Top Court rules sniffer-dog searches are unlawful

[Yrys]

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
Civil Liberties Association, which intervened in the case. "It sends the wrong message to children in our schools that they can be arbitrarily detained en masse and
searched without any grounds to believe they have contraband or have committed any kind of offence."

The case stems from the sudden arrival in 2002 of police and a canine team at St. Patrick's high school in Sarnia. Students were confined to classrooms for about two
hours while the dog eventually led officers to a pile of backpacks in an empty gymnasium, says a court summary of the case. One of them contained several bags of
marijuana and some magic mushrooms. A student identified only as A.M. was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. Police had no search
warrant or tip that there were drugs in the school. The officers had visited on the basis of a long-standing invitation from school officials.

At trial, the drugs were excluded as evidence and charges dropped. The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the acquittal.

The Canadian Press

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080425%2fsniffer_dog_080425&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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.