COURT RULING PUTS SNIFFER DOGS BACK ON THE JOB

POLICE will be able to use sniffer dogs in random searches again, following
a ruling of the Full Court of the South Australian Supreme Court yesterday.

The decision came after a drug case was thrown out earlier this year by a
District Court judge who ruled the use of the dogs was unlawful.

Judge Allan ruled a police search of a man's baggage on board a bus – where
a sniffer dog had uncovered drugs – was illegal because there was no prior
reasonable suspicion that the luggage contained drugs.

He said the police needed to ask the man's permission to conduct the search.

The man accused remains acquitted but the Director of Public Prosecutions,
Mr Paul Rofe, QC, took the case to the Full Court to be considered as a
matter of principle.

Mr Rofe argued a search was only illegal if it involved trespassing and
this did not include "sniffing the air in the bus" baggage compartment.

However, Mr Peter Waye, for the defence, said using dogs was illegal
because it was an unlawful search without reasonable suspicion.

He claimed sniffing the air around the bag was a search, like using X-ray
equipment in airports, which he said would also be unlawful had it not been
authorised through legislation.

Justice Olsson said Judge Allan erred because the police had acted lawfully
by gaining permission from the bus driver.

"When the accused gave his bag to the driver it was being carried in an
area controlled by the driver," Justice Olsson said.

"Therefore the driver was entitled to the physical control until it was
reclaimed by the passenger, and any search was clearly lawful."

Justice Olsson said the suspicion arising from the use of the sniffer dogs
was then enough to warrant a lawful search of the bag.

The ruling will allow police to continue using the dogs for random drug
searches – a practice which had been suspended since the District Court
decision in March.

Superintendent Ron Jackson, officer in charge of the Operations Services
Division, said SAPOL would consider all of its options after reading the
full details of yesterday's decision.

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski