Police drug sniffer dogs target children - Lismore

[Jess Stone]

Police drug sniffer dogs target children

during school holidays - Lismore

by Jess Stone April 12,2007 DTS - Exclusive

 

First the NSW government gives us there latest teen anti-cannabis campaign , carrying tag lines such as "Pot. It mightn't kill you, but it could turn you into a dickhead"

,which is staggering in its stupidity ,and now I am informed by reliable sources that undercover police are patrolling the streets of the NSW far north town, Lismore deliberately targeting children during school holidays with sniffer dogs, supposedly randomly selecting their victims but sources inform DTS that children , homeless street people , aboriginals ,buskers but no grannies or cow cocky types nor business suited individuals but a clear case of profiling and racism on age&appearance&race .

 

DTS was under the impression that after Rusty Harris's victory in court against the invasive use of sniffer dogs at Byron Bay sorted this out and its illegal,only sniffing the air is legal no bodily contact ,and these sort of random street wandering to discriminate and racist-ly target certain individuals was illegal,what's going on here?

 

This is shameful and nothing more than discrimination,this apparently has occurred for 2 days now the 11th and 12th of April,I ask what sort of laws and what type of low calibre police would deliberately target school children on school holidays for invasive and from what I have been informed assault by sniffer dogs? It was reported to me, that my informant observed what appeared to be undercover police who encouraged the dog to jump up and make contact with a teenage boy with its front legs on his stomach whilst its rear legs remained on the ground,I was informed that the teenage boy bravely fought back the assault of the dog and managed to stomp on the dogs muzzle and make it yelp,hear hear lad,well done,the police then assaulted the teenager by pinning his arm behind his back,the boy had no drugs and they backed off and didn't attempt to charge him with assault of a police dog. This is cowardly and shameful,these so called brave police are nothing more than gutless,spineless fleabag girly-men,what sort of low-dog police officer goes after children for tiny amounts of mostly cannabis when they should be catching violent hardened real criminals,oh that's right these criminals might shoot back.It is disgusting that police resources ,our tax money is wasted on this shameful discrimination that ironically because of these 'flea-bags' and their dogs deliberate targeting of children meant that most resulted in no more than a caution.

 

DTS might make the journey to Lismore on Friday the 13th to record the events.

 

~~~~~~

 

Lismore be advised purely for educational reasons Cayenne pepper destroys sniffer dogs sense of smell permanately !

Edited April 12, 2007 by Jess Stone

[bufo marinus]

Grrr, you've pushed my buttons again Jess.

Just another reason to encourage me to have nothing to do with our police.

This is not how things should be.

Wtf are the police being told?

Targeting the general public is FUCKING FASCISM, what the hell is happening down there?

The police will lower their standing in the public eye even further with all this.

This is not how things should be.

[freddie]

This is disgusting. This should not be the role of police. Totally pointless. Another generation of kids who wont trust the police in the future.

 

Targeting the general public is FUCKING FASCISM

 

This country is heading down the path of fascism. Thanks Howard.

[mull]

Part of life we have to balance is only ever hearing one side of a story... normally its the prohibitionists side.

 

Just firstly have to wonder why the dog was set on the child?

 

If he was completely innocent and that was a sniffer dog, then that act is assault with a deadly weapon, etc etc. Someone should have got it on a phone cam or something, like normally happens now days. And great work fending off the dog to!

 

Along with the pepper, a better remedy is to get your kids a big dog of their own and have it with them at all times of leisure.

[jabez]

You know I always thought the reason this failed war on drugs is still going after all these years is america and there christian morals (which I can tell you from growing up with extremely religious parents are just as extreme as any muslim that is being witch hunted in the media at the moment ), but I was watching this documentary last night about the war on drugs in the US and it made it very clear to me what was going on.

 

Does anybody have any idea how much people are being thrown in to jail for drug related charges in the US and when they get 10 years they serve 10 years there is no parole ,at the moment from memory its 500,000 at any given time from 50,000 in the early eighties, you would think that it would be costing the US billions, right? Wrong, busting drug dealers and users in the US is big business.

 

Firstly I never knew this but the DEA is totally self funded, they are funded by the stuff they rob from drug dealers and USERS (kind of a invested interest I would think), whats even more interesting when the state police help the DEA make bust they actually get a share of it. Did you know under US federal law if a DEA busts you buying drugs (even a small amount) they then have the power to seize your car if you used it to purchase drugs any money you have jewelry, belt buckles, jackets, shoes even a gold tooth if they want, anything thats worth anything.

 

Now think about it if you could either spend days, weeks, months or even years trying to hunt down robbers rapist and murderers and then make nothing from them or you could just go to some poor area do a sweep and rob everyone you bust and put the procedes in to your own budget what do you think they would choose. They said this messed up story where the DEA got a tip that there where a FEW ganja plants growing on this ranch that was apparently worth millions, anyway the DEA bust in like house invaders no knocking just knock the door down this guy freaks out obviously thinking someones trying to rob him or rape his wife your something (as you fucking do when a gang of man come busting in your door, I no from experience) so this bloke grabs his rifle to try and defend hes house and they shoot him dead, no drugs where found on the property and what makes this story so disturbing is that the DEA got the ranch priced before they raided it.

 

This guy on the documentary said how america go and threaten and intimidate any other country that tries to soften its drug laws (which I don't think would shock anyone), He even used Australia as a example when we where going to start up fully legal shooting gallerys and the US sent some one straight down to say if you do it we will make you regret it!

 

So you can forget about any drug laws changing well bushs cheap little whore is in charge of our country!

 

Anyway sorry about the long bitch but it was a awesome documentary and it explains why the whole western world is eating up our very society, who would have thought its the money.

 

The documentary was dutch I think its in english with subtitles its called War.on.Drugs.-.Prison.Industrial.Complex.in.USA.(1999) I downloaded it at btjunkie I recommend that anyone who has any interest on the war on drugs downloads it, some real sad storys of destroyed lives.

[Jess Stone]

Well Mull the kid didn't get arrested nor cautioned so either there was no drugs or they never found them which if the later happened then legally my guess would be, no find=no drugs, so they were guilty of nothing either way,my informant spoke to the teen afterwards this is how it went down,the dog was not vicious nor aggressive but it was encouraged to jump up when the creeps were walking past the teen.

 

This story is a good'n Sniffer-dogs-of-little-value

 

This is a story from last year Police blitz targets Lismore ,Nimbin

 

or this shameful story from the USA

 

Flash Movie from DPA ~ 2 Years for selling one (1)joint for a seventeen (17) year old CHILD in USA ~Does Australia really want to follow the same WRONG path the USA is taking - yet again

Edited April 13, 2007 by Jess Stone

[Jess Stone]

Sniff but don't touch - search improper

ByMichael Pelly Legal ReporterJune 14, 2005

The court victory of a man convicted of possessing cannabis has left "improper" searches by police sniffer dogs at the mercy of judges.

 

Rusty Harris's conviction for possessing the drug was quashed by a District Court judge, James Black, who said his decision should not "unduly threaten social stability".

 

Mr Harris, 55, of Nimbin, was sitting in a cafe in Byron Bay when a police dog put its head under the table and made contact with Mr Harris's groin before sitting down next to him.

 

Mr Harris was convicted of possessing 26 grams of cannabis but appealed on the grounds that the evidence obtained during the search should have been excluded.

 

Mr Harris's lawyer, Steve Bolt, of the Lismore firm Bolt Findlay, argued the dog had made improper contact before the police officer formed a reasonable suspicion on which to base the search.

 

The judge said it was significant that Thor was trained and under control of a dog handler. For that reason contact could not be regarded as accidental.

So the police behaviour was "improper" but not unlawful. Under section 138 of the Evidence Act, the evidence could only be admitted at the court's discretion.

 

Mr Bolt said that in exercising that discretion, Judge Black "commented that although the court in no way condoned illicit drug use, he did not think social stability would be unduly threatened if the evidence in this case was excluded".

 

Mr Harris's appeal considered the law before 2001 legislation covering police powers in relation to sniffer dogs. The NSW Government rushed through the legislation soon after a magistrate excluded evidence obtained during the search of a man outside a Sydney nightclub.

 

The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal overturned the decision, saying sniffing the air did not constitute searching. But Justice Roger Giles said any intentional physical contact could be a battery, which would render any later search unlawful or improper - a point Judge Black followed.

 

Despite the 2001 law that legalised sniffer-dog searches at entertainment venues and along rail and bus routes, Mr Bolt believes the Harris case leaves any evidence that involves touching by a dog at the discretion of a judge.

 

"The legislation addresses the police power to use dogs to assist in drug detection but doesn't affect this point," Mr Bolt wrote in Law Society Journal. "Arguably the legislation may even reinforce the point that contact by a sniffer dog can constitute a battery.

Edited April 14, 2007 by Jess Stone