True 2041, but the police could if they really wanted to, couldn't they?
Not real sure CB,but I would think someone has to lodge a complaint with them directly,otherwise as the defense councillors always say " that it is hearsay"…
The police could investigate themselves but could be too late now that the bird has flown with any evidence, unless they did a forensic on his house for hairs which they would be unlikely to do seeing there has been no complaint nor other law and order issue. We would be along the way to a police state if every possible infringement of any law meant the police going 100%. What the NRL does is separate business.
To get a hair or blood sample the police would need to seek an order from the Local Court for a non-intimate (hair) or intimate (blood) forensic procedure under the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act. They can only do that if they are investigating an indictable offence. Possession of a prohibited drug and/or self-administration of a prohibited drug are not indictable offences, they are summary offences. Even if they were investigating an indictable offence the police would still need to put on evidence to establish reasonable grounds to suspect that Pearce had committed an offence, and those text messages in isolation definitely wouldn't cut it.
So basically, you can forget about the police getting involved and frankly their resources can be better spent than on investigations into recreational drug use by individuals. It's an issue for the NRL and the NRL have the Integrity Unit as an investigative body with various powers. They probably include fairly broad drug testing powers that extend beyond those of ASADA given they are charged with protecting the integrity of the game.