# Top Court rules sniffer-dog searches are unlawful



## Yrys (25 Apr 2008)

Top court to rule on search by police at Sarnia school



> OTTAWA–Canada's top court will rule today on whether police use of a drug-sniffing dog during a random visit to an Ontario high school was reasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The Supreme Court judgment could affect similar police powers in schools across the country along with parks, malls, sports stadiums and other public places.
> "Whatever the court decides will apply to the use of sniffer dogs and whether a sniffer dog constitutes a police search," says Jonathan Lisus, lawyer for the Canadian
> ...



I've made a thread in the French section on those articles :

Cour suprême: deux fouilles de chiens renifleurs jugées illégales

I didn't find an English version of the article for the moment, about the  ruling of the Supreme Court who deemed the searched illegal. 
The police officers didn't have probable cause (soupçons raisonnables) before the search. Search by police in public places such as school, 
park and stadium will be harder.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Apr 2008)

Its a wonder we can even talk to the little darlings....I'm all for civil rights and liberties, but lets teach people about civil RESPONSIBILITIES as well.


----------



## Yrys (25 Apr 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Its a wonder we can even talk to the little darlings....



IRK! without one of the parents present, HOW dare you ?!?



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I'm all for civil rights and liberties, but lets teach people about civil RESPONSIBILITIES as well.



RSPONSBILTIES ? wha da, man  :boring: ? (puzzled leet generation)

(Sorry if it's a bit generationism)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Apr 2008)

So the question is what will the SCC do next to tie the hands of LEOs in Canada?  Good grief.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&amp;newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080425%2fsniffer_dog_080425&amp;showbyline=True

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled today that two random searches conducted by dog sniffers 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.


----------



## garb811 (25 Apr 2008)

As usual, the MSM is only giving out half the story.  Dogs will remain an effective tool in the arsenal and they can still be used in places such as schools if a _reasonable suspicion_ exists that a crime has been committed or contraband may be present.  While this will certainly affect many current practices at the end of the day dogs can still be used when needed.

From R vs A.M.:



> In the context of a routine criminal investigation, the police are entitled to use sniffer dogs based on a “reasonable suspicion”.  If there are no grounds of reasonable suspicion, the use of the sniffer dogs will violate the s. 8 reasonableness standard.  Where there are grounds of reasonable suspicion, the police should not have to take their suspicions to a judicial official for prior authorization to use the dogs in an area where the police are already lawfully present.  All “searches” do not have the same invasive and disruptive quality and prior judicial authorization is not a universal condition precedent to any and all police actions characterized as “searches” given that the touchstone of s. 8 is reasonableness.  Account must be taken in s. 8 matters of all the relevant circumstances including the minimal intrusion, contraband‑specific nature and high accuracy rate of a fly‑by sniff.  The warrantless search is, of course, presumptively unreasonable.  If the sniff is conducted on the basis of reasonable suspicion and discloses the presence of illegal drugs on the person or in a backpack or other place of concealment, the police may confirm the accuracy of that information with a physical search, again without prior judicial authorization.  But all such searches by the dogs or the police are subject to after‑the‑fact judicial review if it is alleged (as here) that no grounds of reasonable suspicion existed, or that the search was otherwise unreasonably undertaken.


----------



## Thompson_JM (27 Apr 2008)

this is stupid... once more the whiney leftists give more rights to the $#%-pumps of society then they do to the productive members....

remind me again why I want to go into a career where I am going to constantly justifying my actions to people who inherently hate me and what I stand for?


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (27 Apr 2008)

Seems to me that people that have the most problem with this ARE the people that are doing something they shouldn't be.  I.E.- having drugs in backpack at school.  I think police dogs are a great tool for the police to do their job.  If it was my child that got caught with drugs at school, I would sure as hell want to know!!  Through whatever means they were found.  But, then, that's just me, wanting to be a parent who gives a crap about their kids.

People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing!


----------



## ballz (27 Apr 2008)

I'm really surprised that the people that fight for and defend the charter of rights and freedoms are so pro-"break peoples rights."

Fact of the matter is that if a kid is at school he shouldn't have to worry about the dogs sniffing his locker and the police breaking it open, rummaging through his stuff, and finding nothing. We have those rights for a reason and they are to protect the innocent, not the guilty like you all seem to be assuming.

I'd be more concerned with the fact that the police couldn't find any reasonable grounds to search a kid with a crapload of dope and mushrooms in his backpack. If they can't succeed in finding reasonable grounds to search a schoolboy and then charge him, how inadequate were they? And how do they expect to catch any of the big druglords who cover their tracks a hell of a lot better than a kid at school.


----------



## Gimpy (27 Apr 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm really surprised that the people that fight for and defend the charter of rights and freedoms are so pro-"break peoples rights."
> 
> Fact of the matter is that if a kid is at school he shouldn't have to worry about the dogs sniffing his locker and the police breaking it open, rummaging through his stuff, and finding nothing. We have those rights for a reason and they are to protect the innocent, not the guilty like you all seem to be assuming.
> 
> I'd be more concerned with the fact that the police couldn't find any reasonable grounds to search a kid with a crapload of dope and mushrooms in his backpack. If they can't succeed in finding reasonable grounds to search a schoolboy and then charge him, how inadequate were they? And how do they expect to catch any of the big druglords who cover their tracks a hell of a lot better than a kid at school.



I think searching the lockers is fine, the school is well within its rights to get the police to search the lockers since the lockers are school property. But when you start searching the children's backpacks then it is infringing on the children's rights since their backpacks are their own and "reasonable grounds" are extremely vague.



			
				ENGINEERS WIFE said:
			
		

> Seems to me that people that have the most problem with this ARE the people that are doing something they shouldn't be.  I.E.- having drugs in backpack at school.  I think police dogs are a great tool for the police to do their job.  If it was my child that got caught with drugs at school, I would sure as hell want to know!!  Through whatever means they were found.  But, then, that's just me, wanting to be a parent who gives a crap about their kids.
> 
> People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing!



In New South Wales, the CCL came up with a report that showed that sniffer dogs were correct 2 out of 5 times and caused humiliation for the 3 out of 5 with nothing on them. http://www.nswccl.org.au/docs/pdf/sniffer%20dogs%20submission.pdf


----------



## cameron (27 Apr 2008)

Whether or not the police had "probable cause" the fact that they found a shitload of dope on some kid made the search justified in my view.  There is a lot of hypocrisy in our society today, we cry out for the authorities to do more about rising crime, but when they do we seek to tie their hands.  When courts hand down these decisions do they stop and think of what kind of message they are sending out to our children?


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Apr 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm really surprised that the people that fight for and defend the charter of rights and freedoms are so pro-"break peoples rights."
> 
> Fact of the matter is that if a kid is at school he shouldn't have to worry about the dogs sniffing his locker and the police breaking it open, rummaging through his stuff, and finding nothing. We have those rights for a reason and they are to protect the innocent, not the guilty like you all seem to be assuming.
> 
> I'd be more concerned with the fact that the police couldn't find any reasonable grounds to search a kid with a crapload of dope and mushrooms in his backpack. If they can't succeed in finding reasonable grounds to search a schoolboy and then charge him, how inadequate were they? And how do they expect to catch any of the big druglords who cover their tracks a hell of a lot better than a kid at school.



As long as this judge has not set a precedence.  What if this is now applied to Airports, pot of entry, and border crossings.  How will we stop the smugglers.

This is a scary challenge, in my opinion, and reaches a lot farther than the halls for some High school.

dileas

tess


----------



## Gimpy (27 Apr 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> As long as this judge has not set a precedence.  What if this is now applied to Airports, pot of entry, and border crossings.  How will we stop the smugglers.



Well with regards to airports it says in the the second article that "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." And it's very much the same way at border crossings. The border guards can pull you over and check your vehicle for whatever they want. Its been done to me, my father, and other relatives. Although I haven't seen sniffer dogs at the borders yet, unless they are at some and not others. The only border crossing I routinely use is the Peace Bridge. I don't disagree with that procedure though.


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Apr 2008)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Well with regards to airports it says in the the second article that "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." And it's very much the same way at border crossings. The border guards can pull you over and check your vehicle for whatever they want. Its been done to me, my father, and other relatives. Although I haven't seen sniffer dogs at the borders yet, unless they are at some and not others. The only border crossing I routinely use is the Peace Bridge. I don't disagree with that procedure though.



I did see that, however, the law may be found in contradiction of ones charter of rights, and can be struck down.  Which is why I believe the judge's descision was dangerous.

dileas

tess


----------



## NL_engineer (27 Apr 2008)

Another stupid ruling for the people who waste our tax dollars on there agendas to F*** up the laws of the land and our country as a hole  :.  IMO they wanted the ruling to prevent them from being charged for possession of an illegal substance/contraband items.


For these people:

My question  is: what happens if a kid decides to take a bomb to school, can the police search for explosives?  think about your ruling for a second, it may help you get away with drug trafficking/possession, but it now endangers lives, because the police can no longer search for guns or bombs in school bags.  Know go back to smoking your dope, and don't b**** about the police not doing anything to prevent little tommy from bringing a gun to school.


----------



## Gimpy (27 Apr 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Another stupid ruling for the people who waste our tax dollars on there agendas to F*** up the laws of the land and our country as a hole  :.  IMO they wanted the ruling to prevent them from being charged for possession of an illegal substance/contraband items.
> 
> 
> For these people:
> ...



I don't think bombs or guns are enough of a regular problem that there needs to be cops searching bags on a regular basis. If the cops came to search a school for a bomb or guns it wouldn't be random, it would be with reasonable cause in which case they would be free to do it, and I seriously doubt people would disagree with a search for a bomb with reasonable cause. If you want to get a point across you shouldn't use such ridiculous hyperbole. By the way, do you know the last time a student brought a bomb to a Canadian school? Because I sure as hell don't.


----------



## NL_engineer (27 Apr 2008)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> I don't think bombs or guns are enough of a regular problem that there needs to be cops searching bags on a regular basis. If the cops came to search a school for a bomb or guns it wouldn't be random, it would be with reasonable cause in which case they would be free to do it, and I seriously doubt people would disagree with a search for a bomb with reasonable cause. If you want to get a point across you shouldn't use such ridiculous hyperbole. By the way, do you know the last time a student brought a bomb to a Canadian school? Because I sure as hell don't.



Well a gun is not a far off example, yes explosives are, but at the rate things seem to be going it may not be that far off (I hope it never happens).


----------



## Gimpy (27 Apr 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Well a gun is not a far off example, yes explosives are, but at the rate things seem to be going it may not be that far off (I hope it never happens).



Guns, I'll admit, aren't that far off, and growing up in the Toronto school system I have seen guns in the schools. But I think that schools would be better served with metal detectors than random searches. I think the line between drugs and weapons is a big one though. Weapons can hurt many people whereas drugs will only hurt the user. When someone brings a weapon to school they have intent to use it on someone else, and when someone brings drugs to school they most often (I realize there are dealers, but they make up a terribly small percentage of carriers) are only using it for themselves.

Anecdotal evidence: We had a police officer at our high school and he didn't do random searches, all he would do is walk around the outside of the school looking for people smoking pot. He wouldn't write them up usually, just take it away unless they were repeat offenders. But the students usually got the message after the first run in with him.


----------



## cameron (27 Apr 2008)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> I don't think bombs or guns are enough of a regular problem that there needs to be cops searching bags on a regular basis. If the cops came to search a school for a bomb or guns it wouldn't be random, it would be with reasonable cause in which case they would be free to do it, and I seriously doubt people would disagree with a search for a bomb with reasonable cause. If you want to get a point across you shouldn't use such ridiculous hyperbole. By the way, do you know the last time a student brought a bomb to a Canadian school? Because I sure as hell don't.



Gimpy one would have thought by now that you would realize we live in a world where nothing can be taken for granted.  Just because no one ever brought a bomb to a Canadian school doesn't mean no one ever will.


----------



## Gimpy (27 Apr 2008)

cameron said:
			
		

> Gimpy one would have thought by now that you would realize we live in a world where nothing can be taken for granted.  Just because no one ever brought a bomb to a Canadian school doesn't mean no one ever will.



Are bombs such a problem in this country that we need to have regular searches on the level of the drugs searches? No they are not and its ridiculous to think we should be searching for bombs on a regular basis. We've lived in a world where nothing could be taken for granted as long as the world has been going. We've managed so I don't think we'll fall apart because of this decision.


----------



## J.J (27 Apr 2008)

> I think the line between drugs and weapons is a big one though.


  ???

Gimpy,
Are you living in a fantasy world? Weapons and drugs don't go together? Most drug users I have contact with, on a daily basis, have weapons on them or near them. Not always firearms, but knives, brass knuckles, pepperspray etc. They need them to defend themselves from the unsavory elements that lurks in the drug world. Unless the person is independently wealthy, they generally have to commit crimes to pay for their drug habit. Another reason why they carry a weapon.
Also most K-9's are trained to detect drugs and firearms, not one, but both. So if a K-9 was brought into a school for a random search for just firearms, the handler would not know if the indications was for drugs or a firearms. What do they do then, if they find drugs? Put it back because they were only looking for firearms? Bomb dogs are to far and few between. 
A random k-9 search is not perfect, because if you are wearing a jacket or clothes that have been around second hand contact with contraband, the dog will detect. It will not always detect only on "product". If that is the case in a high school, maybe that child should see a counselor, as they are an at risk youth and maybe a little intervention will prevent them from taking the next step into becoming a user.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Apr 2008)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Are bombs such a problem in this country that we need to have regular searches on the level of the drugs searches? No they are not and its ridiculous to think we should be searching for bombs on a regular basis. We've lived in a world where nothing could be taken for granted as long as the world has been going. We've managed so I don't think we'll fall apart because of this decision.



Nobody ever flew a commercial airliner into a large building before, either.  It only takes once, then people start asking why something wasn't done beforehand.  A little inconvenience now to stop a major event later?  I'll take it.


----------



## Gimpy (27 Apr 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Nobody ever flew a commercial airliner into a large building before, either.  It only takes once, then people start asking why something wasn't done beforehand.  A little inconvenience now to stop a major event later?  I'll take it.



You aren't the one being inconvenienced. Its all well and good for you, who is not in high school, to say its fine for them to do it. It doesn't personally affect you. You aren't the one being randomly searched.




			
				WR said:
			
		

> Gimpy,
> Are you living in a fantasy world? Weapons and drugs don't go together? Most drug users I have contact with, on a daily basis, have weapons on them or near them. Not always firearms, but knives, brass knuckles, pepperspray etc. They need them to defend themselves from the unsavory elements that lurks in the drug world. Unless the person is independently wealthy, they generally have to commit crimes to pay for their drug habit. Another reason why they carry a weapon.
> Also most K-9's are trained to detect drugs and firearms, not one, but both. So if a K-9 was brought into a school for a random search for just firearms, the handler would not know if the indications was for drugs or a firearms. What do they do then, if they find drugs? Put it back because they were only looking for firearms? Bomb dogs are to far and few between.
> A random k-9 search is not perfect, because if you are wearing a jacket or clothes that have been around second hand contact with contraband, the dog will detect. It will not always detect only on "product". If that is the case in a high school, maybe that child should see a counselor, as they are an at risk youth and maybe a little intervention will prevent them from taking the next step into becoming a user.



No they don't, I should know, I've hung out with them from middle school throughout high school. (My friends were drug users, but I wasn't). And from everything I saw for every five to ten people who used they used one, maybe two people as a liason between the dealers and themselves. Those people maybe carried a knife or brass knuckles, but the casual users didn't. The dealers didn't even go to school, most of them were in their mid-20s. The majority of the users at my school weren't committing crimes to pay for the drugs; they were getting it from working. I'm guessing the users you have contact with are hardcore addicted and on the hard drugs. Well the hardest drugs I've seen kids bring to school is mushrooms. I've rarely seen anyone doing more than just pot. NEVER, EVER, have I seen ecstasy, cocaine, or anything else. I've heard people say that they tried it and it was too much.

I assume you are in law enforcement as well and I'm curious if the drug users you have contact with are hardcore addicted ones? Because my experiences are with casual ones and from all my time in high school I'd say probably only 5% of the drug users were hardcore, the rest were just casual. So if a student brought a bit of pot to school they weren't looking to sell, just to smoke at lunch.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Apr 2008)

Bullshit.  You're not the first person to ever go to school.  There were high schools when I was young too.  It was a pretty regular occurrence to have the RCMP toss our lockers based on rumours, conjecture, or just because they felt like it.  I fly a lot for my work, and am inconvenienced every time I have to remove my shoes, my belt, and whatever else I carry.  Get off the high horse, you may get a nosebleed.


----------



## Gimpy (27 Apr 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Bullshit.  You're not the first person to ever go to school.  There were high schools when I was young too.  It was a pretty regular occurrence to have the RCMP toss our lockers based on rumours, conjecture, or just because they felt like it.  I fly a lot for my work, and am inconvenienced every time I have to remove my shoes, my belt, and whatever else I carry.  Get off the high horse, you may get a nosebleed.



You're 46, you went to high school 25 years ago. Things have changed and its irrelevant anyways. This story has ZERO relation to airports, they specifically said its protected by a special federal law. Lets see if I can say this any clearer. *YOU* aren't the one being inconvenienced by what is occurring in *HIGH SCHOOL*. When you say it was a regular occurrence for the RCMP to do all that it was fine because the lockers aren't your property, but if they were to start going through your backpack because they felt like it, it would be unlawful. Maybe you should read up on the actual topic and maybe the charter of rights so you understand what the whole discussion is about. I appreciate your snide remarks as well, it really lends credence to your weak argument.


----------



## J.J (27 Apr 2008)

In all the years I have worked as an LEO, I have only met (I arrested him 3 times in 3 weeks) one user of a hard drug (crack cocaine) who said he went right to crack, he never used a "gateway" drug. He was a 63 yr old retired widower who was trying to fit in with some guys he met and tried crack, he was hooked. He wasn't even aware cocaine came in another form other than crack. Almost all users with a chemical dependency started using "soft or recreational" drugs. I am not trying to say that all users of pot are going to "banging herion" the next weekend, but almost all junkies started out using pot!
Why not stop the "pot head" and help them in high school, before they become the "burn out" on the street corner?

(I know a lot of corny slang)


----------



## Gimpy (27 Apr 2008)

WR said:
			
		

> In all the years I have worked as an LEO, I have only met (I arrested him 3 times in 3 weeks) one user of a hard drug (crack cocaine) who said he went right to crack, he never used a "gateway" drug. He was a 63 yr old retired widower who was trying to fit in with some guys he met and tried crack, he was hooked. He wasn't even aware cocaine came in another form other than crack. Almost all users with a chemical dependency started using "soft or recreational" drugs. I am not trying to say that all users of pot are going to "banging herion" the next weekend, but almost all junkies started out using pot!
> Why not stop the "pot head" and help them in high school, before they become the "burn out" on the street corner?
> 
> (I know a lot of corny slang)



I really don't think that pot is a gateway drug, and many others, including scientists, doctors, and other intellectuals think the same way. There is no study that shows a legitimate correlation between marijuana users who turn into hard drug addicts. And of course if there are they are ill-founded because of course if a person starts using drugs they will try the most popular first. When you go to a new amusement park most people will go to the ride they think looks the funnest. Alcohol is light years ahead of pot in terms of damage done to you and others. My experience with people who were high on pot and drunk on alcohol were like summer and winter. The marijuana users were relaxing, happy, and still remembered shit that happened the night before, while drunks (sadly my dad sometimes) were violent, had no co-ordination, and couldn't remember anything. 

One night after drinking, my dad stumbled home and went to bed. During the night he woke up to go the washroom. Fell out of bed onto the sharp corner of a wooden nightstand. He got a deep 6 inch gash in his armpit. I came up to find him bleeding with muscle tissue coming out on the ground. That was probably one of the worst nights of my short life seeing him like that.When he sobered up the next morning in the hospital he didn't even remember what happened and kept asking why he was in a hospital bed. I've never once seen anyone on pot do anything remotely close to that.


----------



## J.J (27 Apr 2008)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/library-e/powers-e.htm#3.%20Border%20Crossings

R. v. Simmons


This is what gives Customs the right to search without a warrant or reasonable and probable grounds. It is not special Federal legislation, it is a ruling by the SCC.

Gimpy,
I know you are almost in your 20's, a very wise man by now. Kat is an old, has been, who remembers walking to school 7 miles in the snow uphill, both ways!  : (if you haven't picked it up, I am being sarcastic).

Just because Kat is older and went to school 25yrs ago, doesn't mean things have changed. They haven't! I go into high schools all the time for presentations and to talk to the students, it is no different now then when I went 20 yrs ago.
Don't do drugs, don't hang around those that do drugs and you won't have to worry about being searched. Sounds simple to me....


----------



## J.J (27 Apr 2008)

Gimpy,
I speak from life experience, day to day at work and I came from the "hood", I hung out in Detroit on a regular basis, I had friends in school who have screwed their life up seriously because of drugs. I know what i speak of, do you? I don't think so. You are barely out of school, no real life experience other than seeing your father fall down and hurt himself and hanging out with the local pot heads. 
Show me *credible* sources that say pot is not a gateway drug, not an article from High Times or something from CBC. I see it everyday, I talk to the worst and lowest in society and all of them, except the one, have said they started with pot.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Apr 2008)

Some info about marijuana - note the fifth statistic.

greater dallas council on alcohol & drug abuse


----------



## Gimpy (27 Apr 2008)

WR said:
			
		

> Gimpy,
> I speak from life experience, day to day at work and I came from the "hood", I hung out in Detroit on a regular basis, I had friends in school who have screwed their life up seriously because of drugs. I know what i speak of, do you? I don't think so. You are barely out of school, no real life experience other than seeing your father fall down and hurt himself and hanging out with the local pot heads.
> Show me *credible* sources that say pot is not a gateway drug, not an article from High Times or something from CBC. I see it everyday, I talk to the worst and lowest in society and all of them, except the one, have said they started with pot.



http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/gateway.html, http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_gateway.html, http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2006/study-says-marijuana-is-no.html, http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#gateway

And don't give me the bullshit that those don't count. They have spent a lot of time researching what they write. So how about you show me *credible* sources that say pot *IS* a gateway drug. But you can't use articles or reports from government organizations, the police, or any organization that has a vested interest in saying that pot is a gateway drug. You can't be so glib as to think that people who have an interest in something will have researched it thoroughly. Seriously though find me clear, credible, thoroughly researched articles saying that pot is a gateway drug.


----------



## 40below (27 Apr 2008)

The kids are still Canadian citizens and protected by the same Charter I am. And that actually means something. I love this quote from the majority decision: "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. This expectation is a reasonable one that society should support."

I sure as hell don't let the cops wander through my home with sniffer dogs every time they feel like doing it, and if you're in favour of this decision, go ahead give them permission to toss your bedroom and your garage every time they have a little spare time on their hands. If you're not hiding anything, it shouldn't be an issue, right? Let's let the line in favour of being subjected to such searches form to the left.


----------



## Strike (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> The kids are still Canadian citizens and protected by the same Charter I am. And that actually means something. I love this quote from the majority decision: "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. This expectation is a reasonable one that society should support."
> 
> I sure as hell don't let the cops wander through my home with sniffer dogs every time they feel like doing it, and if you're in favour of this decision, go ahead give them permission to toss your bedroom and your garage every time they have a little spare time on their hands. If you're not hiding anything, it shouldn't be an issue, right? Let's let the line in favour of being subjected to such searches form to the left.



Ah, but a person coming in to the school, who is not a student.  Do they have that same expectation of privacy?

Gimpy,
As for your references, sure there may not be medical proof of it being a gateway drug.  And yes, less than 1% of pot users go on to bigger things.  But of those who are using drugs that are more hard core, how many of them started with pot?  Socially a gateway drug?  Most certainly.  Medically?  Probably not.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Apr 2008)

Gimpy, I have to say your first reference was pretty biased.  It seems to be a "pro-pot" website.

Oh, wait, I went to high school 25 years ago, so my opinion is probably not current.  :


----------



## Pistos (27 Apr 2008)

> "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."



That statement scares me a bit.  You could easily replace "dog" with "metal detector" and then look for yet more creative instances where this precedent may be applied.  To take it to a silly extreme is it conceivable that a drug smuggler could argue there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in traveling along our Atlantic coast in a zodiac? No fair that we used surveillance equipment to see through the concealing darkness of night!   

Seriously though, doesn't that statement just seem odd and scary?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Apr 2008)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/gateway.html, http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_gateway.html, http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2006/study-says-marijuana-is-no.html, http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#gateway
> 
> And don't give me the bullshit that those don't count. They have spent a lot of time researching what they write. So how about you show me *credible* sources that say pot *IS* a gateway drug. But you can't use articles or reports from government organizations, the police, or any organization that has a vested interest in saying that pot is a gateway drug. You can't be so glib as to think that people who have an interest in something will have researched it thoroughly. Seriously though find me clear, credible, thoroughly researched articles saying that pot is a gateway drug.



I guess working with drug users for the last 19 years doesn't cut it with you either because its not what you want to hear.

I was very pro-drug in my youth and used the same tired lines/excuses you are using right now....................then this job made me bite a reality sandwich,.............Gimpy, give it up, the real world is still out there for you.


----------



## Strike (27 Apr 2008)

Pistos said:
			
		

> That statement scares me a bit.  You could easily replace "dog" with "metal detector" and then look for yet more creative instances where this precedent may be applied.  To take it to a silly extreme is it conceivable that a drug smuggler could argue there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in traveling along our Atlantic coast in a zodiac? No fair that we used surveillance equipment to see through the concealing darkness of night!
> 
> Seriously though, doesn't that statement just seem odd and scary?



He'd be right of course...provided his running lights were all working.  Otherwise the CG would have every right to stop him as a danger to local boating/shipping traffic.


----------



## Gimpy (27 Apr 2008)

Edit: On second thought scrap all of this. This whole sidetrack is garbage, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand so lets all drop it.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

1986. High School. RCMP and drugs dogs going through sniffing. NORMAL. Sorry, Gimpy -- this is nothing new. I think it's fine --- and I've been subject to it myself.

So, with them not being able to use the dogs because a wholescale preventative search is found "unreasonable" ---

Is the trickle-down now applicable to those metal detectors located at the entrance doors in many Canadian Schools these days?

Why not? After all, isn't it just as "unreasonable" to put all students through that "search" without "reasonable cause"? So, the next kid who gets nailed in the metal detector bringing a gun or knife into school now has a bonified defense based upon "unreasonable grounds for search" handed to him on a silver platter by our F'd up SCC. After all, perhaps that kids is just walking into school with it in his private little backpack too.

Nice. I'll feel sooooooooooo much safer sending my kids to school tomorrow now.  :

Our courts -- need to sort themselves out ... desperately.

What a load of El Toro Poo Poo this ruling is.


----------



## Gimpy (27 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> 1986. High School. RCMP and drugs dogs going through sniffing. NORMAL. Sorry, Gimpy -- this is nothing new. I think it's fine --- and I've been subject to it myself.
> 
> So, with them not being able to use the dogs because a wholescale preventative search is found "unreasonable" ---
> 
> ...



Do you find it reasonable for your kids to possibly get searched and humiliated in school even when you know they don't have anything on them? Are you fine with the police randomly going through their backpacks? Maybe you do, and if you do all the power to you. But I don't find it reasonable at all for the police to be able, without impunity, to go through your personal belongings because of a dog that is inaccurate.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Do you find it reasonable for your kids to possibly get searched and humiliated in school even when you know they don't have anything on them? Are you fine with the police randomly going through their backpacks? Maybe you do, and if you do all the power to you. But I don't find it reasonable at all for the police to be able, without impunity, to go through your personal belongings because of a dog that is inaccurate.



I already said I had no issues with it. I've been there!!

If my kids aren't doing anything wrong ... they have nothing to worry about.

And, I will guarantee you this:

I have no idea where this kid came up with the funds to challenge this to the SCC, but if it were my son --- his ass would be EXTREMELY sore, he'd get not a single DIME from me, and he'd get ZERO sympathy for his "supposed" plight. 

The kid in question would never have been charged had he not had ILLEGAL substances on him. Quit making excuses for these stupiodiots -- because that's all this is. An excuse and the right to blame someone else for their own crimes. At some point in time -- people need to be responsible for their own illegal activity -- this kid got got a free ride and that's bullshit.

The police did *NOT* go through this kids backpack (or ANY lockers) randomly. They walked the dogs through the school --- just as other kids walk through the metal detectors. The dog "hit" on his backpack, just as the metal detector would "hit" on a kids with a gun/knife's backpack. The police then had "reasonable grounds" as far as I'm concerned (but apparently not the SCC thought) to believe that this backpack contained drugs, just as they'd have reasonable grounds to search a backpack on a kid who set off a metal detector. 

If you're NOT committing a crime -- what's the worry? Crap ... been through an airport lately? You must be agahst at having to walk through the metal detector ... or have them xray your stuff ... after all you're innocent. Tripe.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2008)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Do you find it reasonable for your kids to possibly get searched and humiliated in school even when you know they don't have anything on them? Are you fine with the police randomly going through their backpacks? Maybe you do, and if you do all the power to you. But I don't find it reasonable at all for the police to be able, without impunity, to go through your personal belongings because of a dog that is inaccurate.



First off, I think something has to be said about these searches.  They really aren't "random".  Teachers, Staff and Students know who the Drug Dealers are.  They know who the Pushers are, and they call in the Police.  

Gimpy

Are you of the persuasion who think that a Cop should hand over his firearm to a criminal and walk away when he sees a crime being committed?  What about the Teachers in our Education System; should they turn a blind eye to criminals operating in our schools?  Who has more rights here; criminals, or the victims?


----------



## Gimpy (27 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If you're NOT committing a crime -- what's the worry? Crap ... been through an airport lately? You must be agahst at having to walk through the metal detector ... or have them xray your stuff ... after all you're innocent. Tripe.



If you're not committing a crime you shouldn't be searched, plain and simple. Its our right not to be searched without "reasonable grounds" and unreliable sniffer dogs are not "reasonable grounds".



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> First off, I think something has to be said about these searches.  They really aren't "random".  Teachers, Staff and Students know who the Drug Dealers are.  They know who the Pushers are, and they call in the Police.
> 
> Are you of the persuasion who think that a Cop should hand over his firearm to a criminal and walk away when he sees a crime being committed?  What about the Teachers in our Education System; should they turn a blind eye to criminals operating in our schools?  Who has more rights here; criminals, or the victims?



No they actually are random if you'd read the first article. "police use of a drug-sniffing dog during a random visit "

Yes thats exactly what I think :. Oh heavens someone is robbing a store, let me go give him my gun so he can shoot the owner. Seems reasonable to me and completely in line with everything I've posted.


----------



## Strike (27 Apr 2008)

How are dogs unreliable?  92% success rate sounds pretty darned good to me.


----------



## Gimpy (27 Apr 2008)

Strike said:
			
		

> How are dogs unreliable?  92% success rate sounds pretty darned good to me.



WR (who is in law enforcement) on the previous page said, "A random k-9 search is not perfect, because if you are wearing a jacket or clothes that have been around second hand contact with contraband, the dog will detect. It will not always detect only on 'product' "

And the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties released this report. http://www.nswccl.org.au/docs/pdf/sniffer%20dogs%20submission.pdf


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2008)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> No they actually are random if you'd read the first article. "police use of a drug-sniffing dog during a random visit "



There in lies the rub.  False information.  The Police can not randomly visit.  They need to be called in by someone; or as part of an ongoing investigation, come in to execute a Warrant, which would mean that there would be "Just Cause".

So, the article has gotten some facts wrong.


----------



## Strike (27 Apr 2008)

I'd rather have a dog detect a smell and find nothing than miss something.

My whole thought on all of this is that, if you aren't guilty, then why care?  It's not infringing on your rights, since they're less likely to target your bag (unless you hang out with dope smokers ;D).  Are you afraid the dogs will target you and they'll find some other "interesting" stuff in there?


----------



## Gimpy (27 Apr 2008)

Strike said:
			
		

> I'd rather have a dog detect a smell and find nothing than miss something.
> 
> My whole thought on all of this is that, if you aren't guilty, then why care?  It's not infringing on your rights, since they're less likely to target your bag (unless you hang out with dope smokers ;D).  Are you afraid the dogs will target you and they'll find some other "interesting" stuff in there?



Personally I don't carry anything "interesting" but I hang out with smokers, they were my friends long before they started smoking so I'm not going to ditch them because they do. Maybe all of this stems from my fear of dogs, who knows. If they had drug sniffing cats maybe I'd take more kindly to it. I'm afraid its going to turn out like in The Simpsons when Homer crotches the pot when Wiggum brings a sniffer dog in and it procedes to chomp on his crotch.


----------



## 40below (27 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> First off, I think something has to be said about these searches.  They really aren't "random".  Teachers, Staff and Students know who the Drug Dealers are.  They know who the Pushers are, and they call in the Police.



Well if they're *that* sure, they can give a sworn affadavit and after taking it to a judge, the judge can authorize police to conduct a search of one single locker and one single backpack using a warrant based on that affadavit, then. 

Because after all, it's obvious who the dealers are – although back in my high school days 25 years ago, when I and my friends were long-haired, pot-smoking freaks and widely suspected of being dealers, the guys who *were* the dealers were the dean's-list short-haired preppies who played on the basketball team, who had dentists for daddies and who drove late-model Mustangs - we didn't have the thousands of dollars lying around cash to buy the stuff by the pound. I'm sure it's all changed since.

What the schools are doing is saying 'Hey, we think there are drug dealers here, search every single locker." You're right they're not 'random', they're en masse. And unlike any other public place, say a concert venue, the kids aren't being asked to consent to a search as a condition of entry. Think about it: even in a civil context, at a RIDE check, if I'm sober, even by condition of my being on the road and being stopped and maybve even being someone the police would LIKE to search, I'm still not giving cops the OK to go through my glove box or my trunk just in case there's something there society needs to be protected against.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> If you're not committing a crime you shouldn't be searched, plain and simple. Its our right not to be searched without "reasonable grounds" and unreliable sniffer dogs are not "reasonable grounds".



Bullshit. Never been to a rock concert have you? I suppose though, you may not have had a purse for them to rifle through as I did.



			
				Gimpy said:
			
		

> No they actually are random if you'd read the first article. "*police use of a drug-sniffing dog during a random visit* "
> 
> Yes thats exactly what I think :. Oh heavens someone is robbing a store, let me go give him my gun so he can shoot the owner. Seems reasonable to me and completely in line with everything I've posted. I'm just a criminal loving left-wing lunatic. Can I not have a left-wing opinion on this site? Why should I get dogpiled on because I have opinions that don't fall in with the norm of this site. I thought you were trying to steer away from the atmosphere on other sites, but then I get harrassed and personally attacked by members of the directing staff no less because I don't share your views.



Random VISIT to the school (due to a long standing invitation by the school to show up and do so -- did you miss that part?). They did not rifle through everyone's lockers and everyone's backpacks. The ONLY one's they went through were ones that the drug dog "hit" on <--- not QUITE so random now is it? Doesn't the fact that during a walkthrough of the school the drug dog hits on someones backpack then translate into "the dog may reasonably suspect that this individuals pack contains ILLEGAL substances (the posession of which is an offense BTW -- as in "crime in progress")?"

And, the dog was right. And the little grubby criminal gets away with it. Bullshit.

And, if the dog was wrong ... nothing at all happened to the individual in question. I don't see the problem with that.

And yes, I soooo enjoyed them rifling through my bras et al on my way back thorugh the airport from Ottawa last visit -- I wasn't committing any crime either. Did it hurt me one single iota? NOPE, not in the least.

I didn't attack you as an individual. I attacked this notion that criminals should not be held accountable or responsible for their own damn actions. It really is that simple.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (27 Apr 2008)

High School... 2008.. I'm there. I've witnessed many many searches done by mounties, and have been subject to searches from teachers. Inconvenience my ass. This is a school in a place where more people have dope on them than don't. Personally, I like it when I see the mounties arrest someone at school for having drugs on them. 
And as someone who is going through school right now, (finishing in a month or two... hopefully) I can state for a fact that it isn't all weed. People here are showing up with ecstacy, cocaine, crack and there's been some OxyContin show up now and again. High School is not a nice place to be in a lot of places, and sniffer dogs is a great idea in those places.

Midget


----------



## 40below (27 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Bullshit. Never been to a rock concert have you? I suppose though, you may not have had a purse for them to rifle through as I did.



Let me make the point again: at a concert, you have a CHOICE. Your purse was searched because you consented to the search. Don't want to be searched? You don't have go to the concert, turn in your tickets, have your money refunded, you go on your merry way. Try that with a cop. It won't turn out as amicably.


----------



## Koenigsegg (27 Apr 2008)

I'm almost 19, and I graduated on time last year.  And I would like to say/think my time in highschool is recent (to those who think it matters for some reason...).
I was searched (and just briefly inspected, but not searched at all) during my four year stay there and I had NO problem with it.  I never did drugs nor had any on me, but I did sit beside few druggies in my classes throughout the years so the dogs must have picked the scent up from that.  I had no issues with it because the way I saw it was that the police were out doing their jobs, and I had nothing to hide.  A few minutes of my time was nothin', and no humiliation occured at all.  There is such a thing as "Too far", but I don'tconsider the situation in the article "Too far" at all.  They caught the guilty party, and he is protected under the young offenders act (or so I would assume...highschool student, Identified only by initial...)so no one outside the people directly in the know will know his full identity.  The only thing he would have lost is due to his own stupidity, and that lost thing would be a clean record.  Boohoo.

It seems to (mostly) only be the guilty parties that complain.  If a totally random person brought this topic up in the courts I couldn't see this discussion taking some of the paths it has.

Edited...yellow text.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> What the schools are doing is saying 'Hey, we think there are drug dealers here, search every single locker." You're right they're not 'random', they're en masse. And unlike any other public place, say a concert venue, the kids aren't being asked to consent to a search as a condition of entry. Think about it: even in a civil context, at a RIDE check, if I'm sober, even by condition of my being on the road and being stopped and maybve even being someone the police would LIKE to search, I'm still not giving cops the OK to go through my glove box or my trunk just in case there's something there society needs to be protected against.



Excuse me.  Other the post of a rather bitter person, I find your logic really bizarre.

When did our Education System suddenly allow Criminals of any type, not just Drug Dealers, to operate outside the Law on School grounds.  

Just like the "searches" you can now expect at Airports, Border Crossings, Concerts, Ride Programs, etc.; what makes a School a FREE ZONE?  

Does this mean that you condone the use of Drugs?  I suppose you condone the act of children bringing handguns into schools too?  Heck, let's just throw all the Laws that have kept us safe over the years out the window.  The precedence has been set.  Don't like your neighbour.  Off him.  It would be against the Law for the Police to invade your privacy now wouldn't it?  How more friggin ways can a high priced Lawyer debate the Law and find a lesser opponent in the Courts to argue the case against him, or how many times must Liberal Left Wing Judges nullify the Laws that protect us from criminals and further bring our society into chaos?  

If these people hadn't been doing so much drugs in their youth, we wouldn't be seeing their obscene sense of justice being played out in the Courts.   :  They (Lawyers, Judges and Human Rights Advocates) are making a mockery of our Laws and Judicial System.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Let me make the point again: at a concert, you have a CHOICE. Your purse was searched because you consented to the search. Don't want to be searched? You don't have go to the concert, turn in your tickets, have your money refunded, you go on your merry way. Try that with a cop. It won't turn out as amicably.



100% correct.

And ... schools are supposed to be drug-free too. Parents, society, and MOST students have a reasonable expectation of that within the school. Dope is illegal. There is also a resonable expectation that they remain drug-free. Don't want to have your backpack searched (AFTER the sniffer dog hits on it) to ensure that they remain drug-free ... take it to the SCC I guess.  :

And from your one before:



> Think about it: even in a civil context, at a RIDE check, if I'm sober, even by condition of my being on the road and being stopped and maybve even being someone the police would LIKE to search, I'm still not giving cops the OK to go through my glove box or my trunk just in case there's something there society needs to be protected against.



No, but if you SMELL of alcohol (ie are possibly committing a criminal act as detected via human "sniffing") ... you can reasonably be expected to do a breathalyzer. You may fail, you may not (as in you may be doing something illegal you may not). So, why exactly is the same "reasonable expectation" not applicable to the backpacked kid which has been sniffed out by the drug dog (where the kid may be committing a crime, they may not)? What exactly is the difference, because it IS escaping me?


----------



## neilinkorea (27 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Bullshit. Never been to a rock concert have you? I suppose though, you may not have had a purse for them to rifle through as I did.



A search at a concert is a voluntary search.  You give permission for the security people to search in exchange to be allowed into the venue.  It may not seem so voluntary, but we do hand over the bags of our own accord.  Someone who is not a peace officer has no right to search you unless you give them permission.  This is the real issue here, not the use of dogs as a tool to search.  We give police very special powers to detain, search, and seize property of citizens. We have given them this ability with the provision that it only be used under certain circumstances.  It is the fact that the search was done at random with no target that makes it unconstitutional.  If a report was made that a bomb was suspected to be in the school then a search would have been legal and all evidence obtained as the result of that search would be admissible in court.(I'm not a lawyer or cop, so I'm not positive about how drug evidence obtained by a bomb search would be treated by a court).

Now, the police aren't stupid.  They understand the legality of search and seizure.  I think the purpose of actions is gathering information.  They now know who a drug dealer is at the school.  And the embarrassment caused by this exposure may cause him and others to stop doing business in school.  No way the cops could do this in a home or on the street.  It is an easy investigative tool that yields intelligence not evidence.  The surprising thing is that the crown proceeded to trial with this.  They want to make an issue of drugs in schools and get support to change the search laws to allow searches like this in schools.  And if the law is changed to allow them, great.  If not, fine.  I still believe in the presumption of innocence as a foundation of our system.  It is better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to spend a day in jail.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> I'm almost 19, and I graduated on time last year.  And I would like to say/think my time in highschool is recent (to those who think it matters for some reason...).



People are sharing the years of their high school experiences because someone here claimed that we didn't care about kids being searched because "we" weren't being searched oursleves. We're simply pointing out the more proper fact that "we" certainly were in high school once and were subject to the exact same thing.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

neilinkorea said:
			
		

> A search at a concert is a voluntary search.  You give permission for the security people to search in exchange to be allowed into the venue.  It may not seem so voluntary, but we do hand over the bags of our own accord.


See my response to that same comment two posts ago where I responded to the same thing.

Anyone else want to bring it up now? I've already answered and given my .02 bits on it. I'll just link you to it.

By your definition of "random" -- RIDE checks are also unconstitutional. They also have no set individual in their sights, rather they "sniff" out the offenders from amongst all the innocents also stopped. Why not drug pushers out of the schools then?


----------



## 40below (27 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just like the "searches" you can now expect at Airports, Border Crossings, Concerts, Ride Programs, etc.; what makes a School a FREE ZONE?



I'm not sure what the definition of a "Free Zone" is, unless you;re referring to Bey's "TAZ" and that's SF crap. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe there is any space in Canada where the law does not apply, and that's kind of my point. 

If criminals are operating, by all means, gather evidence on them, arrest them, charge them, bring them to trial and lock them up. No argument. The justification is laid out in the law. Reasonable cause, not, "You might be guilty, so we're going to search you to be sure.'

However, if your point is that SOMEONE in a school is dealing drugs, so we have to do warrantless searches on EVERYONE, then I have a problem with that. And I expect you would too. 

That's the argument that 'If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about,' which in fact gives me plenty to worry about. I don't have any unresigstered long guns in my house, so no, I don't suppose I'd worry about police searching my house, barn and safe deposit box without a warrant just to make sure, except the Charter says they can't. There's a reason, even though unregistered guns are as illegal as drugs. I don't have an illegal radar detector in my car, so if the OPP pulled me over at random and tossed my car they wouldn't find one, so it's all good; I don't have any untaxed illegal Indian cigarettes in my pocket, so I guess in theory I'd have no problem with being stopped and frisked by RCMP excise officers at my work just to you know, make sure and stuff; take this argument as far as you'd like to. The argument 'If you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't object to being searched' is just scary because of where it leads.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> If criminals are operating, by all means, gather evidence on them, arrest them, charge them, bring them to trial and lock them up. No argument. The justification is laid out in the law. Reasonable cause, not, "You might be guilty, so we're going to search you to be sure.'
> 
> However, if your point is that SOMEONE in a school is dealing drugs, so we have to do warrantless searches on EVERYONE, then I have a problem with that. And I expect you would too.
> 
> That's the argument that 'If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about,' which in fact gives me plenty to worry about. I don't have any unresigstered long guns in my house, so no, I don't suppose I'd worry about police searching my house, barn and safe deposit box without a warrant just to make sure, except the Charter says they can't. There's a reason, even though unregistered guns are as illegal as drugs. I don't have an illegal radar detector in my car, so if the OPP pulled me over at random and tossed my car they wouldn't find one, so it's all good; I don't have any untaxed illegal Indian cigarettes in my pocket, so I guess in theory I'd have no problem with being stopped and frisked by RCMP excise officers at my work just to you know, make sure and stuff; take this argument as far as you'd like to. The argument 'If you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't object to being searched' is just scary because of where it leads.



I think you have it all wrong.  There is no need to fear if you are innocent.  They are not conducting "Random" checks, invasions of privacy or anything of the sort.  They are not just walking into Schools uninvited.  They have been invited in.  They must comply with the Law in the conduct of their duties.  If an Arrest is to be made, they must do so in compliance with the Law.  The Police are fairly hamstrung as is by the Law.  

This is not a Police State.  The arguments being put forward against the Police are all the follie of some fringe elements.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> If criminals are operating, by all means, gather evidence on them, arrest them, charge them, bring them to trial and lock them up. No argument. The justification is laid out in the law. Reasonable cause, not, "You might be guilty, so we're going to search you to be sure.'
> 
> However, if your point is that SOMEONE in a school is dealing drugs, so we have to do warrantless searches on EVERYONE, then I have a problem with that. And I expect you would too.



Hmmm, sounds like a RIDE check to me. Some people drive drunk, so we all get a little bit inconvenienced by being stopped at those checks during the appropriate seasons. We all get to roll down our windows and speak to the officers. If WE aren't doing anything wrong, or they can't "sniff" any alcohol or have no further reson to suspect that "we" are driving drunk --- we continue on our merry little way.

IF, they do have reason to suspect we are comitting a crime however, we then are subject to further search in giving that breath sample. We may be drunk. We may not be. It's all legal ... and is all well and good. Those who blow, and who are not drunk also continue on their merry little way.

These kids at this school were not ALL searched. Nor were ALL their lockers or backpacks searched. The only ones who's space was invaded (ie thier lockers searched or backpacks) were those who were "hit" upon and sniffed out by the dogs. They then found themselves subject to further search by having their backpacks looked into because there then existed reasonable grounds to suspect a crime was occuring. Much the very same thing as smelling alcohol on the breath of a driver and considering it grounds for further "search" via breathalyzer.

You still haven't showed me where the difference is between these two things as I asked earlier --- and I'm still failing to see any single iota of difference between the two.


----------



## Koenigsegg (27 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> People are sharing the years of their high school experiences because someone here claimed that we didn't care about kids being searched because "we" weren't being searched oursleves. We're simply pointing out the more proper fact that "we" certainly were in high school once and were subject to the exact same thing.



My bad, Vern.  I was implying Gimpy (or whoever seemed to think that experience from years ago didn't matter).  I didn't want to point fingers, so I just stated it the way I did.  Very vague I know, and I apologise.  haha
woops.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Reasonable cause, not, "You might be guilty, so we're going to search you to be sure.'



A mountie pulls over a driver for speeding and smells alcohol on the breath of the driver.. does the mountie not have the authority to make the driver take a breathalizer?
Now:
Drugs are in schools, so a drug sniffing dog is doing it's job. The dog smells something suspicious in locker x, do the mounties have the authority to search the locker, and the backpack of the person using the locker?

Midget


----------



## neilinkorea (27 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think you have it all wrong.  There is no need to fear if you are innocent.  They are not conducting "Random" checks, invasions of privacy or anything of the sort.  They are not just walking into Schools uninvited.  They have been invited in.  They must comply with the Law in the conduct of their duties.  If an Arrest is to be made, they must do so in compliance with the Law.  The Police are fairly hamstrung as is by the Law.
> 
> This is not a Police State.  The arguments being put forward against the Police are all the follie of some fringe elements.



The police cannot be hamstrung by the law.  They are servants to it.  If Parliament decided to make smoking crack legal, the police would have to stand by and watch.  Just as they are subject to the charter rights of individuals when they conduct searches.  The police do what they think is right and the courts tell them if they are correct or not by ruling on the admissibility of the evidence obtained.  

I agree that the police were  invited into the school by the administration.  However, once you walk in and begin searching at random, which is the nature of what they are doing as soon as they walk through the door with a "search dog", they must assume that the evidence will be inadmissible.  This was either information gathering or bad policing. 

Police are not the guardians of right and wrong or the judges of good and bad. The job of the police is to gather evidence, within the law, to aid in the crowns prosecution of suspected criminals.  They failed in this case because the evidence was not obtained withtin the law and therefore useless to the crown.


----------



## 40below (27 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think you have it all wrong.  There is no need to fear if you are innocent.  They are not conducting "Random" checks, invasions of privacy or anything of the sort.  They are not just walking into Schools uninvited.  They have been invited in.  They must comply with the Law in the conduct of their duties.  If an Arrest is to be made, they must do so in compliance with the Law.  The Police are fairly hamstrung as is by the Law.
> 
> This is not a Police State.  The arguments being put forward against the Police are all the follie of some fringe elements.



I have to (keep) respectfully disagreeing with you. The Supremes' point on Friday was that teens are subject to the same Charter protection as you and I. There's a fascinating quote in the decision saying the air the dogs sniff may be public property, but the backback the smell is coming out of isn't. And their point was yeah, the police have to comply with the law. And the law prohibits fishing expeditions. The law prohibits the cops showing up at your door and demanding to look around; the law prohibits them demanding you turn over the contents of the Army.ca server "just in case." 

I'm not arguing it's a police state, and I have not made that point. I understand probably better than you how "hamstrung" (and I would never use that word, I would say 'Forced to go about their business legally')  the police are. And as for nothing to fear if I'm innocent - well, yeah, as a citizen of Canada, I am innocent until proven guilty by the state. They're the only ones who can deprive me of my liberty, the onus is on them to do their jobs according to the law of the land.

Here's an example, and a good one: every time when I go onto a military base, right there by every entrance in two languages by the 'Marching Troops Have Priority' sign, is a big ol' billboard stating that I and my vehicle are on a federal reserve and subject to search at any time. I don't like it, I can turn around. Nobody's forcing me to go there. Number one: those billboards aren't posted outside schools; number 2: if a kid under 16 doesn't attend school, unless by ministry-approved homeschooling protocols, it is actually a crime. There's the difference. The state can't compel you to do something while at the same time compel you to relinquish your rights as a citizen if you have done nothing wrong. That was the point of the decision.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

40below...

Charter protection does not prevent me from being held accountable for being "sniffed out" and found to be drinking and driving at a random ride check. The sniff alcohol when I roll down that window during that random RIDE check and I am then reasonably required to perform the breathalyzer as they have "reasonable grounds" to suspect I am committing an offense.

Still waiting for you to explain to me the difference here.

The kid's backpack was searched bacuse it had been "sniffed out" and reasonable suspicion then existed that he may be committing a crime.

No need for signs posted outside the schools BTW --- the kids bring home their "school rules and board policy" at the beginning of every year -- to be signed by them AND their parents and then returned to the school for inclusion onto their files. Guess what?? ZERO tolerance for drugs etc on school property is included on that. Geez, the one sent home here even detailed right out in it that searches would occur on school property and were to be expected. They are EXPECTED indeed to go to school each day, but that does NOT mean that they aren't also reasonably EXPECTED to follow the rules as well. They know the rules -- and the ones who say they don't are flat-out liars. Therefore, the reasonable expectation that kids NOT bring drugs to school is widely known to them. Give me a break already. :


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> I have to (keep) respectfully disagreeing with you. The Supremes' point on Friday was that teens are subject to the same Charter protection as you and I. There's a fascinating quote in the decision saying the air the dogs sniff may be public property, but the backback the smell is coming out of isn't. And their point was yeah, the police have to comply with the law. And the law prohibits fishing expeditions. The law prohibits the cops showing up at your door and demanding to look around; the law prohibits them demanding you turn over the contents of the Army.ca server "just in case."



And I'll respectfully disagree with you.  If I follow your logic, (using Vern's example of the RIDE Program) if a Police officer smells breath on my breath, then too bad, as the vehicle I am in is not public property.  The "air" he is smelling may be.  The road the vehicle is on, like the school, may be public property.  The Vehicle is not.  Has that warped your argument enough?

As for the Law prohibiting the Police from demanding that the contents of Army.ca server be turned over to them.  There is no Law prohibiting that.  If a Warrant was legally being executed, that is exactly what they could do.


----------



## 40below (27 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And I'll respectfully disagree with you.  If I follow your logic, (using Vern's example of the RIDE Program) if a Police officer smells breath on my breath, then too bad, as the vehicle I am in is not public property.  The "air" he is smelling may be.  The road the vehicle is on, like the school, may be public property.  The Vehicle is not.  Has that warped your argument enough?
> 
> As for the Law prohibiting the Police from demanding that the contents of Army.ca server be turned over to them.  There is no Law prohibiting that.  If a Warrant was legally being executed, that is exactly what they could do.



My point above, and while I may have made it badly, is that if the police do *not* smell alcohol on you, they have no cause to search your car any further. At that point we're at 'Thank you sir, have a good night.' I'm old enough to remember when they'd hand you an ice scraper or a goodie bag for your inconvenience back in the day. This is significantly different than our friends to the south, where you are compelled to show ID at roadside checks where the police will run you for outstanding warrants or "ask" if they might take a look in your trunk. Our Supremes explicitly outlawed such behaviour year ago; on Friday, they outlawed it in high schools too.

And as for your second point, I have made no argument about warrant searches and the herring you're tossing at me is rather red; if the cops have evidence and a spiffy piece of paper signed by a judge, or a JP if the judges were all golfing, go nuts. The defence lawyers will then argue disclosure and we're off to the races. We're arguing here specifically and solely about warranteless searches.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2008)

Warrantless Searches........

I side with Vern.


----------



## neilinkorea (27 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> 40below...
> 
> Charter protection does not prevent me from being held accountable for being "sniffed out" and found to be drinking and driving at a random ride check. The sniff alcohol when I roll down that window during that random RIDE check and I am then reasonably required to perform the breathalyzer as they have "reasonable grounds" to suspect I am committing an offense.
> 
> ...



By law you do not have to take a breathalyzer test if requested by police.  They can ask you, but not force you to do it.  However, once you refuse, you have comitted the crime of refusing to take a breathalyzer test.
A lot of dwi charges are thrown out each year due to the manner in which the evidence was obtained.  It is stupid to fight any police search because the police dont make the decisions about the evidence, the courts do.  But you can be sure a court will nail you for fighting a police officer or lying to them.

It comes down to public opinion.  People see dwi screening as a public service to reduce deaths due to impaired driving.  However, police men with dogs searching teenagers is a harder sell.  MADD does a much better PR job than the anti drug groups.


----------



## danchapps (27 Apr 2008)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> I don't think bombs or guns are enough of a regular problem that there needs to be cops searching bags on a regular basis. If the cops came to search a school for a bomb or guns it wouldn't be random, it would be with reasonable cause in which case they would be free to do it, and I seriously doubt people would disagree with a search for a bomb with reasonable cause. If you want to get a point across you shouldn't use such ridiculous hyperbole. By the way, do you know the last time a student brought a bomb to a Canadian school? Because I sure as hell don't.



Bombs shouldn't have to be a regular problem for the police to search for them. I've been out of high school now for about 6 years now. When I was in high school we did have bombs. Yes, in Canada some people are stupid enough to make little home made pipe bombs and bring them to school. We had 2 actual bombs found in my district in 2 school years, not to mention the numerous "test evacuations" that were really called in bomb threats on my school. I'm all for sending in the dogs. As far as I'm concerned, a school is public property and if you don't want to be searched don't bring it to school, leave it at home and share it with your mommy and daddy, I'm sure they like a good game of puff puff pass as much as the next person. For my 2 cents anyway. Even back then I wouldn't mind a dog doing the check, but if an officer just wanted to do it to be a jerk, I'd have something else to say. If you want, I can get a back hoe to help move that rock you live under to help see reality for what it is. Dealers aren't needed in school, end of story.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2008)

Whoa!  We can't have that now.  Those "Bomb Sniffing" dogs would be deemed against the Law.  Those bombs in knapsacks are in private property.   :

Needless to say, this is how rediculous this argument is getting.


----------



## 40below (27 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> 40below...
> 
> Charter protection does not prevent me from being held accountable for being "sniffed out" and found to be drinking and driving at a random ride check. The sniff alcohol when I roll down that window during that random RIDE check and I am then reasonably required to perform the breathalyzer as they have "reasonable grounds" to suspect I am committing an offense.
> 
> ...



I'm really NOT trying to be argumentative here, but I do have some background in the area and I do have to answer this. So here's the thing: the code of conduct you reference is between three parties, only two of whom legally count: the school board, the parents and the underage minor who is not old enough to sign a contract. Not the police, not the Crown Attorneys, not the jails. If it had anything to do with them, their signatures would be on it, and when I checked my kids' COC, they aren't. Not to say they can't become involved if there's a crime committed, but until one is, they aren't. This is not about a crime being committed or mens rea, but a case suggesting tthe potential that a crime may be committed in the future  - and not a crime of violence as if a kid was caught with a loaded .38 in his backpack. You might hate drugs worse than cancer but there's a significant legal difference.

The law of the land trumps any civil agreement, regardless of the motives of the people who signed it.


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Apr 2008)

Another good reason why we should elect our judges not to have some limp wristed do gooder be appointed.


----------



## 40below (27 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Whoa!  We can't have that now.  Those "Bomb Sniffing" dogs would be deemed against the Law.  Those bombs in knapsacks are in private property.   :
> 
> Needless to say, this is how rediculous this argument is getting.



A bomb is a significant threat to public health and safety. A gram of weed in some 14-year-old's backpack may be as dangerous as a pound of Semtex studded with bolts and nails, but I'm going to need a reference.  ;D


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> I'm really NOT trying to be argumentative here, but I do have some background in the area and I do have to answer this. So here's the thing: the code of conduct you reference is between three parties, only two of whom legally count: the school board, the parents and the underage minor who is not old enough to sign a contract. Not the police, not the Crown Attorneys, not the jails. If it had anything to do with them, their signatures would be on it, and when I checked my kids' COC, they aren't. Not to say they can't become involved if there's a crime committed, but until one is, they aren't. This is not about a crime being committed or mens rea, but a case suggesting tthe potential that a crime may be committed in the future  - and not a crime of violence as if a kid was caught with a loaded .38 in his backpack. You might hate drugs worse than cancer but there's a significant legal difference.
> 
> The law of the land trumps any civil agreement, regardless of the motives of the people who signed it.



Sorry. Posession/trafficing is a crime in progress -- *not* crime about to be committed. Possession is just as illegal as drunk driving. And, if you think trafficing etc has nothing to do with violence --- I feel sorry for you. 

Now about that RIDE check which you've so obviously side-stepped (4 times) yet again. It was your own example for crying out loud.

What was the difference?


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> A bomb is a significant threat to public health and safety. A gram of weed in some 14-year-old's backpack may be as dangerous as a pound of Semtex studded with bolts and nails, but I'm going to need a reference.  ;D



Does the contents of the backpack really matter?  It appears that you have changed your mind as to that.  Which way do you want it?  Civil Liberty, Private Property, the Law are the same in both cases.  It isn't the contents of the pack in question; it is the pack itself.


----------



## 40below (27 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Sorry. Posession/trafficing is a crime in progress -- *not* crime about to be committed. Possession is just as illegal as drunk driving. And, if you think trafficing etc has nothing to do with violence --- I feel sorry for you.
> 
> Now about that RIDE check which you've so obviously side-stepped (4 times) yet again. It was your own example for crying out loud.
> 
> What was the difference?



OK, here we go again: if the police stop you at a RIDE check.

And you are sober.

They cannot search your car.

They cannot demand you identify yourself.

They cannot ask you to open your trunk.

They cannot ask you step out of the car.

They cannot ask to search your car.

They cannot ask you to empty your pockets.

They cannot bring in a sniffer dog and have it check your car. Only in high school until Thursday could they demand that.

I hope this has clarified what I've been sidestepping.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> A bomb is a significant threat to public health and safety. A gram of weed in some 14-year-old's backpack may be as dangerous as a pound of Semtex studded with bolts and nails, but I'm going to need a reference.  ;D



I'm a parent of 2. That 14 year old with a small amount of drugs is more of a concern to me than someone with a pound of explosives. IMHO, its more realistic that he may just well decide that hes going to try and sell some of that drug to my kids. So to answer your question, yes it is more dangerous.

Now you have your reference.


----------



## 40below (27 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Does the contents of the backpack really matter?  It appears that you have changed your mind as to that.  Which way do you want it?  Civil Liberty, Private Property, the Law are the same in both cases.  It isn't the contents of the pack in question; it is the pack itself.



Why am I arguing with the whole directing staff tonight?

OK - It *is* the contents of the pack in question. There is an obvious difference between a bomb and a joint. I could put down the whole legal argument, but here's the though experiment: walk into your local police station with a bag of marijuana and ask "Does anyone know how to smoke this stuff?" 

Five minutes later, after you've gotten your ticket, walk in with a loaded rifle, wave it around and ask "Does anyone know how to fire this thing?" Do it in a shopping mall, a day care or a school if you don't want to go to the police HQ, I pretty much guarantee they'll come see you there. My liberty (and privacy) ends, as they say, where your fist ends and my nose begins. A gun or a bomb is inherently different from a bag of pot, and I really can't simplify the argument any more.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Why am I arguing with the whole directing staff tonight?



Does it say "Milnet.ca staff" at the end of my post ?

No it does not. I am posting just like any other member here.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> OK, here we go again: if the police stop you at a RIDE check.
> 
> And you are sober *smell* of alcohol.
> 
> ...



My modifications added.

So again, no it doesn't. What is the difference between them randomly stopping you at a RIDE check and obtaining a breath sample without a warrant because they smelled something on your breath and therefore have reasonable cause to believe a crime is being committed?

As opposed to:

Them randomly walking through the school and obtaining a sample of the crime from the backpack of an individual without a warrant because illegal substances were smelled emanating from that bag and therefore caused a reasonable concern that a crime was being committed?

I still see ZERO differences in the situation. Both were random searches/stops. Both resulted in "smells" which indicated possible offenses being committed. Both resulted in the obtaining of evidence without warrants (one from your person directly in way of breath sample/one by way of being on your posession).

It'd certainly seem to me that the taking of bodily fluids, semen, blood, saliva, breath etc would be reasonably believed to be much more invasive than looking into my backpack to see if the dogs were correct or not.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> A gun or a bomb is inherently different from a bag of pot, and I really can't simplify the argument any more.



A bag of pot is , from my perspective, a threat to the well-being of my children. I feel it is entirely more realistic that someone would bring drugs into a school than a bomb. I go to great lenghts to protect my kids from drugs and , once again, canadian courts have made my job more difficult.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Why am I arguing with the whole directing staff tonight?



Like you, we have just as many Freedoms to post as all other members of good standing on the site.




			
				40below said:
			
		

> OK - It *is* the contents of the pack in question. There is an obvious difference between a bomb and a joint. I could put down the whole legal argument, but here's the though experiment: walk into your local police station with a bag of marijuana and ask "Does anyone know how to smoke this stuff?"
> 
> Five minutes later, after you've gotten your ticket, walk in with a loaded rifle, wave it around and ask "Does anyone know how to fire this thing?" Do it in a shopping mall, a day care or a school if you don't want to go to the police HQ, I pretty much guarantee they'll come see you there. My liberty (and privacy) ends, as they say, where your fist ends and my nose begins. A gun or a bomb is inherently different from a bag of pot, and I really can't simplify the argument any more.



Actually.  I thought I had given you a much simpler and straight forward example.  I guess it was beyond your comprehension.

Let me see.

Your argument is that the Sniffer-dogs and Police have no Legal rights to search the students backpacks.

Why then would you argue that Sniffer-dogs and Police would suddenly have rights to search that same students backpack if there were a Bomb, rather than Drugs, in the backpack?

Too simple, or should I bring in the fact that possession of rifle is not against the Law.


----------



## 40below (27 Apr 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm a parent of 2. That 14 year old with a small amount of drugs is more of a concern to me than someone with a pound of explosives. IMHO, its more realistic that he may just well decide that hes going to try and sell some of that drug to my kids. So to answer your question, yes it is more dangerous.
> 
> Now you have your reference.



Fair enough. As a father of two, I'm on the other side of the street. I've taught my kids not to buy drugs from the kids selling them. So far, so good, and I know what I'm looking at. 

Far-fetched as it is, I'd rather they be around kids who sell drugs than the ones who bring a pound of explosives to school because I haven't taught my kids how to not die in such situations. Your mileage may vary


----------



## aesop081 (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Fair enough. As a father of two, I'm on the other side of the street. I've taught my kids not to buy drugs from the kids selling them. So far, so good, and I know what I'm looking at.



I have gone to great lenghts to teach my kids the same thing. I have done a great job at it so far. F***k you very much for implying otherwise.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> OK - It *is* the contents of the pack in question. There is an obvious difference between a bomb and a joint. I could put down the whole legal argument, but here's the though experiment: walk into your local police station with a bag of marijuana and ask "Does anyone know how to smoke this stuff?"



No offense, but kids these days are at much higher risk of harm from and exposure to drugs at a rate which far exceeds their exposure to and risk from explosives.

One may be more dangerous in and of itself ... but kids are at risk from drugs DAILY and DIRECTLY because of assinine rulings just like this one.

I am smart enough to know that my kids are more at direct risk from drugs in their daily lives than explosives. So yeah, there's an OBVIOUS difference between the two but ONE is a daily and significant threat to kids ... and one simply is not.

Oh, and don't even bother with an attempt to bring my parenting skills into question as you have done to someone else below.  :  I'd rather my kids not be around either those who sell drugs (a pretty common breed) OR those who carry explosives (<--- a pretty uncommon breed if I do say so myself).


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> OK, here we go again: if the police stop you at a RIDE check.
> 
> And you are sober.
> 
> ...



I think you ar wrong. I don't know where you are from, but in Saskatchewan they do all of the above if need be. Municipal and RCM Police.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Far-fetched as it is, I'd rather they be around kids who sell drugs than the ones who bring a pound of explosives to school because I haven't taught my kids how to not die in such situations. Your mileage may vary



 ???

Now you got me?  You have taught your kids to die in other situations?   ???

Your "On again. Off again." version of Civil Liberties has me confused.  It is not OK to search one backpack, but it is OK to search another pack.  Both packs contain illegal substances.  I am confused by your contradictory opinions.


----------



## 40below (27 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Like you, we have just as many Freedoms to post as all other members of good standing on the site.
> 
> 
> Actually.  I thought I had given you a much simpler and straight forward example.  I guess it was beyond your comprehension.
> ...



Yeah, I'm kinda dumb. Thank you for pointing that out. Anyway, it's the Supreme Court of Canada that ruled police dogs have no Legal rights to search student back packs, not me.

And yeah, possession of a rifle is perfectly legal, I never said it wasn't. I'm trying to have a discussion and all I'm getting is torn down for points I didn't make.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> And yeah, possession of a rifle is perfectly legal, I never said it wasn't. I'm trying to have a discussion and all I'm getting is torn down for points I didn't make.



Not a rifle, but you mentioned there was a big difference between a .38 and a gram of weed I belive it was. You certainly insinuated that it was OK to search for the .38, but not the other.

Right here in this post:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/73605/post-706189.html#msg706189


----------



## 40below (27 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> Now you got me?  You have taught your kids to die in other situations?   ???
> 
> Your "On again. Off again." version of Civil Liberties has me confused.  It is not OK to search one backpack, but it is OK to search another pack.  Both packs contain illegal substances.  I am confused by your contradictory opinions.



Actually, your argument has brought me around. People who possess goods in contrvention of the CCC must be found out and jailed through random police searches. If we can both agree on something here, and I think we do agree, it's that we also support the jailing of people who have illegal venison in their freezers, illegal radar detectors in their cars, who are stealing unsecured WiFi from their neighbours and who are smoking untaxed cigarettes. And the only way we will catch these criminals is massive police searches on every house, vehicle and person in the nation - it's not like these people are going to give themselves up. All those items are as illegal as pot in schools, and civil liberties merely stand in the way of law enforcement being able to do its job.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Actually, your argument has brought me around. People who possess goods in contrvention of the CCC must be found out and jailed through random police searches. If we can both agree on something here, and I think we do agree, it's that we also support the jailing of people who have illegal venison in their freezers, illegal radar detectors in their cars, who are stealing unsecured WiFi from their neighbours and who are smoking untaxed cigarettes. And the only way we will catch these criminals is massive police searches on every house, vehicle and person in the nation - it's not like these people are going to give themselves up. All those items are as illegal as pot in schools, and civil liberties merely stand in the way of law enforcement being able to do its job.


Mock us all you want.  

I see a person who is so indecisive, they can't see the contradictions in their own arguments.  A person with blinders on, and arguing in favour of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which in essence are taking away our freedoms to live in a lawful and peaceful society.  Who is parroting the "Left's" cries of injustice against freedoms that they are unwittingly destroying.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Actually, your argument has brought me around. People who possess goods in contrvention of the CCC must be found out and jailed through random police searches. If we can both agree on something here, and I think we do agree, it's that we also support the jailing of people who have illegal venison in their freezers, illegal radar detectors in their cars, who are stealing unsecured WiFi from their neighbours and who are smoking untaxed cigarettes. And the only way we will catch these criminals is massive police searches on every house, vehicle and person in the nation - it's not like these people are going to give themselves up. All those items are as illegal as pot in schools, and civil liberties merely stand in the way of law enforcement being able to do its job.



Enough already.

No one here has advocated random police searchs occur _JUST BECAUSE_.

In this case, the drug dog HIT on the kids pack. That's JUST CAUSE. Period.

If "scent" is just cause in a RANDOM RIDE check to presume an offense is being committed, then you tell me why the hell:
"Scent" is NOT just cause in a RANDOM Dog Drug Search to presume an offense is being committed.

You keep contradicting yourself. Lovely that.

_Well, it's not OK for drugs, but it's OK for weapons. It's OK for random RIDE checks to search me further by asking for breath samples if the officer sniffs something that indicates a crime, but it's not OK for random dog searches to do same when they "sniff" something that indicates a crime ...  _ 

 :brickwall:


----------



## 40below (27 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Mock us all you want.
> 
> I see a person who is so indecisive, they can't see the contradictions in their own arguments.  A person with blinders on, and arguing in favour of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which in essence are taking away our freedoms to live in a lawful and peaceful society.  Who is parroting the "Left's" cries of injustice against freedoms that they are unwittingly destroying.



Dude, I'm unclear as to 'us' is that I'm mocking, but in my personal life I'm slightly to the right of Atilla The Hun, yet if you're suggesting, in the posts that I've repeatedly made, that the only way to take away our personal freedoms is to give the state and the police unfettered access to search our belongings whenever they feel like it without any probable cause in the name of 'freedom' and then arrest us based on what they happen to turn up – then I'll wear my blinders.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Dude, I'm unclear as to 'us' is that I'm mocking, but in my personal life I'm slightly to the right of Atilla The Hun, yet if you're suggesting, in the posts that I've repeatedly made, that the only way to take away our personal freedoms is to give the state and the police unfettered access to search our belongings whenever they feel like it without any probable cause in the name of 'freedom' and then arrest us based on what they happen to turn up – then I'll wear my blinders.



I'll suggest this to you nice and clear just so you don't miss it:

I have the expectation of and the RIGHT to ensure my kids go to school daily in a drug free and safe enviornment.

And, the SCC just took away the ability of schools to ensure MY kids are afforded that opportunity as is THEIR RIGHT and their expaectation. ALL at the expense of making EXCUSES for some drug-dealing little criminal kids' RIGHTS to break the law and get away with it.

What a crock of el toro poo poo.


----------



## 40below (27 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Enough already.
> 
> No one here has advocated random police searchs occur _JUST BECAUSE_.
> 
> In this case, the drug dog HIT on the kids pack. That's JUST CAUSE. Period.



Nope.

In the words of the Supremes, you can take it up with them if you don't like the law of the land:

_"The subject matter of the sniff is not public air space," said the ruling in the case by Justice Louis LeBel. "It is the concealed contents of the backpack.

"As with briefcases, purses and suitcases, backpacks are the repository of much that is personal. . . . 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." _


----------



## aesop081 (27 Apr 2008)

The supreme court the right decision does not always make


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Dude, I'm unclear as to 'us' is that I'm mocking, but in my personal life I'm slightly to the right of Atilla The Hun, yet if you're suggesting, in the posts that I've repeatedly made, that the only way to take away our personal freedoms is to give the state and the police unfettered access to search our belongings whenever they feel like it without any probable cause in the name of 'freedom' and then arrest us based on what they happen to turn up – then I'll wear my blinders.



Yo Dog!

Who said anything about giving the State or the Police unfettered access to search our belongings whenever they feel like it without probable cause.

All of the arguments against your opinions, Dude, have been that the Police have had "Just Cause" to do so.  

So Dude, what way do you want it?  Police Sniffer-dogs can or can not sniff out "Illigal" substances, be they Drugs, Explosives, Alcohol, Plants, Meat, whatever, or what?  There is no "Yes they can sniff for explosives, but no they can not sniff for drugs" in this equation.  

So Dude?  What way do you want it?


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> In the words of the Supremes, you can take it up with them if you don't like the law of the land:
> 
> ...



Are you that thick??

That is EXACTLY what the subject of this thread is. The Supreme Court of Canada upholding the "Rights" of a little criminal drug dealing child --- as higher and mightier than the RIGHTS and EXPECTATIONS of parents, teachers, and kids to be in safe and drug free (and, I'll re-iterate once again: drug posession IS illegal-- it IS a crime) enviornments at school.

A school where the kids are well aware that searchs occur and that there is ZERO tolerance for drugs. PERIOD.

Sorry if it offends you, but I'd much rather ensure that the court of this land upheld the rights of law abiding citizens *without infringing upon their rights,* to appease a criminal. That's NOT a crime -- rather, I'd call it "common sense" and the SCC and you ... need to get some and quit making excuses for them.


----------



## danchapps (27 Apr 2008)

Wow, who knew me mentioning the bomb at my school, and the one up the street would cause such a commotion here. My thought process was heading towards the "if the police weren't so afraid of the repercussions of police dog use they would have the potential to find the bomb(s), drugs and anything else before they were a problem" line. It would have been nice to find the first pipe bomb before it was out of the back pack, but then again we weren't tipped off, so it would have had to be random. The second they were tipped off and this cause a "test evacuation" to occur. Now, I'm not saying this happens often, but to me it gives reason to allow these types of searches. I'm sure if whatever kid was found with a minuscule amount of pot on him/her the police would do what they do with every other carrier of small amounts of pot, take it, and warn/reprimand/fine/suspend/whatever to the student. We are talking about trying to find larger amounts of drugs and potentially weapons here. It's hard enough to police the schools, but getting collared like this by the courts just makes it harder for the LEO's to do their job of protecting the students.


----------



## 40below (27 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Are you that thick??
> 
> That is EXACTLY what the subject of this thread is. The Supreme Court of Canada upholding the "Rights" of a little criminal drug dealing child --- as higher and mightier than the RIGHTS and EXPECTATIONS of parents, teachers, and kids to be in safe and drug free (and, I'll re-iterate once again: drug posession IS illegal-- it IS a crime) enviornments at school.
> 
> ...



I'm not going to respond to George Wallace's quite frankly unprofessional outburst – I read through your TOS, I see a lot of talk about expectation of respect and civility among members regardless of rank or service, we'll leave that for what is. 

This is what I want to point out:

_The Supreme Court of Canada upholding the "Rights" of a little criminal drug dealing child --- as higher and mightier than the RIGHTS and EXPECTATIONS of parents, teachers, and kids to be in safe and drug free (and, I'll re-iterate once again: drug posession IS illegal-- it IS a crime) enviornments at school_

A criminal drug-dealing child is one who has been convicted of drug dealing by the courts of law. What we are talking about here, what you are in a rush to put in jail, are citizens of Canada who have not been convicted of anything but who are subject to an illegal search that you yourself would never put up with. Could be your kids. Could be mine.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> I'm not going to respond to George Wallace's quite frankly unprofessional outburst – I read through your TOS, I see a lot of talk about expectation of respect and civility among members regardless of rank or service, we'll leave that for what is.



Really.  It just shows your indecisiveness in this whole argument.  You haven't entered this with any coherent thought.  Could I point out what I was responding to?  Perhaps you don't remember this:



			
				40below said:
			
		

> Dude, I'm unclear as to 'us' is that I'm mocking, but in my personal life I'm slightly to the right of Atilla The Hun, yet if you're suggesting, in the posts that I've repeatedly made, that the only way to take away our personal freedoms is to give the state and the police unfettered access to search our belongings whenever they feel like it without any probable cause in the name of 'freedom' and then arrest us based on what they happen to turn up – then I'll wear my blinders.



We are only asking you, outright asking you, to make up your mind.  You can not have it both ways, at your own personal discretion, as to when a Law applies to you and when it does not.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> A criminal drug-dealing child is one who has been convicted of drug dealing by the courts of law. What we are talking about here, what you are in a rush to put in jail, are citizens of Canada who have not been convicted of anything but who are subject to an illegal search that you yourself would never put up with. Could be your kids. Could be mine.



If it were my kid -- it wouldn't have made it to the SCC, nor would I have bailed his butt from jail. He knows what the law says and I'm not about to go about to go about giving him "outs" when he breaks it. And, like I have already stated NUMEROUS times here in this thread -- I HAVE been searched. So has my locker. I lived. I'm here to tell about it.  : I even got stopped randomly at a RIDE check once where I was aksed to provide a breath sample!! I passed ... and carried on; I certainly harboured no ill feelings towards the LEOs for doing their jobs, nor did I feel that I had been ILLEGALLY violated and deprived of my RIGHTS to a WARRANTED SEARCH due to their only "sniffing" alcohol emanating from my vehicle and my subsequent "innocence" in passing that test. It was my mother who was hammered after I had picked her up from her Christmas party. They asked -- I provided. I lived through that too. Why?? Because I KNEW I wasn't doing anything wrong.

Same question still stands -- and you still haven't told me the difference:

Why is obtaining a searched breath sample as evidence during a random RIDE check when they smell something on your breath "constitutional", but obtaining a searched backpack drug stash during a random school check when they smell something not Constitutional? Why is the evidence obtained because of "smell" considered a legal search for one instance and not the other? I'm still waiting.

And, your response does absolutely NOTHING with this ruling to protect my, my kids, and their teachers right to a drug free and safe enviornment at school -- it rather does the EXACT opposite. And, have you no doubt -- Little Johnny who just got off his charges due to this little gaff by the SCC --- was posessing the crap in his backpack (which IS illegal) ... a fact even he admitted to.


----------



## 40below (28 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Really.  It just shows your indecisiveness in this whole argument.  You haven't entered this with any coherent thought.  Could I point out what I was responding to?  Perhaps you don't remember this:
> 
> We are only asking you, outright asking you, to make up your mind.  You can not have it both ways, at your own personal discretion, as to when a Law applies to you and when it does not.



George, there's a law on the books and there's a law as applied. If I understand your point - and if you and the others could put aside your personal attacks on me long enough to articulate it, you can go back to pointing out I'm stupid, I'm a libbie, I'm a bad parent later, - this ruling prohibits random drug searches in high schools. Not bombs, not guns, not even drugs but if there's evidence that anyone there is dealing or using them, the police can execute the usual warrants that they'd use on, well, you, if they had evidence. Why is that bad? And why are warrantless searches good for the little lawn-crossing punks but not good enough for the cops to toss your house on a whim?


----------



## Koenigsegg (28 Apr 2008)

> The subject matter of the sniff is not public air space," said the ruling in the case by Justice Louis LeBel. "It is the concealed contents of the backpack.


If you really want to picky, and potentially childish, that same sentence could again be used in the context of a RIDE check.
The subject matter of the smell of booze is the concealed contents of your human body.
Yet they can open you up and perform a check (breathalizer), but they cannot open a backpack and check for weed or explosives?

Both are illegal, both circumstances revolve around your personal "belongings"(?),  so why can they rummage through you, but not a back pack?

I'm seeing a sort of contradiction here...If can't do one, they shouldn't be able to do another.  And if that happens, every one will be screaming bloody murder that so many people are being hurt or killed by drunk drivers and that drugs are so much more rampant in the schools.  It's all or nothing, can't have it both ways.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Apr 2008)

40below

Totally unrelated to this subject, but reflecting back to a discusion on the Pistol range this afternoon, these "Judgements" and Charter cases are in effect now creating a situation, as a person on the range stated, whereby the "Police officer on the scene might as well just hand over his sidearm to a criminal caught in the act of perpetuating a crime."  This is how rediculous these "Judgements" are starting to look.  You have been arguing, basically, along those lines.........And no "Personal Attacks" are being made in stating these facts.


----------



## 40below (28 Apr 2008)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> If you really want to picky, and potentially childish, that same sentence could again be used in the context of a RIDE check.
> The subject matter of the smell of booze is the concealed contents of your human body.
> Yet they can open you up and perform a check (breathalizer), but they cannot open a backpack and check for weed or explosives?
> 
> ...



Ah, but here's the legality- you can build your own highways and drive on them wasted all night long and the cops can't touch you. You drive on a public road, with a pulic DL, you are consenting to such a search - you're an adult and driving is a privilege, not a right. A kid in school has not consented to such a right – and if you think a public school is as public as a highway, drop by one tomorrow, find a comfy chair in the library or the office and just kind of hang around and see how many minutes it takes you to be told to leave or the police will be called.


----------



## 1feral1 (28 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Actually, your argument has brought me around. People who possess goods in contrvention of the CCC must be found out and jailed through random police searches. If we can both agree on something here, and I think we do agree, it's that we also support the jailing of people who have illegal venison in their freezers, illegal radar detectors in their cars, who are stealing unsecured WiFi from their neighbours and who are smoking untaxed cigarettes. And the only way we will catch these criminals is massive police searches on every house, vehicle and person in the nation - it's not like these people are going to give themselves up. All those items are as illegal as pot in schools, and civil liberties merely stand in the way of law enforcement being able to do its job.



I am beginning to sense a very open agenda here WRT civil libertarian rights etc. Your sarcasam is not winning you any points.


----------



## armyvern (28 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Ah, but here's the legality- you can build your own highways and drive on them wasted all night long and the cops can't touch you. You drive on a public road, with a pulic DL, you are consenting to such a search - you're an adult and driving is a privilege, not a right. A kid in school has not consented to such a right – and if you think a public school is as public as a highway, drop by one tomorrow, find a comfy chair in the library or the office and just kind of hang around and see how many minutes it takes you to be told to leave or the police will be called.



Really. My next door neighbor in Belleville was charged for, and convicted of impaired driving, on his lawmower. On his lawn, after we called the stupidiot in for driving into his kids' swingset etc (while his kids were out playing too --). There's lots of privately owned roadways and driveways -- and if you're under the impression that you can drive those drunk, legally and with no possibility of arrest and conviction, you're waaaaaaaaayyy off base.

And yes, schools (even public schools) are controlled enviornements. Controlled enviornments that specificly identify that there is ZERO tolerance for drug posession on their premises -- a fact that those students (and their parents) are well aware of --- same goes for the searchs. What a BS arguement that is.

Next thing you know -- we'll be shouting how their infringing on their civil liberties and right to be obese by taking the soda out of the vending machines.  :


----------



## 40below (28 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 40below
> 
> Totally unrelated to this subject, but reflecting back to a discusion on the Pistol range this afternoon, these "Judgements" and Charter cases are in effect now creating a situation, as a person on the range stated, whereby the "Police officer on the scene might as well just hand over his sidearm to a criminal caught in the act of perpetuating a crime."  This is how rediculous these "Judgements" are starting to look.  You have been arguing, basically, along those lines.........And no "Personal Attacks" are being made in stating these facts.



I don't know what's being said on pistol ranges, I sit in courts most days. 

I say this without prejudice: I know what comes out of the barrel of a gun, you folks should spend a few days seeing what comes out of the mouth of a judge and do it in person, not through Law & Order. There's probably a courthouse near you, admission is free and the seats are OK. It frustrates me no end to see people who've never been in court make statements like the one you've made above. There isn't even a perp who would agree with that ludicrous statement, let alone the most liberal crimal defence lawyer I know. Or the cops I spend eight hours a day with sitting through a trial. They're smart guys and women whose sidearms are part of their work clothes, but that's pure hyperbole.


----------



## armyvern (28 Apr 2008)

I guess not given your last post.

That still doesn't explain how my neighbour manged to be charged and convicted. Nor does it explain why breath samples obtained during a random RIDE check as a result of "smells" providing the "just cause" are legal while backpack seizures of illegal substances are not.


----------



## 40below (28 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Really. My next door neighbor in Belleville was charged for, and convicted of impaired driving, on his lawmower. On his lawn, after we called the stupidiot in for driving into his kids' swingset etc (while his kids were out playing too --). There's lots of privately owned roadways and driveways -- and if you're under the impression that you can drive those drunk, legally and with no possibility of arrest and conviction, you're waaaaaaaaayyy off base.



Jeez, I was just in Belleville driving Subarus from Bay's yesterday. Glad I didn't run him down. Anyway, he'll win on appeal. They can charge you, but you can be impaired as you like on your own land and you can't be convicted of .08 unless you commit another crime while intoxicated or the landowner has formally allowed police to patrol that land.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Jeez, I was just in Belleville driving Subarus from Bay's yesterday. Glad I didn't run him down. Anyway, he'll win on appeal. They can charge you, but you can be impaired as you like on your own land and you can't be convicted of .08 unless you commit another crime while intoxicated or the landowner has formally allowed police to patrol that land.



So he would not be charged with public intoxication?

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (28 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Jeez, I was just in Belleville driving Subarus from Bay's yesterday. Glad I didn't run him down. Anyway, he'll win on appeal. They can charge you, but you can be impaired as you like on your own land and you can't be convicted of .08 unless you commit another crime while intoxicated or the landowner has formally allowed police to patrol that land.



Well, he was convicted ... and it's been quite a few years now (circa 01 - 02 / between a couple of my tours). He's probably even got his license back in the past couple years.

He wasn't a very friendly neighbour after that. But, oh well -- I couldn't really give two ... his kids were in the friggin' yard. IDIOT -- I have (and had) ZERO sympathy for him.

Be vary wary if you need to drive down Country Club in the future; he may be out there again. Really don't see why he wouldn't be given the state of court sentences these days.


----------



## 40below (28 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I guess not given your last post.
> 
> That still doesn't explain how my neighbour manged to be charged and convicted. Nor does it explain why breath samples obtained during a random RIDE check as a result of "smells" providing the "just cause" are legal while backpack seizures of illegal substances are not.



Ignorance of the law is no excuse, even on behalf of your lawyer. What I'm suspecting is that he was not charged with drunk driving but "care and control", which you can get hit with if the cops find you drunk behind the wheel even on private property. Carries the same penalty if your keys are within your reach or in the ignition.

/ not a lawyer
// not interested in helping the guilty go free


----------



## QV (28 Apr 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Another good reason why we should elect our judges not to have some limp wristed do gooder be appointed.



LOL, I agree.  



			
				40below said:
			
		

> OK, here we go again: if the police stop you at a RIDE check.
> 
> And you are sober.
> 
> ...They cannot demand you identify yourself...



Sure they can.  And if you fail to provide your valid DL, you won't be driving away.

This ruling was not surprising considering the ongoing trend in this country with crime and criminals.  I still fail to see how the air outside someone's bag or locker is considered private.  Because that is what the dog sniffs - the air outside of the item.


----------



## 1feral1 (28 Apr 2008)

I don't think there is enough butter on my popcorn..... op:


----------



## Greymatters (28 Apr 2008)

Very entertaining read!  Just have to finish reading all of this - so many posts in such a short time!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Apr 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> What we are talking about here, what you are in a rush to put in jail, are citizens of Canada who have not been convicted of anything but who are subject to an illegal search that you yourself would never put up with. Could be your kids. Could be mine.



...and how do you know what I would put up with?



			
				40below said:
			
		

> Ignorance of the law is no excuse, even on behalf of your lawyer. What I'm suspecting is that he was not charged with drunk driving but "care and control", which you can get hit with if the cops find you drunk behind the wheel even on private property. Carries the same penalty if your keys are within your reach or in the ignition.
> 
> / not a lawyer
> // not interested in helping the guilty go free


Obviously,.....try a study/rewrite on this whole paragraph.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Apr 2008)

You have a very muddled thought process.  Everything seems to "Whooshing" right over your head.  This is another case of your contradictory thoughts adding to our confusion:  





			
				40below said:
			
		

> Ah, but here's the legality- you can build your own highways and drive on them wasted all night long and the cops can't touch you. You drive on a public road, with a pulic DL, you are consenting to such a search - you're an adult and driving is a privilege, not a right. A kid in school has not consented to such a right – and if you think a public school is as public as a highway, drop by one tomorrow, find a comfy chair in the library or the office and just kind of hang around and see how many minutes it takes you to be told to leave or the police will be called.


However, a Police officer can request you give a Breathalyser while you are parked in a "private" parking lot outside a bar.



			
				40below said:
			
		

> I don't know what's being said on pistol ranges, I sit in courts most days.
> 
> I say this without prejudice: I know what comes out of the barrel of a gun, you folks should spend a few days seeing what comes out of the mouth of a judge and do it in person, not through Law & Order. There's probably a courthouse near you, admission is free and the seats are OK. It frustrates me no end to see people who've never been in court make statements like the one you've made above. There isn't even a perp who would agree with that ludicrous statement, let alone the most liberal crimal defence lawyer I know. Or the cops I spend eight hours a day with sitting through a trial. They're smart guys and women whose sidearms are part of their work clothes, but that's pure hyperbole.



I won't even comment on your response as you seem to have totally failed to grasp any portion of the point being made as it passed over your head.




			
				40below said:
			
		

> Ignorance of the law is no excuse, even on behalf of your lawyer. What I'm suspecting is that he was not charged with drunk driving but "care and control", which you can get hit with if the cops find you drunk behind the wheel even on private property. Carries the same penalty if your keys are within your reach or in the ignition.
> 
> / not a lawyer
> // not interested in helping the guilty go free



Mame.

From what we have seen, and correct us if we are wrong, these are your points:


1.   A Police Officer smelling Alcohol on your breath has "Just Cause" to ask you to submit to a Breathalyser Test.  Failure on your part to do so is a Criminal offence.  This is no way an infringement on your "Privacy".

2.   The Police Sniffer-dogs in a Public Place sniffing Drugs in a Backpack is not "Just Cause" and is against one's Charter Rights and an infringement on their "Privacy".

3.   The Police Sniffer-dogs in a Public Place sniffing Explosives in a Backpack IS "Just Cause" and is NOT against one's Charter Rights and NOT an infringement on their "Privacy".

4.   You argue that Police enforcing the Laws in Public places, are infringing on a person's privacy if they search a person's private belongings (car, backpack, etc.) WITHOUT "Just Cause".  We all agree on that.  What we all disagree on is that you don't accept the Dog sniffing an illegal substance in one case (drugs), unlike the Police officer sniffing alcohol, but accept the dog sniffing in another case (explosives); as creating "Just Cause".  If indeed you spend a lot of time in court, then you will realize that a "Precedence" has been set and all dogs and instruments used to "sniff" illegal substances are now an infringement on a person's privacy and do not lend a Police officer "Just Cause" to further carry out his/her duties.  People will now have reason to object to "Sniffers" in Airports, Court Houses, etc.  

5.   Your arguement on the Public Schools "not being as public as the highways" just adds to the confusing nature of your argument.

Have you realized yet, the contrary ways of your arguments?


----------



## geo (28 Apr 2008)

The way I see it... prosecution of low lifes who are nailed for drug posession or trafficking..... That's OK
we can still use the dogs & do a "catch & release" program.  Take away all those drugs and cash they have in hand & send em on their way.... make em poor & make em miserable.  Make em hide from their supplier... who will want to be paid for his merchandise....


----------



## 2 Cdo (28 Apr 2008)

I just read all 9 pages and am amazed at the ignorance of some posters here. It WASN'T a random search of lockers and knapsacks. The only lockers and knapsacks searched were those which were *identified by the police dogs* as containing drugs. 
Those of you applauding this decision need a good swift kick in the head to jar your brain into working mode again. :


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> I'd be more concerned with the fact that the police couldn't find any reasonable grounds to search a kid with a crapload of dope and mushrooms in his backpack. If they can't succeed in finding *reasonable grounds to search a schoolboy * and then charge him, how inadequate were they? And how do they expect to catch any of the big druglords who cover their tracks a hell of a lot better than a kid at school.



You mean, such as a drug sniffing dog indicating there *might* be drugs in his backpack?   :  WTF are they supposed to use, crystal balls and the Jedi Mind Trick??


----------



## scoutfinch (28 Apr 2008)

The fact that the police didn't have probable cause until using the dogs makes it a random search.  

Perhaps you should suck back on your attitude unless you know what you are talking about.

I am not commenting on whether I think it is a good or bad decision.  But there are a whole lot of people WAAAAAAY outside their lanes on this as they try to demonstrate their legal acumen.


----------



## armyvern (28 Apr 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> The fact that the police didn't have probable cause until using the dogs makes it a random search.



Perhaps you could explain to me the difference that I'm missing in all this then:

The fact that the police also don't have probable cause to do a breathalyzer one someone at a random RIDE check until their personal "sniffers" detected the smell of alcohol during _that_ particular random activity. If buddy there then blows over -- that breathsample result is certainly admissable against him in a court of law although it was obtained during a random search and without warrant.

Why is that considered "constituational" and the other not? It's the very same thing. They are both random, both without probable cause until that "sniffer" gave reasonable cause to presume an illegal activty was occuring.

Really, I'm _still_ not getting the difference.  ???

I don't think one needs to be a lawyer or a judge to figure out that common sense does not necessarily court decisions make. As I think this ruling clearly demonstrates -- exactly because it seems to be perfectly acceptable in other "random" searches conducted without warrants.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> The fact that the police didn't have probable cause until using the dogs makes it a random search.
> 
> Perhaps you should suck back on your attitude unless you know what you are talking about.
> 
> I am not commenting on whether I think it is a good or bad decision.  But there are a whole lot of people WAAAAAAY outside their lanes on this as they try to demonstrate their legal acumen.



I am not demostrating my legal anything.  I am saying my personal opinion is what it is.  Or am I not entitled to that?

Maybe you should shut YOUR hole on anything not Legal O related then.   :


----------



## George Wallace (28 Apr 2008)

Nor the fact that they were operating on an "invitation" from the School?  Do the Police now need to formalize their so called "random" searches at the invite of the School Board, with a "standing warrant" to that effect?  

This "Random" has to be defined more accurately, so that we don't have it illegal in one case, but perfectly legal in another.  It is a can of worms that is now leaving us citizens at the whims of the "Best Debater" in the Courts.


----------



## scoutfinch (28 Apr 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I am not demostrating my legal anything.  I am saying my personal opinion is what it is.  Or am I not entitled to that?
> 
> Maybe you should shut YOUR hole on anything not Legal O related then.   :



I am a lawyer.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Apr 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> The fact that the police didn't have probable cause until using the dogs makes it a random search.
> 
> Perhaps you should suck back on your attitude unless you know what you are talking about.
> 
> I am not commenting on whether I think it is a good or bad decision.  But there are a whole lot of people WAAAAAAY outside their lanes on this as they try to demonstrate their legal acumen.



Bullshit,  I disagree with that definition of "random", that doesn't mean I, and others are window-lickin' morons who should just sit back and let OUR LAWS be dictated to us by those, once again, pathetic bastions of "I'm alright, I make enough money with this gig that I don't have to live with the consequences of my decision" clowns.
And, if one needs an example of that, why wouldn't they strike down the law about the airports, RIDE programs, etc?
Because that might effect their, or their families safety. Yup, "I'm all right. Jack", for sure.
We need to bring "legal acumen" back to the public domain........

PS,
I guess the "random" searches that I and my cohorts conduct in prisons will be next to be deemed 'illegal', because once again........Jack.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Apr 2008)

Eye in the Sky.......................watch your tone.


----------



## scoutfinch (28 Apr 2008)

Read what I said... I am not commenting on whether this was a good decision or not .  I haven't read the Courts written decision.  I also didn't comment whether I agree with the practical results of this decision.  I was commenting on the attitude that prevailed in this thread as people were sniping back and forth about how they were 'more right' than the last person.  

My 2 cents:  The search was random when they used the dogs. They had no means of determining whether there were drugs in any, all or some of the backpacks.  They used the dogs to determine whether there could be drugs in some.  They then had reasonable probable cause to search some of the bags... but the use of the dogs rendered the search random as defined at law.

George really hit the nail on the head... the courts have to clearly articulate a definition for 'random'.  But that is really what the commonlaw does... it interprets the words in our legislation in accordance with legal principles.  Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Perhaps you should suck back on your attitude unless you know what you are talking about.



Sorta hard to misunderstand the meaning of that comment...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> I am a lawyer.



I know that, hence my comment.


----------



## scoutfinch (28 Apr 2008)

Precisely... people should 'suck back on their attitudes' .  Exactly what I said.

Back to the subject matter of the thread.  I suggest any further 'off-topic' comments should be delivered via PMs so as to not distract from the discussion.

As a member of a Canadian Bar, I am qualified to speak on Canadian legal matters.


----------



## 2 Cdo (28 Apr 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Perhaps you should suck back on your attitude unless you know what you are talking about.



Well why don't you just fill us ignorant types in with your knowledge. :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Apr 2008)

MOD POST


Enough.............All, the poster is posting in her field and is therefore much more of an SME than the rest of us, doesn't mean we have to agree but she will be afforded the same respect that others would be when posting inside their "lanes".

Keep it civil, only warning.


----------



## scoutfinch (28 Apr 2008)

I would like to apologize to 2Cdo for the tone in my post.  It was inappropriate.  It shouldn't have been directed to him as it was.


----------



## armyvern (28 Apr 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> My 2 cents:  The search was random when they used the dogs. They had no means of determining whether there were drugs in any, all or some of the backpacks.  They used the dogs to determine whether there could be drugs in some.  They then had reasonable probable cause to search some of the bags... but the use of the dogs rendered the search random as defined at law.
> 
> George really hit the nail on the head... the courts have to clearly articulate a definition for 'random'.  But that is really what the commonlaw does... it interprets the words in our legislation in accordance with legal principles.  Nothing more, nothing less.



~Sigh~

I don't think I've been posting with an "I know better attitude".

I keep asking, and nobody has bothered to yet explain to me why this differs legally from random RIDE checks.

I'll use your post above to illustrate my confusion yet again, and perhaps a legal expert can then explain to me what the difference is. Or perhaps, how this most recent ruling does NOT have the ability to effect changes to other "preventative" programs which are meant to ensure that LEO has the ability to prevent and detect threats to my, your, and our families' safety -- which *IS* the concern being expressed in this thread by those who do not agree with the ruling.



> The RIDE check set up on the side of the roadsearch was random when they used the dogs  human nose to detect the smell of alcohol. They had no means of determining whether there were drugs in any, all or some of the backpacks actually any drunk drivers on the road that night.  They used the dogs their noses to determine whether there could be drugs in some  an intoxicated driver based upon the smell of alcohol being present.  They then had reasonable probable cause to search some of the bags by requesting a breath sample... but the use of the dogs  human noses to detect the scent of alcohol rendered the search random as defined at law.



Seems to me that one has now been declared unconstitutional, while one has not. And, it certainly seems to me that this ruling certainly does have the ability to directly affect my families, *and* the publics safety with the precedent that it has set. 

What am I missing?? A RIDE check is random. This ruling SCARES me.


----------



## scoutfinch (28 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ~Sigh~
> 
> I don't think I've been posting with an "I know better attitude".
> 
> ...



Vern:

Let me read the decision and I'll tell you what I think.  I genuinely don't know how the Court distinguished the search from a RIDE search but  I am sure it did.  I just don't want to comment unless I have read the two decisions myself.

For what it is worth, I have from good family sources (ie. cops), most jurisdictions haven't done drug dog searches of schools in ages because they felt they were unconstitutional and wouldn't stand up in court.  This decision will not change how most police departments or school districts operate one bit.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> As long as this judge has not set a precedence.  What if this is now applied to Airports, pot of entry, and border crossings.  How will we stop the smugglers.
> 
> This is a scary challenge, in my opinion, and reaches a lot farther than the halls for some High school.
> 
> ...



Which is what I was saying that scares me the most.

This judge has opened the door for this "defence" to be used elsewhere;

It has the potential to poke holes through the Laws right to actually protect us, by doing searches.  Think about it;

Airports, borders, port of entries, Sporting events, Concerts, Movie theatres etc etc

dileas

tess


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> I would like to apologize to 2Cdo for the tone in my post.  It was inappropriate.  It shouldn't have been directed to him as it was.



For my part, I would like to apologize to you then as I thought that comment was for me re: my crystal balls and Jedi Mind Trick comment.

Is the group hug over now??


----------



## armyvern (28 Apr 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Vern:
> 
> Let me read the decision and I'll tell you what I think.  I genuinely don't know how the Court distinguished the search from a RIDE search but  I am sure it did.  I just don't want to comment unless I have read the two decisions myself.
> 
> For what it is worth, I have from good family sources (ie. cops), most jurisdictions haven't done drug dog searches of schools in ages because they felt they were unconstitutional and wouldn't stand up in court.  This decision will not change how most police departments or school districts operate one bit.



Thank you. I would appreciate that.

(They still do them here BTW ... well, until this latest ruling anyway -- ). What really irritates me about it is that all the students know and sign the forms along with their parents at the beginning of the year that states as much and that searchs will happen. Oddly, not a single parent or student complained about that. Perhaps though, some of them would when their own "little Johnny" got caught. Funny how that works.


----------



## scoutfinch (28 Apr 2008)

It can't be applied to airports because airports are subject to federal legislation that permits the searches.  

Don't forget that the government CAN restrict your constitutional rights so long as they prove that it is 'demonstrably justifiable' in a free and democratic society.  (That is the wording of the Charter).  I would put my last dollar on the fact that -- even if the 'random airport search' provisions of the legislation were challenged -- the Supreme Court would find that the intrusion upon personal rights was justified in order to ensure public safety and free flow of commerce.  Just my .02 on the airport aspect.


----------



## J.J (28 Apr 2008)

Back on track....I hope

Scoutfinch maybe you can shed some light on the viability of this idea....


What if there was legislation that made schools, day cares, hospitals, any "vulnerable" institutions be a "special zone" were random searches with dogs or other non-intrusive detection tools were used to screen for drugs, bombs firearms. I do realize entry into some of establishments are not voluntary, but for the greater good of society some charter rights are "suspended", similar to the border. I am not trying to suggest a jack booted guard requesting "your papers", but like what happened in the school. A K-9 walking through on a random, irregular basis and if something is detected a warrantless search can be conducted. 
I know some will say this is a slippery slope in giving the government and Police powers like this, but for certain environments I would be OK with this. I would feel more comfortable knowing my family is in an environment were they are supposed to feel safe, that they are safe.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> It can't be applied to airports because airports are subject to federal legislation that permits the searches.
> 
> Don't forget that the government CAN restrict your constitutional rights so long as they prove that it is 'demonstrably justifiable' in a free and democratic society.  (That is the wording of the Charter).  I would put my last dollar on the fact that -- even if the 'random airport search' provisions of the legislation were challenged -- the Supreme Court would find that the intrusion upon personal rights was justified in order to ensure public safety and free flow of commerce.  Just my .02 on the airport aspect.



Does that mean then the People services, that were involved in this case, can appeal the descision and use the same argument?

dileas

tess

t


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> the intrusion upon personal rights was justified in order to ensure public safety



Now from my Joe Taxpaying Citizen perspective, could a school fall under the same catagory?  My arguement/position is drugs are usually found hand-in-hand with crime, firearms and violence, all of which are public safety issues.  At the school, a public place, do I expect the same privacy as I do in my own home?  

Drugs involve crime and violence so why does the quote above not cover it?  That is what ticks me off.


----------



## scoutfinch (28 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Thank you. I would appreciate that.
> 
> (They still do them here BTW ... well, until this latest ruling anyway -- ). What really irritates me about it is that all the students know and sign the forms along with their parents at the beginning of the year that states as much and that searchs will happen. Oddly, not a single parent or student complained about that. Perhaps though, some of them would when their own "little Johnny" got caught. Funny how that works.




I am not sure about your little burg but I have family (and we have many many mutual friends) that work for Fredericton police and I am pretty sure that they stopped several years ago.  Did they actually execute searches at your kids school (and our alma mater!) or just threaten to?

I have found that most cops don't need a drug dog to know who the high school dealers are... and they build good solid cases against them, execute warrented searches and turn their evidence over to the crown.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Apr 2008)

Well maybe they had probable cause and/ or a warrant and the dog just happened to have to walk the 'long way' to get to the area that needed sniffing...... ;D


----------



## scoutfinch (28 Apr 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Now from my Joe Taxpaying Citizen perspective, could a school fall under the same catagory?  My arguement/position is drugs are usually found hand-in-hand with crime, firearms and violence, all of which are public safety issues.  At the school, a public place, do I expect the same privacy as I do in my own home?
> 
> Drugs involve crime and violence so why does the quote above not cover it?  That is what ticks me off.



According to the Court, kids enjoy privacy in their backpacks at school.


----------



## scoutfinch (28 Apr 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well maybe they had probable cause and/ or a warrant and the dog just happened to have to walk the 'long way' to get to the area that needed sniffing...... ;D



Maybe I am jaded because I have so many LEOs in the family, but frankly, the vast majority of cops have excellant critical problem solving skills and are quite capable of finding the 'elegantly simple' solution to these problems.


----------



## scoutfinch (28 Apr 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Does that mean then the People services, that were involved in this case, can appeal the descision and use the same argument?
> 
> dileas
> 
> ...



tess, I thought I had replied and I guess I didn't.  I hestitate to respond to your question because I feel like I am answering questions that require more sophisticated responses by drawing only on fundamental principles and not knowing the decision.  Let me read the decision and I will respond.  What do you mean by "People" service?  

For what it is worth -- if I understand your question correctly -- the decision of the Supreme Court is final; however, it doesn't mean that subsequent cases won't be argued using this decision (either in support of their argument or to distinguish their case) in order to expand or contract the definiation of 'random search' in the future.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> tess, I thought I had replied and I guess I didn't.  I hestitate to respond to your question because I feel like I am answering questions that require more sophisticated responses by drawing only on fundamental principles and not knowing the decision.  Let me read the decision and I will respond.  What do you mean by "People" service?
> 
> For what it is worth -- if I understand your question correctly -- the decision of the Supreme Court is final; however, it doesn't mean that subsequent cases won't be argued using this decision (either in support of their argument or to distinguish their case) in order to expand or contract the definiation of 'random search' in the future.



Oops,

I meant to put Police Sevices....

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (28 Apr 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> I am not sure about your little burg but I have family (and we have many many mutual friends) that work for Fredericton police and I am pretty sure that they stopped several years ago.  Did they actually execute searches at your kids school (and our alma mater!) or just threaten to?
> 
> I have found that most cops don't need a drug dog to know who the high school dealers are... and they build good solid cases against them, execute warrented searches and turn their evidence over to the crown.



There was one recently. The son came home and rattled off the names of the kids removed from class after it too. They even (without names of course) make the paper here.

The security cameras set up on the outside of that school now aimed accross the streets into the parking lots and smoking areas ... would amaze you. Footage from them tends to result in a lot of police activity happening in the parking lots outside the school too these days; one of the recent ones saw 7 or 8 kids arrested ... one of them a mere 13 years old.

Ni-iice.


----------



## scoutfinch (28 Apr 2008)

tess:

Got it.

No, they can't appeal.  The matter -- on these particular facts -- is settled.  

However, rest assured, this decision isn't  going to change much.  

By the way, someone asked earlier about public events:  the simple answer is people going into public events will continue to be searched.  Consider it part of the cost of admission.  Don't want to be searched, don't attend.  It sounds crass but that really is the answer.

The only time the constitutionality of searchs like this comes into question is when the searcher is an 'agent of the governement' or acting at the behest of the government etc.  (Again, please understand that these answers are provided only to calm the waters over this debate.  They could be -- and probably have been -- subject to fullsome (read longwinded) legal opinions!


----------



## scoutfinch (28 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> There was one recently. The son came home and rattled off the names of the kids removed from class after it too. They even (without names of course) make the paper here.
> 
> The security cameras set up on the outside of that school now aimed accross the streets into the parking lots and smoking areas ... would amaze you. Footage from them tends to result in a lot of police activity happening in the parking lots outside the school too these days; one of the recent ones saw 7 or 8 kids arrested ... one of them a mere 13 years old.
> 
> Ni-iice.



They never learn, eh?  The potheads are still using the parking lot?

_(I initially commented  about the use of video surveillance to obtain warrants but until I check the current status of the law, I will edit my comment)_

I suspect the days of random drug dog searches at OHS are over.  That doesn't mean the police don't have other tools at their disposal.


----------



## scoutfinch (28 Apr 2008)

Duh... I should have thought to add this at the onset!

Random searches can continue at schools in order to maintain drug-free environments.  The fruits of the searches can't be used as evidence to obtain a criminal conviction.  So, weed in a backpack not admissable in court.  Other evidence not related to the search, admissable.  Random searches okay but not for evidentiary purposes.

Sorry for not getting to the obvious right off the bat.


----------



## armyvern (28 Apr 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> They never learn, eh?  The potheads are still using the parking lot?



And, my how large that parking lot has grown!!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Apr 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Duh... I should have thought to add this at the onset!
> 
> Random searches can continue at schools in order to maintain drug-free environments.  The fruits of the searches can't be used as evidence to obtain a criminal conviction.  So, weed in a backpack not admissable in court.  Other evidence not related to the search, admissable.  Random searches okay but not for evidentiary purposes.
> 
> Sorry for not getting to the obvious right off the bat.



Must admit, that is just a weeeeee bit crucial to some peoples concerns.... :-\


----------



## scoutfinch (28 Apr 2008)

I know.... my apologies for not getting it earlier.

I have concerns that the decision could be used to restrict the use of searches for disciplinary vs. drug free purposes but I will have to read the decision to see if the court said anything about that aspect.

(I should add that some commentators are saying that it is the end of random  drug searches in schools.  I am not so sure.


----------



## garb811 (28 Apr 2008)

A couple of points from my perspective while Scoutfinch does the Legal Beagle thing...

RIDE, Check Stop et al have been challenged and upheld.  One example is:  _Dedman v. The Queen_.  

Safety and detection of a criminal act are being used interchangeably.  These are two distinct and separate issues in the eyes of the court.  The primary purpose of RIDE is to improve public safety by taking Impaired Drivers off the street, running a dog through a school without a complaint being received is fishing for a criminal act.

Invasion of privacy and unreasonable search and seizure are are very serious issues and I am not surprised that the court has ruled the way that it has.  In essence, by using the dog, the police were inspecting the interior of each and every item the dog sniffed.  Would it be acceptable for police to randomly enter a school and start opening unattended backpacks just because drugs might be present?  What about if I brought my guys into your biv site while you were on patrol because your CO had given me an open invitation due to drug problems in the unit and I tossed the contents of everyone's ruck?  I don't think any reasonable person would support that breach of privacy in this day and age.

This ruling is always open to being changed via legislation.  Start lobbying your MLA/MPP for a "Clean Schools Act" which includes provisions for police to conduct random, unannounced, not for cause, searches with dogs.  Piggyback the issue onto the current hot topic by pointing out that guns are funded by the proceeds of drug sales and the quickest way to cut off the flow of guns to the hands of criminals is via cutting off their funding and you may actually get somewhere.   >

*Scoutfinch:*  Are you saying that police will still be able to do random searches or is it going to be limited to school authorities?  I personally don't think "catch and release" programs by police are going to happen.  An illegal search is an illegal search, even if the person is not charged.  Running dogs through a school or having agents of the crown conducting random searches with the sole intent being to confiscate any drugs which are found but not pursue charges is a huge lawsuit waiting to happen IMHO.  Random searches by non-agents of the crown shouldn't be impacted I think.

I'm sure there's more I could comment on but...WOW, this thread has gone nuts!  The one thing I will say though is at the end of the day, I believe we are all on the side of law and order but the devil is in the details.


----------

