Costa seeks to shut down sniffer-dog alert site

NSW Police Minister Michael Costa is seeking to shut down the Web site www.snifferdogalert.com, operated by the state's Council for Civil Liberties and Redfern Legal Centre, which warns the public via SMS to where drug detection dogs are being patrolled.

The site allows allows people to register a mobile phone number so that they can be alerted by SMS as to were sniffer dogs are operating. Its launch rides on the back of an uproar from civil liberties advocates following the passing of Federal legislation three weeks ago that permitted drug detection dogs to be used by police at selected locations, including licensed premises, large events such as dance parties, and on certain public transport routes. Last week it was also announced that firearm detection dogs would be used in a similar manner.

A spokesperson for the minister said: -it is irresponsible that the Council for Civil Liberties is involved with something like this".

"The SMS purports to let you know if there are drug detection dogs working...how do people know if they're drug alert dogs or firearm alert dogs?" the spokesperson questioned.

-These people run the risk of helping those people who could well be committing a crime...helping people armed with illegal handguns," the spokesperson added.

The Minister, who was alerted to the site yesterday, is seeking legal advice today as to whether the Council for Civil Liberties and Redfern Legal Centre are committing an offence.

NSW Council for Civil Liberties president Cameron Murphy was unavailable for comment, as was Redfern Legal Centre.

Talkback 3 comments

    What's the difference between ...Anonymous -- 22/05/02

    What's the difference between this "service" and that of radio stations warning motorists of radars?

    What have the "Council fo ...Anonymous -- 22/05/02

    What have the "Council for Civil Liberties" been smoking!! Surely the use sniffer dogs is less invasive to responsible citizens than RBT is to motorists in general. I'd rather see the police and dogs patrolling the streets and "investigating" only those people that the dogs detect with illegal drugs, or firearms. It is no different to the acceptable use of dogs by customs. It is time the whingers had a reality attack

    Re Paul's question: The differ ...Anonymous -- 22/05/02

    Re Paul's question: The difference, Paul, is that publication of radar sites achieves what the law involved was intended to achieve -- ie, to keep the speed of motorists below the legal limit. This move prevents no offence, but enables offenders to evade detection. The second difference is that th law involved in radar siotes is not a criminal matter.

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

Tags

Back to top

Featured