Top Court rules sniffer-dog searches are unlawful

[Eye In The Sky]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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]

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]

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.