Top Court rules sniffer-dog searches are unlawful

[Kat Stevens]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Some info about marijuana - note the fifth statistic.

greater dallas council on alcohol & drug abuse

 

[Gimpy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.