Pubdate: Wed, 30 Apr 2008
Source: St. Albert Gazette (CN AB)
Copyright: 2008 St. Albert Gazette
Contact: http://www.stalbertgazette.com/newsroom/write.htm
Website: http://www.stalbertgazette.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2919
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Charter+of+Rights

SNIFFER DOG LAWS NEED BALANCE

We felt a little uneasy when the St. Albert RCMP, in conjunction with
the city and both school divisions, introduced Dodger the
drug-sniffing dog into the community in 2005. Now the Supreme Court
has weighed in on the controversy about random drug dog searches, we
believe it is time for Parliament to step in and craft fair
legislation that protects our students from the dangers of drugs while
upholding their charter rights.

The Supreme Court ruled in a split decision Friday that a random dog
search of a Sarnia, Ont. school, which yielded sufficient quantities
of drugs to charge one of the students with trafficking, was a
violation of that student's Section 8 rights under the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms against unreasonable search and seizure.

The student and contents of his backpack, the court held, were subject
to the same expectation of privacy as any adult's purse or briefcase.

While the ruling is of interest nationwide, as it effectively halts
the practice of random school searches for dugs, it is of particular
interest locally because of Dodger. The golden retriever and his
handler are members of the St. Albert RCMP detachment. The police, as
well as the city and school boards, decided to fund Dodger's position
at the detachment in an effort to clamp down on illegal drugs in schools.

When Dodger was first introduced to the community, the Gazette asked
both school divisions if his presence would infringe on students'
charter rights. They responded that students' lockers were school
property and a student wishing to use one had to sign a waiver
allowing it to be searched at any time. When Dodger started work at
the beginning of the 2005/06 school year, the scope of his searches
were practically unlimited and random, almost identical to the case
the justices heard.

During a tag-along at Bellerose Composite High School, a Gazette
reporter watched as Dodger and his handler enjoyed unfettered access
to the school, searching classrooms and sniffing out random rows of
lockers.

The detachment has since stated that Dodger no longer operates in such
a wide-ranging fashion.

Administrators, teachers and parents have the safety and security of
our youth in mind, especially when it comes to the presence of drugs
in schools. Most enforce a zero-tolerance policy.

Dodger's presence was as much preventive as it was investigative - the
possibility he might show up was enough to make students who might
bring drugs to school think otherwise.

His presence ensured a safe haven for students who already deal with
daily challenges of bullying and peer pressure.

But a student's age should not make him exempt from the protections of
the charter. In the case at bar, the police would have had no
"reasonable suspicion" to open the student's bag if the dog hadn't
reacted during his random, unrestrained search of the Sarnia school.

A police officer cannot walk up to an adult on the street and randomly
demand that person open his or her purse or briefcase.

In a setting such as a school, in which we are trying to teach our
youth about citizenship and honouring the rights of others, it seems
hypocritical to strip them of their own protected rights simply
because of their age.

Justice Louis LeBel, writing for the majority, stated, "Any perceived
gap in the present state of the law on police investigative powers
arising from the use of the sniffer dogs is a matter left for
Parliament." We agree with his observation. It is up to our
legislators to craft appropriate legislation to guide the use of
drug-sniffing dogs that balances charter rights and the protection of
the greater good. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake