Top Court rules sniffer-dog searches are unlawful

[armyvern]

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

And you are sober smell of alcohol.

They cannot search your car you further by requiring that you provide a breath samle (a much more personal invasion of space than looking through your glove box).

They cannot demand you identify yourself if you don't reek of alcohol and then don't refuse to provide a breath sample.

They cannot ask you to open your trunk but they don't need to because they've already obtained that breath sample as evidence from you!!.

They cannot ask you step out of the car, if you're not drinking, but if you SMELL of alcohol they certainly can.

They cannot ask to search your car But they don't need to -- they've searched you and have obtained the evidence from your very breath sample WITHOUT A WARRANT -- they don't need squat from your glovebox.

They cannot ask you to empty your pockets until they place you under arrest.

They cannot bring in a sniffer dog and have it check your car. Only in high school until Thursday could they demand that instead they use their own human noses, and when those human noses detect a smell they pull out the breathalyzer WITHOUT A WARRANT and take a breath sample as evidence.

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

???

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The supreme court the right decision does not always make

 

[George Wallace]

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]

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."

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]

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.