"Holy Hell!"
Posted on 04/25/2008 1:07:02 PM PDT by fanfan
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled today that two random searches conducted by sniffer dogs were unlawful.
The Court ruled 6-3 that the searches were a violation of section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects Canadians from unlawful search and seizure of their property.
In both cases, police did not have reasonable grounds to conduct the searches, the Court said.
The implications of the findings will be far-reaching. It is now unlikely that schools can invite police in to conduct random searches of lockers and backpacks, unless there is a strong suspicion that students are carrying drugs.
However, a special federal law protects the use of drug-sniffing dogs at airports, CTV's Robert Fife told Canada AM on Friday, right after the ruling was handed down.
The ruling stemmed from two cases involving evidence seized as a result of sniffer dogs.
In one of the cases, police visited St. Patrick's High School in Sarnia, Ont., in November 2002 at the invitation of school officials.
While police and their dogs searched the school, students were confined to their classrooms. During the sweep, a dog led police to a backpack in the gym that contained marijuana and magic mushrooms.
The student who owned the backpack was charged with possession of marijuana and psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking. He challenged the admissibility of the evidence on the grounds that his Charter rights were violated.
The drugs were excluded and the charges dismissed. A Court of Appeal ruling upheld that decision.
In the Supreme Court ruling regarding the Sarnia case, Justice Louis LeBel wrote:
"The subject matter of the sniff is not public air space. It is the concealed contents of the backpack. As with briefcases, purses and suitcases, backpacks are the repository of much that is personal, particularly for people who lead itinerant lifestyles during the day as in the case of students and travellers.
Teenagers may have little expectation of privacy from the searching eyes and fingers of their parents, but they expect the contents of their backpacks not to be open to the random and speculative scrutiny of the police...By use of the dog, the policeman could 'see' through the concealing fabric of the backpack."
"The dog-sniff search was unreasonably undertaken because there was no proper justification. The youth court judge found that the police lacked any grounds for reasonable suspicion and the Crown has shown no error in the youth court judge's finding of fact."
Walter Fox, lawyer for the Sarnia student, identified only as A.M., told CTV's Canada AM that he was pleased with the decision.
"It's a good day for my client, and a good day for all Canadians," Fox said.
"The Court simply said what every Canadian would think is basic to being a Canadian, that the police can't randomly come in and search a school, or your house, or your TV studio."
Paul Wubben, director of education for the St. Clair Catholic District School Board, told The Canadian Press prior to the ruling that allowing sniffer dogs into schools can be an important tool for ensuring student safety.
"Parents send their children to school with the underlying assumption that school is a safe place," Wubben said.
"And having a drug-free environment certainly lends itself to being a safe place."
In the second case, police and their sniffer dogs were patrolling a Greyhound bus station in Calgary in 2002 as part of an initiative to patrol travel ports looking for drugs, bombs and other contraband.
Police approached a man and, while conversing with him, a sniffer dog indicated the presence of drugs. That search turned up cocaine and heroin in the man's bag. He was charged with possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking, as well as possession of heroin.
In this case, the courts found that Gurmakh Kang-Brown could not have had an expectation of privacy because of the odours of the drugs emanating from his bag and into the air.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the sniffer-dog search of Kang-Brown's bag violated his Charter rights.
"The sniff in this case was an unreasonable search since the RCMP officer did not have grounds for reasonable suspicion at the time the dog was called," Justice Ian Binnie wrote.
Ping
Just saying.
POLICE! POLICE.....
Oh, Canada....Never mind.
If only some of that comon sense would rub of on American schools and invasion of privacy.
"Holy Hell!"
I'm for the dogs to weed out the pot heads!
If it's a violation of the law to have the stuff in school, then the banning of dogs will open the door to more disruption.
Isn't it enough that we're well behind many other nations in education and literacy?
Thank you for making the first sane post on this thread.
Ah, but that is the rub, isn't it......the governments in both countries make sure we are all guilty of something, in order to take our freedom away.
I can't be the only frog in this pot who notices the temperature change.
First they came for the.......
A clarification is needed. Nothing wrong with a qualifier. Certainly drug dealers would concur with Mr Fox- a lawyer.
Lord save me from Liberal-Pinko-Commie-Bed-wetting-Tree-hugging-ACLU-whacko-Leftist-leaning idiots who have my “best interests at heart.”
If they knew what I wanted, they would never open their filthy mouths so that such milk-sop, sour-puss, loco words could ever reach my ears.
I’m perfectly capable of forming my own opinions if I’m given the facts.
Drugs in some kid’s backpack in school = intent to sell to other kids on campus. How hard is that to figure out?
They could ask their air security guards to do the “sniffing”.....
So this decision really means nothing here? I mean show me a school where you don't suspect there are drugs.
I understand that they must suspect a single kid, and get a judge to allow a search of that kid, based on evidence.
Up until now, the police could lock down the school at any time, for a drug search. That sounds more like a prison, to me.
When law-breaking becomes so common that one can reasonably believe that criminal activity is more likely to be happening than NOT to be happening, then that constitutes probable cause to search. When the law-breaking becomes so common EVERYWHERE, then probable cause exists EVERYWHERE, and the expectation of privacy will then exist NOWHERE.
An honest supporter of the War on Some Drugs should admit that having such a sizeable minority breaking the law is a recipe for costing all of us our rights.
I understand and support the point of view of limiting searches. My comment was more a commentary on how bad the situation is among most public schools these days.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Wow. Too bad our supreme court does nothing but whittle away at our rights. Congrats Canada!
Yeah. That would be nice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.