Random drug swabbing to ‘keep the streets safe’

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.022550

I note you seek access to the following information:

I have just seen a tweet about random drug swabbing done by the Met Police in Shoreditch to 'keep the streets safe'.

Are these stops voluntary?

What happens to people if found to have drug residue on them?

How is it a viable practice when nearly all bank notes contain drug residue on them? Also, some people may not have ever used drugs yet be around people who do and hence have drug residue on them Why does the tweet imply that this keeps the streets safe when there is zero evidence to back this up? Isn't this misinformation to the public when nearly all evidence points in favour of decriminalisation and regulation?

Decision

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

Please find below information pursuant to your request above.

Are these stops voluntary?

The use of the itemiser is part of the conditions of entry to the licenced premises, which are set by the Licencee. The Police Officers who operate the Itemisers are specialist officers from the Central Licencing Team. As people approach the testing area, the operating officers explain that providing a swab is voluntary, but it is a condition of entering the venue. If a person did refuse to be swabbed, the officers would discuss the situation with that person, advising them again that they would not be allowed into the venue, but no other action would be taken, unless evidence of an offence is disclosed.

What happens to people if found to have drug residue on them?

If other grounds permit the person could be stopped and searched under s23 Misuse of Drugs act, however, in the majority of instances the approach taken is to provide safeguarding advice to the person relating to identified contact with a drug. For example, if the person has taken drugs prior to arrival then medical advice maybe given.

How is it a viable practice when nearly all bank notes contain drug residue on them? Also, some people may not have ever used drugs yet be around people who do and hence have drug residue on them Why does the tweet imply that this keeps the streets safe when there is zero evidence to back this up? Isn't this misinformation to the public when nearly all evidence points in favour of decriminalisation and regulation?

These machines test the amount of contact with a drug a person has had. The readings measure 0-8, 8 being the highest. A reading above 3 would show more direct contact with a drug, trace readings (for example handling a proxy item such as a bank note) would be 0-3 and discounted by the team as a low trace reading.