Drugs have always been and will continue to be a vice of human society. They cause “harm to [both] users [and] their families”, are a danger to the users’ health, and impose enormous costs on society, especially on the public health system. Moreover, a correlation between the use of drugs and other crimes can be found (drug-crime nexus) because their addiction often forces users to commit other offences in order to finance their habit (drugs-related crime). Therefore, drugs can be looked at as a threat to the welfare of community.
Although changing attitudes and/or recreational activities might alter which kind of drug is favoured the most at the time being, the core problem stays the same over time. Therefore, how to deal with drug crimes and related issues is a topic that remains contemporary and is always worth considering.
The following research paper examines drug law enforcement measures in cases of street dealings in both Australia and Germany. But first, it is necessary to give a brief general overview over the differences between the two legal systems with regard to drug offences and their enforcement.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Drug Offences and their Enforcement
III. Measures to obtain evidence in Australia
1. Australian Capital Territory
2. New South Wales
3. Northern Territory
4. Queensland
5. South Australia
6. Tasmania
7. Victoria
8. Western Australia
9. Brief Summary of the measures to obtain evidence in the Australian States
IV. Measures to obtain evidence in Germany
V. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to provide a comparative legal analysis of law enforcement measures used to obtain evidence in cases of street-level drug dealings in Australia and Germany. It investigates the legislative frameworks, police powers regarding search and seizure, and the procedural differences in handling internally concealed narcotics, such as "body-packing" or "body-stuffing."
- Comparison of Federal and State/Territory legislative competencies.
- Analysis of police powers concerning body searches and internal bodily intrusions.
- Evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of emetics versus natural evacuation.
- Examination of the tension between law enforcement efficiency and human rights protections.
Excerpt from the Book
V. Conclusion
When comparing measures to obtain evidence in drug street dealings, parallels and similarities exist between Australia and Germany. For example, in both countries police officers are allowed to search the person and her or his belongings and seize the evidence so found. The suspect, moreover, can be detained for the purpose of conducting such a search. However, there are some fundamental differences.
While a search in body cavities such as the vagina or the rectum in Australia can only be conducted by a medical practitioner, German police officers of the same sex as the suspect are legally authorised to carry out such a search. Moreover, Australian Police have to obtain a court order before engaging in this method whereas in Germany, the police are empowered to order the measure themselves if the circumstances are exigent.
At first sight, it seems that the Australian model of body cavity searches is more reasonable. Since a medical practitioner is generally trained and skilled to conduct intrusions into a person’s body, she or he appears to be the right person to search for the drugs. But the police have to bear in mind as well that the longer the detention of the suspect, the greater the infringement of her or his right to freedom.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: This chapter introduces the societal challenges posed by drug usage and crime, outlining the paper's focus on comparing Australian and German drug law enforcement.
II. Drug Offences and their Enforcement: This section details the structural differences between the Australian and German legal systems, particularly regarding the distribution of legislative power between federal and state levels.
III. Measures to obtain evidence in Australia: This chapter provides a state-by-state breakdown of the specific legal provisions in Australia that govern how police can search suspects and obtain evidence in drug-related cases.
IV. Measures to obtain evidence in Germany: This chapter examines the relevant sections of the German Code of Criminal Procedure and discusses the highly controversial practice of using emetics to retrieve internally concealed drugs.
V. Conclusion: The final chapter synthesizes the findings, arguing that the German model of law enforcement is generally more efficient than the Australian one, while critiquing the human rights implications of both approaches.
Keywords
Criminal Law, Drug Enforcement, Australia, Germany, Search and Seizure, Body Cavity Search, Internal Concealment, Emetics, Police Powers, Comparative Law, Body Packing, Human Rights, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, Street Dealings
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this research?
The research focuses on a comparative study of the legal measures available to police in Australia and Germany for obtaining evidence in cases involving street-level drug dealings.
What are the central themes of the work?
The study revolves around police search powers, the legal distinctions between physical and internal body searches, the use of medical practitioners in law enforcement, and the legal controversy surrounding the administration of emetics to suspects.
What is the primary goal of this paper?
The primary goal is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and efficiency of Australian and German law enforcement practices, while also considering the proportionality of these measures regarding the human rights of suspects.
What methodology is used?
The work employs a comparative legal methodology, analyzing statutes, relevant case law, and academic commentary from both Australian and German jurisdictions.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body details the specific legal acts of each Australian state regarding searches, contrasts these with German provisions such as Section 81a and 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and analyzes the debate over whether using emetics violates human dignity.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Criminal Procedure, Comparative Law, Body Cavity Search, Emetics, Drug Enforcement, and Bodily Integrity.
How do German and Australian police differ in ordering body cavity searches?
In Australia, police generally must obtain a court order before conducting a body cavity search. In contrast, German police are empowered to authorize the measure themselves, provided that exigent circumstances exist.
What is the "drug-crime nexus" mentioned in the introduction?
The drug-crime nexus refers to the observed correlation where drug addiction often drives individuals to commit additional criminal offenses to finance their drug habit.
- Quote paper
- Dr. Stefanie M. Bausch (Author), 2004, Measures to Obtain Evidence in Drug Street Dealings - A Comparative Study of Australian and German Criminal Law Enforcement, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/29779
