Pubdate: Mon, 05 May 2008 Source: Lethbridge Herald (CN AB) Copyright: 2008 The Lethbridge Herald Contact: http://www.lethbridgeherald.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/239 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?237 (Drug Dogs) SNIFFING OUT A BALANCE If the police have authority to do random searches in schools for drugs, will that help make students more safe from the ravages of illicit drugs or only introduce them early to an acceptance of a police state? If public transit users are subject to similar random searches, will this compromise of privacy be offset by a reduction in the trafficking of drugs or will it merely make users of such substances easier picking for police? And is a drug dog, trained to sniff out illicit substances, a tool that supplements the police's investigation or instigates one? They may seem like easy questions to answer for people who aren't users or sellers of illegal drugs. We don't want drugs or weapons, for that matter, in our schools. We don't want public spaces to be abused by criminals who then threaten the public good. But is it reasonable for an individual, whether a child or an adult, to be subjected to a police search without cause? If police don't need reasons to suspect the presence of drugs in order to put sniffer dogs on the case, would this not open the flood gates to sniffer dogs on every corner? And what happens to a society where citizens can be subjected to search and investigation for no reason other than they happen to be in a public space? These are some of the questions Canadians are left to ponder after the Supreme Court ruled recently on two random police dog searches - one in a Calgary bus terminal, the other in a high school in Sarnia, Ont. In 6-3 decisions, the court said police need "reasonable suspicion" of a drug crime before allowing a drug dog to sniff around. Civil libertarians hailed the ruling as a proper balance between law enforcement and privacy rights. Critics suggested the court lacked common sense. The judges, however, weren't just split on the outcome of the two appeals. While all agreed the use of drug dogs sniffing the air outside a person's backpack amounts to a search just as though a police officer was picking through the bag's contents, five said the court could set limits on how police use sniffer dogs. Four others, however, said any gap in existing law on police investigative powers relating to sniffer dogs would be best left to Parliament. Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said the federal government will consider legislation to allow random checks by sniffer dogs in public transit systems, but he didn't say expanded powers would necessarily be in the cards for random school searches. Existing federal law already allows use of sniffer dogs in airports and border crossings where citizens expect heightened security and some compromises to individual privacy. Sniffer dogs, while highly sensitive in their sniffs, are not perfect. Drug dogs detect the odour of narcotics, not their presence. And they're not infallible. "The accuracy of Chevy, (the dog involved in the Calgary search) while high, showed that in 100 searches, she would register a false positive against eight or 10 law-abiding citizens," wrote Justice Ian Binnie. "This may seem like a modest figure unless you happen to be one of them." Common currency can carry the odour of drugs even when the person holding the cash is clean, so a false positive could well make life difficult for someone who, without crossing paths with a drug dog, would never have come under police scrutiny. It's easy to see how nine of the country's greatest legal minds could be so divided about the limits to be drawn on police powers involving the sensitive snouts of canine members. The Canadian public should consider the tender balance between our expectation of privacy and the authority of law enforcement as law makers consider rewriting the rule governing random searches. The next bag being sniffed could be yours. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin