Comparing police use of drug detection dogs amongst injecting and non-injecting groups of people who regularly use drugs in Australia.

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.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest R.S. has received untied educational funds from Seqirus. A.P. has received untied educational grants from Seqirus and Mundipharma for study of opioid medications. Funding from these organisations has now ceased for both authors, funding was for work unrelated to this project, and the funding bodies had no role in study design, analysis and reporting All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
(Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)