After the bombings of the London Transport system on 7 th July 2005 the Department for Transport (DfT) tested potential options for new transport security equipment for rail and London Underground networks. Sniffer dogs were used in two phases of the trials: at selected London Underground and overground stations; and at Brighton National Rail station. The trials were carried out in June and July 2006.

In London, British Transport Police (BTP) with sniffer dogs conducted random stop and searches under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Dogs sniffed the exterior of passengers’ luggage, followed by a manual search by BTP officers. Passengers did not have the right to refuse this sort of stop and search.

In Brighton handlers and dogs patrolled the station concourse and the dogs reacted ‘passively’, by sitting down and facing their handler if they detected any traces of explosives. Handlers and dogs also undertook an exercise that involved walking against the passenger flow at platform exits. BTP officers accompanied dogs and handlers at all times.

Aims

The overarching aim of this research was to assess public responses to the process of security screening. The specific objectives were three-fold, to:

• Explore the public’s view of security screening, with particular reference to the use of sniffer dogs in London and Brighton stations;
• Investigate people’s reasons for finding security screening acceptable or unacceptable;
• Explore under what circumstances security screening is seen as acceptable, if at all.

Methodology

In London ten one-to-one depth interviews were carried out with respondents selected for stop and searches. Ethnographic observation was also carried out which recorded the researchers’ observations of the screening process.

In Brighton four group discussions were held with people who had seen the sniffer dogs at Brighton National Rail station; thirty two one-to-one depth interviews were conducted with people from Black and minority ethnic and religious communities who had either seen the sniffer dogs at the station or visited Brighton National Rail station within the last six months; and four one-to-one depth interviews were conducted with respondents who defined themselves as disabled. Disabled respondents had not necessarily seen the sniffer dogs. Three days of ethnographic observation were also carried out in Brighton.

The sample was designed to ensure coverage of the key sub-groups within the target population, in order to identify and explain variations in the nature of experiences and views between them. Quotas were set to ensure the inclusion of participants of different demographic backgrounds according to the following key variables: gender; ethnicity, and religion.

Findings

Views of sniffer dogs

• There were respondents who had no knowledge of the trial prior to the research. However, sniffer dogs were generally known about, so respondents had an idea of what to expect during the trial. Though because people were familiar with the concept of sniffer dogs looking for drugs there was confusion about their intent during these trials.
• Respondents who had some awareness of the security trials had either seen dogs in Underground or mainline stations, especially after the bombings in July 2005, or had seen signs with information about the security trial in Brighton. Generally, the use of sniffer dogs was viewed positively.
• Of all the security trials in the series the use of dogs seemed most familiar to people, and the least controversial. Exceptions to this fell among people who were averse to dogs for specific reasons – religious beliefs, fear, allergy or believing dogs were unclean. There were also concerns expressed about the embarrassment of being approached by several police officers whilst in view of other passengers.

Experiences of screened respondents in London

• Generally respondents viewed the police officers who stopped them, the dog handlers and the dogs in a positive light. Whilst respondents remembered being given information, there was little recall of the specific Act under which they were being stopped.
• There was general understanding that the stop and search was compulsory, however, there were those who would have refused had they been able to, usually because they worried about arriving late to work or other scheduled appointments.
• Respondents had been told that selection for stopping was random, however, there were those who believed that selection was based on other factors: ethnicity; clothing and hairstyle; fulfilment of selection quota; and the luggage people were carrying.
• Whilst respondents were generally unconcerned about being selected, those who believed they had been stopped because of their ethnicity objected to selection on these grounds. Other objections included feeling inconvenienced by the process and embarrassment at being stopped in public.
• Recall of the length of time the stop and searches took was poor. Respondents highlighted the importance of the procedure not interfering with them arriving for work, or other appointments, on time.
• The ethnographic observations showed that people who were not stopped for the trials were interested in what was taking place. Reactions to the dogs appeared to be positive, and people did not seem to have qualms about walking close to the sniffer dogs as they moved about the station.
• Respondents who had been stopped had not usually asked for additional information about the process. There were instances where people might have asked, but were aware that this might slow the process down, so refrained from doing so. There were two areas where respondents were unsure of parts of the process: why BTP were conducting stop and searches; and what the dogs were being used to detect. There were also two areas identified by respondents where more information would have been valuable to them: how people were selected for stop and search; and how many people were being stopped.

Experiences of those who saw the trial in Brighton

• Generally, respondents became aware of the trial as a result of the police presence in the station; the large numbers of officers and their high visibility jackets initially drew people’s attention, after which they became aware of the dogs.
• The signs around the station giving information about the trial were reassuring to people after their attention was drawn to police officers and dogs. Respondents reported that if they had not seen the signs they would have assumed that a disturbance or problem had occurred that required a heavy police presence.
• Respondents’ initial reactions to the sniffer dogs were linked to whether or not they liked dogs, and wondering why the dogs and police were in the station. The sniffer dogs’ presence was usually linked to drug crime, rather than detection of explosives. People’s thoughts on the dogs were mixed, with some happy to see them there, regardless of the potential implications of their presence, and others feeling anxiety, concern and fear.
• The physical reactions reported and observed corresponded to three distinct views about dogs in general: indifference, like and dislike. Negative reactions were observed by people who had been approached unexpectedly by the dogs, particularly by those who had had their backs turned.
• Generally, respondents thought that the trial was acceptable, and sniffer dogs were seen as a neutral way of carrying out security procedures.
• Dog handlers were thought to be relaxed, casual and happy for people to pet the dogs. The way in which the handlers interacted with the dogs made the BTP presence appear less confrontational and intrusive.
• Respondents generally said that they would have liked more information about the trial of sniffer dogs. There was evidence that those who disliked dogs might have felt more positive had they had additional information. Three main areas were identified where respondents required more information: why sniffer dogs were at the station; what the dogs were being used for; and how effective sniffer dogs are.

Acceptability of the use of sniffer dogs

• Respondents’ personal views of dogs impacted on how acceptable they thought them to be. Grounds for adverse views fell into three categories: religion or culture; general likes and dislikes; and health issues.

Religion or Culture

• Muslim respondents reported that it was not permissible for them to have direct contact with dogs due to their religious or cultural beliefs. It might be that the ways sniffer dogs were used in London would be more acceptable to Muslims than the way they were deployed in Brighton.

Dislike of dogs

• People who disliked dogs generally were intimidated by the sniffer dogs, however, as long as they were felt to be at a safe distance from respondents, dislike or fear of dogs appeared to have relatively little impact on how acceptable sniffer dogs were felt to be as a security measure.

Health Issues

• Dog allergies caused concern for some respondents. However, the general acceptability of sniffer dogs as a security measure was only questioned if their use involved close proximity to the public for prolonged periods of time. If sniffer dogs were momentarily walking past the public it was not envisaged that there would be problems.

The presence of the British Transport Police (BTP)

• The presence of the BTP was generally considered to be reassuring in both London and Brighton, as it was felt to act as a deterrent to terrorist activity. There were, however, respondents who felt that BTP’s presence acted as a constant reminder of the threat of potential terrorist attacks.
• Respondents were concerned about the number of BTP officers present during the trials, with respondents saying that they thought that two officers would be sufficient in terms of providing reassurance without causing panic that something was happening.

Privacy

• There were mixed views in relation to privacy, with some respondents thinking that their privacy had been violated, and others saying that the benefits of screening outweighed any potential invasion of privacy.
• Conflicting views arose from the London respondents about being selected for screening. One view was that being screened in front of other people was embarrassing. Conversely, there were respondents who thought that being taken away for screening could have been intimidating.
• There were respondents who felt that the procedure for stop and search was very invasive; manual searching by the police was seen as being more problematic than the dogs sniffing the outside of respondents’ luggage.
• Some respondents were uncomfortable about giving their personal details to BTP officers, as they were not sure why they were needed, or how they would be used.

Delays to respondents’ journeys

• In London respondents who had been stopped and searched had conflicting views about the acceptability of the screening with regard to potential delays. Some respondents thought that the benefits of security screening far outweighed practicality issues, however others felt that delays to journeys were ultimately unacceptable.

Selecting people for screening

• The process for selection of passengers to be screened in London was questioned, with a feeling that there were hidden criteria, and that BTP officers would target specific groups of people, for instance, young Muslim men with large bags.

The possibility of sniffer dogs being introduced on respondents’ other journeys

• Generally respondents said that they would feel reassured if sniffer dogs were used in other locations and on other journey routes. Some said that they would be more likely to use London Underground or National Rail stations where sniffer dogs were deployed, as they felt they would be safer.
• There were, however, respondents who said they would not feel any safer if sniffer dogs were introduced more widely with two main reasons being given: some felt that the use of sniffer dogs would indicate that a station was particularly at risk of a terrorist attack, which would cause them worry and concern; others thought that sniffer dogs would be easy for terrorists to avoid, whether used as in London or at Brighton.
• Daily use of dogs was seen as more desirable than sporadic use, which could create unrest amongst the public who could perceive the arrival of dogs with police intelligence as a threat to safety.
• The main reason given by respondents for potentially altering their travel behaviour if dogs were introduced was avoidance of delays, although there were Muslim respondents who said they would avoid using a station with sniffer dogs because of their religious beliefs. Some young males, both Black and White, were recreational drug users and said they would avoid stations with sniffer dogs as they feared the dogs would be able to detect drugs as well as explosives.
• Generally sniffer dogs were thought to be needed at stations in large cities, as they were thought to be at greater risk of terrorist attack. However, there were respondents who thought that ideally sniffer dogs should be placed in smaller stations, as they thought that terrorists would be unlikely to board Underground or overland trains at busy stations, due to higher security being in place. Similarly, some respondents thought that unless sniffer dogs were used at all Underground and overland stations terrorists would simply go to stations where they were not in use.

Suggestions for change and improvements to transport security systems

Respondents made suggestions that fell into two categories: improvements to the way in which sniffer dogs were used; and suggestions for alternative security equipment.

Improvements to the use of sniffer dogs

• There was a call for the universal use of sniffer dogs on transport systems, to ensure that terrorists could not avoid them.
• It was suggested that using dogs near station entrances could speed up the process of screening, as people would have to pass the dogs on their way into the transport system.
• Respondents called for some measure of privacy, to avoid embarrassment when being approached by police officers.
• There were differing views on publicising the use of sniffer dogs, with some respondents feeling that there should be more publicity, and others thinking that it should be kept to a minimum so that criminals would be less able to avoid the sniffer dogs.
• Three other suggestions were made: that people with an aversion to dogs should be offered an alternative; that dogs could be used as a back up to enable searches of people thought to look suspicious by police officers; and that members of the public could call dog handlers over if they thought that someone was behaving suspiciously.

Suggestions for alternative security measures

• Respondents suggested three alternative security measures: greater police presence on transport systems; mechanical screening of people and luggage; and more CCTV in stations and on public transport.

Download report

• Transport security measures – sniffer dogs trials (London and Brighton)(PDF – 357 KB)