Pubdate: Tue, 22 Jan 2013
Source: Chronicle Herald (CN NS)
Copyright: 2013 The Halifax Herald Limited
Contact:  http://thechronicleherald.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/180
Author: Paul McLeod

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA MULLING DRUG CHARGES AGAINST HALIFAX PASSENGER

OTTAWA - Canadians forfeit their right to privacy when they check
their baggage for a flight, a lawyer argued Tuesday as a Halifax man's
drug charges were debated before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Issues of racial profiling, privacy rights and even whether
drug-sniffing dogs should be used in Canada were all raised as lawyers
debated whether Mandeep Singh Chehil should face a new trial.

In 2005, Chehil walked into Vancouver International Airport and
slapped down $700 in cash to catch the red-eye flight to Halifax
leaving in just 45 minutes. He checked one bag, a suitcase full of
cocaine.

Halifax RCMP, examining the flight manifest, had seen this type of
thing before. These last-minute, one-way flights across the country
often involve drugs heading east and money heading west.

Once the flight landed, an RCMP sniffer dog named Boris smelled the
bag and signalled that it contained narcotics. The suitcase was put on
the baggage carousel and Chehil was arrested once he picked it up.

But a Nova Scotia judge decided Chehil's charter rights had been
violated and acquitted him. That decision was successfully appealed
and a new trial was ordered. That ruling was also appealed.

Chehil's lawyer, Stanley MacDonald of Halifax law firm Garson
MacDonald, told Supreme Court judges that police must have some
evidence of a crime before they can conduct a search.

He said police did not prove they had grounds for reasonable
suspicion.

"There is nothing aside from the police say it's unusual to pay for
tickets with cash," MacDonald said. "We don't have any empirical
evidence to back this up.

"Intuitively, we think people don't generally pay for tickets with
cash, but we don't know that."

MacDonald said merely taking police at their word that they had reason
to be suspicious would be the "thin edge to the wedge" that opens the
door to illegitimate random searches.

Halifax lawyer Mark Covan, representing the Public Prosecution Service
of Canada, argued it is impossible to define the criteria for
reasonable suspicion because the variables are endless. He said each
case must be judged on its own merits, and Chehil's behaviour fit a
well-known pattern for drug trafficking.

The case attracted the attention of governments and civil liberties
groups.

Ontario's attorney general intervened to argue that Canadians forfeit
their right to privacy when they check their baggage for a flight.

"It becomes part and parcel of the regular travel process that you
expect to have your luggage inspected," said Amy Alyea, an Ontario
prosecutor representing the attorney general.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association countered that while flying
does involve some curtailment of privacy rights for safety reasons,
that in no way expands to cover random police searches.

The association argued that unless specific signs of wrongdoing are
required, police profiling will unfairly target minorities.

Also at issue was the accuracy of Boris, the sniffer dog. The defence
team argued Boris was unreliable due to past "false positive" sniffs.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association took it a step
further, saying sniffer dogs should not be used in Canada without a
warrant.

Because the use of sniffer dogs can curtail a person's right to
privacy, association lawyer Michael Feder said it is up to Parliament
to debate and legislate when the dogs should be allowed to work, but
so far the politicians have abdicated that responsibility.

The court will decide at an unspecified later date whether Chehil will
face a new trial.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt