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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

62 Downloads (Pure)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number104223
Number of pages9
JournalInternational Journal of Drug Policy
Volume122
Early online date14 Oct 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2023

Keywords

  • Drug detection dogs
  • Drug policing
  • Harm reduction
  • Police
  • Stop and search

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparing police use of drug detection dogs amongst injecting and non-injecting groups of people who regularly use drugs in Australia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this