Unreasonable Search and Seizure

[JoS]

The use of drug-sniffing police dogs in the random search of a southwestern Ontario school and a Calgary bus terminal was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday.

In a 6-3 decision, the top court ruled that the actions breached Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which covers what constitutes reasonable search and seizure.

The ruling, which could have an impact on police powers across the country, centred on two cases.

The first case involved an unexpected police visit to St. Patrick's High School in Sarnia, Ont., in 2002. During that visit, students were confined to their classrooms as a trained police dog sniffed backpacks in an empty gymnasium.

The dog led police to a pile of backpacks, one of which contained marijuana and magic mushrooms. A youth, identified only as A.M, was subsequently charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

But police admitted they didn't have a search warrant or any prior tip about drugs in the school. The officers had instead visited on the basis of a long-standing invitation from school officials.

In 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a previous trial judge's decision to exclude the drugs as evidence and acquit the youth. The court referred to the incident as "a warrantless, random search with the entire student body held in detention."

In Friday's ruling, the Supreme Court wrote that while "a warrantless sniffer-dog search is available where reasonable suspicion is demonstrated," in this case, "the dog-sniff search was unreasonably undertaken because there was no proper justification."

Crown lawyers have argued the sniffer dogs don't constitute a search and only provide information that could lead to one.

They have said that smells in public air aren't private and compare it to officers detecting an odour in the air.

Opponents counter that it's more intrusive and allowing such techniques could lead to widening the powers of police to conduct random searches in public places such as churches, schools and shopping malls.

Lawrence Greenspon, a human rights lawyer, praised the decision, saying it sends a message to students that their charter rights will be upheld.

Full story

So do you think that running a police drug dog through a school or bus station constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure, or do you agree with what the Crown argued, that its not a search, its the same as an officer smelling something in the air.

[SirBackBoobs]

Wow, it's way different in canada (i'm assuming this happened in canada) because at least twice a month our school is searched by drug dogs.

[JoS]

At 4/26/08 11:38 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote: Wow, it's way different in canada (i'm assuming this happened in canada) because at least twice a month our school is searched by drug dogs.

That assumption would be correct, otherwise it would be weird for the Supreme Court of Canada to be hearing the case.

Section 8 of the charter reads "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

However the first clause of the charter is "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Our rights are not absolute, are subject to reasonable limits to our rights.

4th Amendment is "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." but this case is in Canada.

[qu3muchach0]

um... why would anybody bring their stash to school...? let alone leave in their locker/backpacks? hell, my school had constant drug searches. but the difference was that people were smart enough to keep it on their person instead.

[SirBackBoobs]

At 4/26/08 11:45 PM, JoS wrote:

At 4/26/08 11:38 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote: Wow, it's way different in canada (i'm assuming this happened in canada) because at least twice a month our school is searched by drug dogs.

That assumption would be correct, otherwise it would be weird for the Supreme Court of Canada to be hearing the case.

Maybe it was a slow day, so they just picked a random case from the states and decided to try it?

Anyway, I think it makes since that you shouldn't be allowed to search some one without reasonable cause. If you target school children, that's pretty much profiling, because that's the equivalent of saying "school kids is more likely to have teh drugs, so we should serch them"

[JoS]

I think the real issue though is a detector dog a search? hey are not searching your bag, they are smelling the air. If an officer smells weed or whatever that is basis for them to search something. they do not need a warrant to or cause to smell. Why should they need cause to have a dog smell the air?

[SirBackBoobs]

At 4/27/08 12:23 AM, JoS wrote: I think the real issue though is a detector dog a search? hey are not searching your bag, they are smelling the air. If an officer smells weed or whatever that is basis for them to search something. they do not need a warrant to or cause to smell. Why should they need cause to have a dog smell the air?

The dog is looking for drugs, and is essentially searching the backpack. It's nose is so powerful that it is as effective as going through the backpack and finding drugs. So if police need a reason to physically search the backpack, then they should need a reason to have a dog smell it, because they are so similar.

[Memorize]

At 4/27/08 12:38 AM, SirBackBoobs wrote:

The dog is looking for drugs, and is essentially searching the backpack. It's nose is so powerful that it is as effective as going through the backpack and finding drugs. So if police need a reason to physically search the backpack, then they should need a reason to have a dog smell it, because they are so similar.

That's where the keyword "Unreasonable" comes in.

Because the cop smelled it, it provided 'probable cause', which would allow him/her to search whatever it is they're searching.

I don't see why it would be any different for a dog. After all, they're not directly searching into a specific someone's belongings.

[fli]

If the cops had smelled it before, I don't think it was unreasonable to search for the orgins of the smell.

[JoS]

The school case was they ran a drug dog through the gym and lockers or something without any reason to suspect drugs were there, only based on a open and long standing invite from the school to do so.

The bus station in Calgary was again something random, no tips, just a general idea that drug couriers use the bus from Vancouver to Calgary.

So the defence argued that this is a search and violation of people's privacy, while the police and crown argued that its not a search because the dog is merely smelling the air which is public, and there for the dog does not constitute a search. There should be no expectation of privacy by any reasonable person to the air around them.

I am inclined to agree with the Crown and police on this one.

[stafffighter]

I see this as the same princible as plain sight laws. Would you object to the use of police with better than average vision? Would the use of glasses be seen as an unfair search tool? The use of a trasined animal with a powerful sence of smell is no different.

[JoS]

At 4/27/08 11:54 AM, stafffighter wrote: I see this as the same princible as plain sight laws. Would you object to the use of police with better than average vision?

What if they had X-Ray vision. Just sayin.

[stafffighter]

At 4/27/08 12:11 PM, JoS wrote:

At 4/27/08 11:54 AM, stafffighter wrote: I see this as the same princible as plain sight laws. Would you object to the use of police with better than average vision?

What if they had X-Ray vision. Just sayin.

Were they born with it or did they seek it out? That makes a diffrence.

[BeFell]

I think seven brings up a good point, institutions should be allowed to control what comes on their property. Having a dog sniff a backpack is no different than forcing everyone who enters a building to walk through a metal detector to ensure they are not carrying weapons.

In fact it would be interesting to see if any civil rights groups try to apply this ruling to shut down metal detectors and x-ray machines. I don't think your supreme court but enough thought into the precedence they were setting.

[JoS]

I actually don't think any schools in Canada have metal dectors, but I could be wrong.

The police were invited to the school, and the bus terminal is public property, anyone can go in.

[LazyDrunk]

At 4/27/08 12:40 PM, SevenSeize wrote: Little known fact as far as America goes, teachers don't have to abide by search and seizure, regarding our students. We can search a person and all of their belongings on our own suspicions.

Yeah, kids don't have rights to much in a school environment. As they shouldn't.

I don't think it was unreasonable. Alot of places around here have signs indicating the area is a zone for no drugs, weapons etc. Zero tolerance I suppose. Do they have that in Canada JoS?

To me, public transportation and zones for such should always be fair game for police.

Slippery sloping it, if all private transportation were banned/heavily regulated, leaving only public transit, should police still be able to waive the rights of the citizenry?

I( personally feel that if dogs are venerated members of the police force, they are required to act on the same accord. K-9 units regularly bite to subdue fleeing suspects, as cops are allowed to taze or tackle or disable a persons ability to run.

Cops are not allowed to randomly search and sieze in Canada, but if their dogs are allowed to utilize the special drug-sniffing training, why shouldn't other officers and detectives be allowed to randomly interrogate and search anybody in the general public using their specialized training?

[LordJaric]

At 4/27/08 01:01 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: but if their dogs are allowed to utilize the special drug-sniffing training, why shouldn't other officers and detectives be allowed to randomly interrogate and search anybody in the general public using their specialized training?

Does commen sence mean anything to you.

[stafffighter]

How do you fail to realize that thier training is what makes the act anything but random? The dogs don't start going nuts at any smell they happen to like much as honest cops don't interrigate people without their training indicating that there's a reason to.

[Earfetish]

I can't believe how much you guys must hate drugs and students. In the unlikely event that I don't have drugs on my person, I still find it intrusive when bouncers search my bag or my pockets, and I'd find a sniffer dog just as intrusive.

The motives for this mandatory drugs search amongst all students aren't academic excellence - it's an attempt to scare and control your students. Which is in opposition to 'a free and democratic society'.

And anyway, a dog sniffing your belongings is invasive, just like if a cop suddenly started sniffing your pockets.

[LazyDrunk]

At 4/27/08 01:04 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 4/27/08 01:01 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: but if their dogs are allowed to utilize the special drug-sniffing training, why shouldn't other officers and detectives be allowed to randomly interrogate and search anybody in the general public using their specialized training?

Does commen sence mean anything to you.

Fuck off shithead

[LordJaric]

At 4/27/08 01:15 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 4/27/08 01:04 PM, LordJaric wrote: Does commen sence mean anything to you.

Fuck off shithead

Someone work up on the wrong side of the bed today.

[morefngdbs]

At 4/26/08 11:32 PM, JoS wrote: In a 6-3 decision, the top court ruled that the actions breached Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which covers what constitutes reasonable search and seizure.

;
Every person in the school was confined, so that police could conduct a witch hunt.
It has nothing to do with going into a school's metal detector.
It has to do with forcably confining hundreds of people so the police could conduct a search to see if they could find anything.

The first case involved an unexpected police visit to St. Patrick's High School in Sarnia, Ont., in 2002. During that visit, students were confined to their classrooms as a trained police dog sniffed backpacks in an empty gymnasium.

But police admitted they didn't have a search warrant or any prior tip about drugs in the school. The officers had instead visited on the basis of a long-standing invitation from school officials.

In 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a previous trial judge's decision to exclude the drugs as evidence and acquit the youth. The court referred to the incident as "a warrantless, random search with the entire student body held in detention."

As I said there are rules to protect our right to unreasonable search & seizure...these rights were violated for all the innocant students. That is a fact.
That is more important than finding a couple of joints and some mushrooms. Not that I condone having drugs in school.

So do you think that running a police drug dog through a school or bus station constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure,

Yes I do.
Unless there is a probable cause for it, ie: someone calls in a bomb scare.
Police learn of a known drug dealer putting packages into public transport system,For example.

I believe that the creation of a police state will do nothing to keep people safe, but will instead end up with everyone being controled in everything they do or wish by a few elite who will then by the very fact they are at the top...become untouchable & people could then be incarcerated for any reason at all, even trumped up or with planted eveidence.

There are already problems with the court system where abuses have been proven, that the courts judges take the 'professional' testimony from a police officer above that of an eye witness who isn't a "trained professional".
So I know it's hard to believe but some of these cops "LIE" <gasp> terrible to believe but it is very true.

[Earfetish]

It's almost entirely because of the war on drugs that people consider actions like this acceptable. You can see why the government and the police want to maintain it.

/hippie conspiracy

[LazyDrunk]

At 4/27/08 01:18 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 4/27/08 01:15 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 4/27/08 01:04 PM, LordJaric wrote: Does commen sence mean anything to you.

Fuck off shithead

Someone work up on the wrong side of the bed today.

Contribute or GTFO.

[LazyDrunk]

At 4/27/08 12:53 PM, BeFell wrote: I think seven brings up a good point, institutions should be allowed to control what comes on their property. Having a dog sniff a backpack is no different than forcing everyone who enters a building to walk through a metal detector to ensure they are not carrying weapons.

I think it's closer to having to walk through a metal detector as you leave your property, as the bus stop area was a public domain.

In fact it would be interesting to see if any civil rights groups try to apply this ruling to shut down metal detectors and x-ray machines. I don't think your supreme court but enough thought into the precedence they were setting.

The met detectors and x-ray machines should be okay, since they aren't law enforcement officers.

[JoS]

While I think perhaps the confining of allt he kids to the classrooms with all their bags in the gym is probably not the greatest, I see no problem with having a dog walk through the hall during class.

As for the second case, the guy in the bus terminal, he is totally fair game. If the police walk by and smell pot they have grounds to search his bag, they aren't sticking their nose in his bag, they smell it in the air around him, just like a K-9 smells the drugs in the air. Can we have a reasonable expectation of privacy to the smells coming out of our bags into public air.

[Ragnarokia]

What the hell, I can't even see a search confing students like that as being accepted but doing ti without a warrant is just plain illegal as far as I am aware.

[LordJaric]

At 4/27/08 01:33 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Contribute or GTFO.

I did and you yelled at me. Here let me make what I said earlier easier for you to understand, use commen sence before you make a stupid comparison.

[JoS]

At 4/27/08 04:47 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 4/27/08 01:33 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Contribute or GTFO.

I did and you yelled at me. Here let me make what I said earlier easier for you to understand, use commen sence before you make a stupid comparison.

The fact you have spelt common sense wrong detracts from your point.

This message is to everyone, flame and you will be banned.

[JackPhantasm]

The "if dogs can sniff it it's in open air" is bollocks.

The fact that smells in air aren't private is because other PEOPLE can smell them. The concept does not extend to fucking animals.