| Dear
Sir, I
am writing to you concerning the random drug testing that the public in Stafford
and surrounding areas are being subjected to. I refer to the use of the "£40,000
computer equipment" that has been used since at least December 2002 to test
pub and club customers, as featured in several news stories last year[1]. More
recently it has been announced in the Sunday Times that this same system will
be used to screen the thousands of people expected to attend the V2003 music festival
at Western Park, Staffordshire in August[2]. I
am interested in both the technology used and the policy surrounding its use in
these circumstances. Firstly,
what exactly is being tested for? With which drugs is it concerned, but also are
you testing for contact with the drug (e.g. have handled cannabis) or including
the metabolites excreted after usage of the drug (e.g. have smoked cannabis)?
Could you provide some information as to how the system works - how the computer
decides whether or not a person has taken illegal drugs. As
this system has been used on the public for some time now, I assume that it has
been comprehensively tested by an independent body to ensure its accuracy. However
no technology can be perfect and hence there will be times with incorrect results
- both false positives and false negatives. Could you provide me with the research
done to show how common these situations are? In addition I am interested to know
what level of accuracy and reliability is claimed, and whether or not it appears
to correlate with your experiences in day-to-day testing. The
only article I have seen mentioning this aspect of the above drug-test results
refers to a time it was used 190 people in a Stafford club in May 2003. 6 were
found to "test positive", but no drugs were found on them. If this is
a common situation then is it not effectively wasting the officer's time to both
perform the tests and follow-up with a search? There are some doubts as to whether
"contact with drugs" is useful to test for. As you are probably aware,
research done in 1999 by the analytical forensic chemical experts at Mass Spec
Analytical Ltd. in Bristol tested more than 500 random banknotes and found only
4 tested negative for traces of cocaine and at least 4% gave a "massive reading
which showed they had been in close contact with the drug"[3]. I am concerned
that situations like this widespread, but innocent, movement of cocaine powder
may give rise to large numbers of incorrect results. If there are "levels"
of contact with illegal drugs that are deemed acceptable, then what are these,
and how have they been arrived at? Secondly
I am interested in the policy with which the machine is used. The general drug
testing of people going to a pub, club or festival without any previous suspicion
is as far as I know fairly unprecedented within this country. It is interesting
to note that at this time few, if any, other police forces are using this technology
- as an example Avon and Somerset police have ruled out its used for the Glastonbury
festival as they apparently intend to concentrate on dealers rather than people
who may have come into contact with illicit drugs for whatever reason. I
would be interested to know how the people tested are selected. Is it on a random
basis, do you concentrate on people who "arouse suspicion" (if so, what
are the criteria for this?) or do you attempt to test 100% of the people attending
a chosen location or event? Around 60,000 people are expected to attend the V2003
festival and it does not sound likely that it would be practical to test every
one of these, let alone search the people who "fail", especially if
it is still the case, as it was last December, that there is only 1 of these machines
being used. When
a person is confronted with the test, three events may occur. The person may refuse
to take the test, "pass" the test, in which case I assume they are free
to pursue whatever activity they wish, or "fail" the test. If
a person "fails" the test (i.e. drug residue is found) then what consequences
ensue? Perhaps the person is refused entry to the event, detained, searched or
arrested. At this point, what set of rights does the individual have - do they
have a right to refuse a search, or to walk away? I am interested to know both
the range of possibilities and the typical procedure. The
test is billed as "voluntary" but what is the policy if someone does
decide to refuse to take the test? Will they also undergo a search, or be forbidden
to enter the event - if so for what reason is given? If they are prevented from
continuing, it can be envisaged, at social gatherings in pubs, clubs and particularly
at the V2003 festival, such people may want significant compensation for their
large expense and time taken to get there if they are unable to go in and any
"crime" is unproven. Whilst there is an argument that any person carrying
illicit drugs is likely to refuse the test, the reverse cannot be legitimately
taken as an assumption. There are many people who believe such large-scale and
random testing is degrading, and an unnecessary invasion of their privacy and
civil liberties. The
Staffordshire Police website[4] mentions the Human Rights Act 1998, which Britain
is a signatory to, on its front page. With that in mind, how is it felt that this
mass screening fits in with the Act and the general issue of civil liberties?
Liberty[5], a leading human rights and civil liberties organisation, is "deeply
worried" by this style of testing. In direct reference to the testing in
Stafford over the Christmas period and beyond, their spokesperson stated: "This
is an extremely questionable use of police powers. The police cannot force someone
who is not under arrest to take a drug test but they are implying they can. To
then use a perfectly legitimate refusal to comply as part of the justification
for suspicion is an abuse of policing powers." Could
you let me know your response to Liberty and other interested parties on this
issue, and also what legal advice you have received which makes you feel confident
that such testing does not adversely affect an individual's rights, including
those guaranteed under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Another
of Liberty's accusations, that the usage of the laptop test is policing "by
coercion rather than by consent", is backed up by the media reporting warnings
by the police that licensed establishments in Stafford that non-cooperation with
this method "could count against them when their licences are up for renewal".
Details what pressure has been applied would be appreciated. Finally
I would like to raise the question of "value for money". I am afraid
I do not know the details of the general costs of policing, but I understand for
the cost of one laptop to utilise in this scheme, ignoring the many man-hours
needed to use it and follow up its findings, you could employ at least 2 new full-time
police officers a year. The division of resources within your jurisdiction may
be particularly important as recent figures show that the part of the country
covered by the Staffordshire Police Force has a rate of crime significantly higher
than the country average, both when looking at offences as a whole and when looking
only at violent crime[6]. Many
thanks for reading this letter. I hope and trust you can provide some answers
for me at the above address. I apologise for the length of the letter but I feel
it is important to seek out comprehensive information about the test itself and
how it is being done. I am sure you will agree that as wide scale use of this
device is already taking place in public, with signs of future expansion, it is
reasonable to assume the details I have asked for should be available in the public
domain for review by the very people who will be subjected to the testing. If
you are unable to provide the information I request, I would be grateful if you
could write back to me and tell me to whom I should direct my questions.
Footnotes [1]
"Revellers facing drug tests", Birmingham Post, 23 Dec 2002
"Drinkers
face drug test as they enter the pub", The Telegraph, 20 Dec 2002
"Drug-screen
technology used in pubs", BBC Online, 18 Dec 2002
[2] "Festival
fans face laptop drug test", Sunday Times, 1 Jun 2003
[3] "Banknotes
'tainted with cocaine'", BBC Online, 4 October 2002
MSA Ltd have a website
at http://www.msaltd.co.uk/
[4] http://www.staffordshire.police.uk
[5]
Liberty have a website at http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk
[6] Figures
taken from the report "Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002" published
by the Home Office Research Development Statistics department.
| 
