Pubdate: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 Source: Globe and Mail (Canada) Copyright: 2015 The Globe and Mail Company Contact: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168 Author: Les Perreaux Page: A4 QUEBEC TO REVIEW STRIP SEARCHES IN SCHOOLS Policy draws criticism after 15-year-old girl forced to remove her clothing over suspicions she was dealing marijuana Quebec's Education Minister has ordered an independent review of the province's school strip search policy after an uproar over a 15-year-old girl who was made to remove all her clothes over suspicions she was dealing marijuana. The debate over intrusive searches in Canadian schools had gone dormant for a decade after several controversies, lawsuits and a Supreme Court case in 2001 that said strip-searching should only be done for serious reasons during lawful arrests, preferably at a police station. The practice burst back to the fore this week after the teenage girl in Quebec City said female officials at her school forced her to strip so they could go through her clothing looking for drugs while she stood naked behind a sheet. Education Minister Yves Bolduc initially endorsed the practice, saying strip searches are allowed if officials conduct the search in a reasonable manner. Other Quebec school boards have admitted they too have recently resorted to strip searches. Mr. Bolduc distanced himself from his earlier endorsement Wednesday and ordered the review, while Premier Philippe Couillard said the facts of the case would be established and the protocol re-examined. "This level of search comes as a bit of a surprise to everyone," Mr. Couillard told reporters in Quebec City. Quebec's policy reflects a badly outdated reading of the law and a distinct lack of common sense, according to two Ontario lawyers who successfully fought the strip search of teenagers by schools and police. Mr. Bolduc's early language endorsing strip searches was similar to a 1998 Supreme Court ruling which suggested that students have diminished expectations of privacy in school, and that searches could be conducted if reasonable grounds exist. However, that ruling stopped far short of addressing strip searches. Another Supreme Court ruling in 2001 dealing with police suggested strip searching should be done with great care under limited circumstances. That ruling did not directly address searches in schools, but it did say: "In light of the serious infringement of privacy and personal dignity that is an inevitable consequence of a strip search, such searches are only constitutionally valid at common law where they are conducted as an incident to a lawful arrest." The ruling adds the search should be "conducted at the police station except where there are exigent circumstances." David Tanovich, a law professor at the University of Windsor who successfully argued the landmark 2001 case, says school officials should have kept the student in a supervised room and called police "if the school had reasonable grounds to believe the person had drugs in their underwear." In his view, Prof. Tanovich said, "there is no justification for strip searches in schools unless there is an extreme emergency. For example, if they have reason to believe that the student has a weapon secreted in their underwear and the student has refused to provide it to the school official." In 1999, a school in Windsor, Ont., caused an uproar when 19 students were told to strip after one of them complained $90 had disappeared from his gym bag. Mike Harris, then the Ontario premier, called the search repulsive and the students sued. The lawsuit was eventually settled in "a constructive manner," according to Jerry Levitan, the lawyer who represented the Grade 9 students. "In this day and age, it was true in 1999 and it's true in 2015: To give school authorities the right to arbitrarily strip-search students would offend the vast majority of people." In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court found "a reasonable suspicion of danger" must exist to permit a school strip search. The court said strip searches can have devastating consequences for teenagers, a view echoed by Mr. Levitan. "It's a humiliating experience," he said. "You don't know the emotional background of that child, and you have to weigh the potential detriment to the child against the danger and threat. My advice is, call the police." - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom