Sniffer dog checks bite into our civil liberties...

• Sebastian Saville
• The Guardian,
• Wednesday July 9, 2008
• Article history

The use of police sniffer dogs is largely unregulated, says Sebastian Saville. Photograph: Martin Godwin

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.

· Sebastian Saville is executive director of drugs charity Release.