuses predominantly on festival-based encounters. We compare drug dog encounters in non-festival settings among two samples of people who regularly use drugs, and investigate factors associated with witness only versus stop and/or search encounters.

Methods: Australians who regularly (i.e., ≥monthly) use ecstasy and/or other illegal stimulants (n = 777; Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS)) or inject illegal drugs (n = 862; Illicit Drugs Reporting System (IDRS)) were surveyed between April-June, 2019. Univariable regression analyses were used to test for differences in drug dog encounters between samples, and to identify factors associated with a more intensive drug dog encounter (namely those that involved a stop and/or search).

Results: People who inject drugs were less likely to witness drug dogs than those who regularly use ecstasy and/or other illegal stimulants (odds ratio (OR) 0.46; 95 % CI 0.30-0.69). They were significantly more likely than EDRS participants to report being stopped and searched (3.29; 1.68-6.44) however. Among those carrying drugs at their last stop and/or search encounter, the majority of both samples reported that their drugs were not detected by police. IDRS participants aged 35-49 were more likely to report a stop and/or search encounter than those aged 17-34; no significant associations were found among the EDRS sample.

Conclusions: Despite participants who use ecstasy and/other stimulants being more likely than those who regularly inject drugs to report encountering drug dogs in non-festival settings, participants who inject drugs were more likely to report an intensive or invasive drug dog encounter and/or receiving a formal criminal justice consequence. This study reinforces questions about the efficacy and appropriateness of drug dog operations.

Keywords: Drug detection dogs; Drug policing; Harm reduction; Police; Stop and search.

MeSH terms

Animals
Australia / epidemiology
Criminal Law* / legislation & jurisprudence
Dogs
Humans
Illicit Drugs*
N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine
Police
Substance Abuse, Intravenous* / diagnosis
Working Dogs*

Substances

Illicit Drugs
N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine

Supplementary concepts

Australians