Pre-emptive policing: Police searches 2002-present
The law gives police the power to stop and search people and says how those searches must occur. In some circumstances this can include strip searches or searches under Firearm Prohibition Orders. Aboriginal and young people are disproportionately subject to these searches.
The NSW Police Force has the power to stop and search people without a warrant in certain circumstances. The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA) says what powers the police have and how searches must be conducted ().
Searches, including strip searches, have become a routine part of ‘pre-emptive policing' practices that are more likely to target Aboriginal children and young people.
Pre-emptive policing (also referred to as preventive or proactive policing) are methods used by police before, rather than after, a crime has happened. See also SUB0561 and SUB0562.
When can police search someone?
The LEPRA says when the police may search someone. This includes:
- if an officer reasonably suspects a person of possessing something stolen/unlawfully obtained, something that was used, or will be used, in the commission of a crime or prohibited drugs ()
- if an officer reasonably suspects a person in a public place or a school has a ‘dangerous implement’ (, )
The Courts have considered what ‘reasonable suspicion’ means, including that it must be more than a possibility and that there must be some factual basis for the belief ().
A strip search may only be conducted if police have reasonable grounds to believe it is necessary for the purposes of the search (, ).
Police can use drug detection dogs in certain public places (). However, a dog’s indication alone does not justify a search. This must be supported by a reasonable suspicion (, ).
What is a personal search?
The LEPRA originally had three categories of searches: frisk, ordinary and strip searches (, , ). In 2014, the LEPRA was amended merging the frisk and ordinary search categories into a single, personal search category (, ).
A personal search may involve police running their hands or a metal detector over a person’s outer clothing. Police may also require the removal of an outer layer of clothing (such as a coat or jacket), along with any items in the person’s possession ().
Personal searches, Aboriginal people and young people
A report from the Redfern Legal Centre analysed NSW Police Force data on personal searches (excluding strip searches) between 2018-2022 (). It showed police conducted over 855,038 personal searches, with 65,131 searches being searches of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people ().
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were twice as likely to be searched than the general NSW population, and 11 times more likely in certain key locations such as Surry Hills and Waterloo ().
The report also emphasised the disproportionate impact of personal searches on children, with 13% of all searches being conducted on children, despite children only being 9.7% of the NSW population. Of these searches 'the total number of searches on First Nations children was 9,757, making up 8.7% of searches on children. However, First Nations children comprise only 0.06% of all children in NSW' ().
More recent data from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research Police Activity Tool shows that from January 2025 to December 2025, Aboriginal people accounted for 19.9% of personal searches ().
What is a strip search?
A strip search involves searching a person and their possessions, and may include:
- requiring the person to remove all clothing, and
- visually examining their body (excluding body cavities) and clothing ().
This search may happen at a police station or other place of detention (). If the search happens in any other location, police must also consider that the seriousness and urgency of the circumstances make the strip search necessary (). The police must be of the same sex as the person being searched ().
Strip searches and Aboriginal people
While strip searches are legally intended as a last resort (, ), in practice they are increasingly used as a routine tool of pre-emptive policing. Research has shown that this method of pre-emptive policing disproportionately targets Aboriginal people (, , ).
Data from New South Wales Police between 2016 and 2018 showed that Aboriginal people were subject to approximately ():
- 10% of documented field strip searches and;
- 22% of documented custodial strip searches.
A 2019 report commissioned by the Redfern Legal Centre in combination with UNSW Law found that strip searches had increased twenty-fold over the previous 12-years, and that heavily policed Aboriginal communities (particularly in regional New South Wales) ‘bear the brunt of NSW Police practices such as strip searching’ ().
The report sets out concerns about the policing of Indigenous people, including that police are not complying with safeguards in the LEPRA, strip searches are happening in public places and searches are not recorded by police ().
The NSW Law Enforcement Conduct Commission has also found widespread non-compliance with legal requirements for strip searches (, ).
The Commission has launched investigations into some of these strip searches and found serious deficiencies in police training and breaches of police powers under LEPRA (, ).
In 2024, the Redfern Legal Centre launched the ‘Police Accountability Dashboard’ (, ), enabling public access to comprehensive data on the use of police powers between 2017 to 2025. The data showed:
- First Nations people accounted for 26.9% of strip searches.
- First Nations children were strip searched at a younger age (between 11 and 15 years) and at a greater rate compared to non-First Nations children.
- Of the 1,614 children aged 11-17 strip searched during this period, almost 45% were First Nations.
- Across all age groups, 25.8% of people strip searched by NSW Police were First Nations.
More recent data from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research Police Activity Tool shows that from January 2025 to December 2025, Aboriginal people accounted for 22.6% of strip searches (). Young Aboriginal people also continued to be strip searched at higher rate than non-Indigenous people making up 40.9% of young people who were strip searched in this period ().
Impact of strip searches
Many of the case studies in this subject demonstrate the personal impact of strip searches (, , ).
The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission has said ‘the experience of being strip searched is likely to be humiliating for the person searched and, according to expert psychological opinion provided to the Commission, can give rise to both immediate and lasting traumatic responses’ ().
Speaking to the particular impact of strip searches on Aboriginal people, the Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) CEO, Karly Warner has said:
A strip search is a deeply intrusive, disempowering and humiliating process, even more so for vulnerable Aboriginal people who have often been the targets of discrimination and over-policing… the excessive use of strip-searching is causing significant emotional and psychological harm in Aboriginal communities, particularly for children and young people ().
Firearm Prohibition Orders (FPO)
Police can also search people under a Firearm Prohibition Order (FPO).
Since 1973, the Commissioner of Police has had the power to make a FPO for any person they believe is ‘not fit, in the public interest, to possess a firearm’ (, ).
In 2013, the police’s FPO search powers were expanded (). The changes gave police the power to search a person, their vehicle, and their premises (including home or workplace) without a warrant. The standard for this search is unclear and could mean that the mere fact that a person is subject to an FPO may be a sufficient reason for police to search that person at any time ().
A FPO can be made even if someone has never been charged with a weapons offence or any crime (, ). These orders never expire and have limited review mechanisms (, ).
In 2016, the NSW Ombudsman raised its concerns about FPO search powers and made 15 recommendations, many of the key recommendations have not been addressed (, , ).
Research has shown that a disproportionate number of Aboriginal people are subject to FPOs:
- 40% of FPOs in force in 2024 were made in respect of Aboriginal people ()
- in the 2024-25 financial year, 54% of people under 18 and ‘about 42%’ of all people who were served with an FPO order identified themselves as Aboriginal ().
Data also shows the low success rate of these searches. In 2023-24, firearms or firearm accessories were only found in 1.36% of 8651 searches (). In the previous year only 0.1% of searches were successful (). The NSW Ombudsman has reported that ’[t]he police were sometimes able to use the FPO search powers in circumstances where general search warrant powers were unlikely to apply’ (). It also found that searches were conducted on people who were not subject to an FPO and police did so ‘on what appears to be an erroneous application of the new FPO search powers and, as such, the searches may have been unlawful’ ().
Multiple groups have raised concerns over the use of FPOs on young people, particularly because they have no expiration date (, , ). The Law Society of NSW has said that FPOs should not apply to young people because the search powers ‘expose children to extensive infringements of their civil liberties’ ().
A Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Report also found FPO orders were used to increase police interactions with people on the now ended Suspect Target Management Plan (see SUB0562) ().
The law and policy in this subject is accurate as of 15 May 2026.