Seems, the learned ones don’t go to school and public places that much, though they fly a lot.
“By use of the dog, the policeman could ‘see’ through the concealing fabric of the backpack.”
No they couldn’t “see through” it. The odour was in a public space. The identification of the odour is reasonable grounds to search the backpack.
These judges are idiots. How could one expect them to rule reasonably on the question of hate speech?
Good point, hoss
I suppose this will also hold for a person carrying a backpack full of explosives … SCC rules!!!!
Boom … Ha, Ha, Ha!!!!
Last time I looked CRA or Canada Customs could use dogs , cats , rats, bats or small gnewts for that matter with impunity to inspect your personal space each and every time they felt like it. Regardless of the port of entry into the country. Exactly how will this now change? This is the role CRA and Customs play. Regardless of what you felt about it. Now that these donkeys in the highest court have made their ruling.
This is just plain stupid.
You score again Kate! Excellent title. When will the lefties start understanding that they can’t have it both ways? They can’t handcuff the police, and at the same time go posting hate comments on internet sites. Where has common sense gone?
It seems like a good ruling to me. We don’t allow the police to search people’s briefcases at random looking for evidence of, say, money laundering, say, so (airports aside) I can’t see how it should be any different for drugs or diamonds or explosives.
Mind you, as long as the dogs plant drugs or explosives and *then* sniff them out, that should be allowed, in keeping with the evidence-gathering precedents set by our vaunted CHRCs.
Talkinghead,
A few months ago a BC judge decided that a check for illegal drugs … was, like, illegal.
We need to have a “pre-check” on the US side for things like drugs, bombs, guns etc … CRA has no teeth thanks to our alleged judges.
BTW: I cross the border 100-200 times a year … I get checked out 1-2 times on each side.
Today, I saved .24 a liter on gas … when the carbon tax kicks in (in BC) … I’m saving another 2.5 cents.
The overturning of the ON School sniffer search and the sniffer search done at the Greyhound bus depot in Calgary has reinforced just how out of tune with society the Liberal Justices really are.
That one of these two cases (perhaps both as they were dealt with together) was a 6-3 decision by the SCC to overturn the conviction speaks volumes in terms of just how sad our judiciary really is.
Is it possible to over-rule a supreme court decision by invoking the notwithstanding clause in the respective provinces? How else is anything going to change in terms of having the SCC basically allowing criminals to pursue their trade unencumbered.
Along the same line in Calgary (Thursday Herald). A car with two guys was stopped for speeding. A check was made of the vehicle and a stash of drugs was found, confiscated, and the two charged on both counts. In her wisdom, the judge held that the drug evidence be excluded (thus no drug conviction) because of a violation of the Charter. It seems that this may be appealed but time will tell. In her judgment – she felt that “the community” (whoever this is) “would not countenance” such a procedure on the part of the police. Pathetic. Of course, the judge does not have an e-mail address so the next best is the Minister of Justice.
The criminals here and abroad are laughing hard these days and no doubt planning a trip to Canada in the near future to pursue “business”.
I’m with the SCC on this one. The key point, as I see it, is the matter of random searches. Not at borders. Not in specific security contexts. Jus’ you an’ me, walkin’ down the street, with a dog’s nose up our asp.
If we are to maintain the notion of due process, then under most circumstances the state should not be allowed to search us without due cause, and in particular, without a duly executed search warrant. We can’t have law and order without law and order.
I’m going to try to get a grant (after the libs get into power again) to train dogs to sniff another dogs ass. I know … seems impossible … but thats why I want the big bucks!!!
I’ve watched the comments on the globe and cbc websites run into the hundreds today over this story. What everyone seems to be missing here is that the police really, truly, did step over the line in both of these cases.
These weren’t searches of “suspects”, they were searches of everyday ordinary citizens. In the one case the defendant was getting off the bus and “looked” suspicious. That’s it. They didn’t see him with the drugs, no one told them he may have drugs, he didn’t say he had drugs. They just assumed that he “might” have drugs.
How many other people did they search this way before they got a hit? How many innocent ordinary people were delayed, accosted and distrupted from their every day lives by the police because they may have appeared or acted differently?
In the other case they rounded up an entire school, forced them to put their personal backpacks into the middle of a gym, and then wait for 2 hours while they put the hounds to the bags. They found one kid with a bit of weed, what about the other several hundred kids that were inconviencened and made to feel like criminals?
I for one would feel really offended, and violated if the police demanded that I put my bag down so a dog could sniff it for no good reason.
We have civil rights for a reason. Yet for some reason it seems the vast majoriy of us are willing to just give them up or let them be erroded.
The SOC got it right on this one.
And by the way, this doesn’t effect airports or border crossings at all.
So many people have the view “I don’t have drugs and I do nothing wrong so lets let the police do whatever they need to do”
That is all fine well and good until the police stop you.
Some people really baffle me, they want police to sniff them, they accept red light cameras, photo radar and will stand in line to pay a fee to register a gun. Unbelievable.
The company I work for has a GPS in the company vehicle.
I get my work done, and any problems are customer related with little or no bearing where my van is at any given time. I am in a company vehicle on company time so there is zero argument for not having it, but, I tell you from experience, it is not a comfortable feeling having a authoritative force(management) having a power over you.
The point is, the police need to follow the rules. And this is not a free pass for kids in school with drugs. One kid with a score to settle can still give the police a tip and then they have just cause. Just no random searches.
One more thing, this was a “Libertarian” vs. “Totaltarian” ruling, not “Liberal” vs “Conservative”. I’m a conservative, but I value my freedoms more than any political party.
Jeff, one kid with a score to settle will be mince meat the day after the sniffer dogs arrive. That`s the beauty of random searches…there wasn`t necessarily an informant to settle with.
The Supreme Court should have left schools out of the equation. This is very bad news for schools. On the other hand, at least socialist Canada has found a good way to support free enterprise in state education.
AS usual, when common sense does not apply we get rulings like this. Those that used common sense were the minority view on this one.
What they did not take into account is that canines are highly trained police constables. The see with their noses. If a police canine constable sees that there are drugs then the human constable can correctly conclude that there are drugs present. We use similar logic at airports and the border.
Just more controls on the police by the loony left based on false assumptions.
There’s always bomb sniffing dogs removed from the entrance to the SCC.
I can see this being quickly revisited, and reversed.
Any depressed Ragheads wanna pitch in?
Drug dealers using kids as mules in our schools. Drug dealers, laughing in the streets of Canada. We’re not making this up…
The next time you pass a cop aiming a radar gun down the 401, randomly targeting civilian drivers,
stop and give him a piece of your mind… something to the effect that its an invasion of your privacy,
and that the Supreme Court backs you up. Much the same thing, isn’t it?
Alienated – the radar gun you cite is a poor example. Driving a car is not a ‘right’ and that includes any activity associated with operating a motor vehicle. The onus is on the operator to be safe, sober, sane etc. and to prove it at any time.
But random dog sniffs ARE a reduction of basic rights. So are TV cameras in public places. The world is getting smaller – less room for rights I guess.
Its amazing the number of people here don’t understand why the SCC ruled against this. This has nothing to do with drugs, or even schools.
While they are public schools, schools are not public places. The police, at a minimum, should have obtained a warrant. If regular, unannounced, inspections are desired, these should be arrived at through open, and agreed upon, public policy.
A police search, in the absence of reasonable or probable cause, or with lack of public debate to become public policy, is a presumption of guilt. It is a totalitarian exercise of authority to enforce an ideology, not investigate a criminality. The role of police in a free democratic society is to investigate an observed or apparent criminality, not enforce a morality on citizens. The police do not have discretion to coach against bad behavior.
With the collection of statutes and bylaws which now exist, everyone needs to understand that with unfettered access, NO ONE can escape a criminal or civil charge. NO ONE. Absolutely none of you can get through a day, a week, a month without breaking some law.
Michael said: “…Driving a car is not a ‘right’ and that includes any activity associated with operating a motor vehicle. The onus is on the operator to be safe, sober, sane etc. and to prove it at any time.”
Ah, Michael, driving on a public road is so a “right”. You have a legal responsibility to to do so safely and with due regard to other users, but you have a right to do so, nonetheless.
People seem to forget, in a democratic state, the state doesn’t grant either rights or privileges to its citizens. Citizens grant rights and privileges to government, not the other way around. We don’t exist to serve government, government exists to serve us.
If a person chooses to leave their home with contraband in their possession then I figure they are fair game. If a police officer can smell your dope and formulate grounds to arrest or detain you, then why not allow the use of a method that has a better sense of smell? Once the odour of your contraband goes beyond your personal space, it becomes public domain (like your garbage). I wonder at the mentality of our Courts. I wish we could hold them legally responsible for the damages their decisions cause. Let’s not forget, there ARE dogs that detect explosives, and many drug dogs also detect firearms! We’d hate to miss those now wouldn’t we?
Did I not read where the school itself call in the police? So what do school officials do to make their school a safe environment for dear johnny and jane?
Thank you skip, vitruvius and mike. One of the most depressing things i have done in my life was read the comment thread at the origninal story on CTV. It was at least 50-1 agaiinst this ruling. Most of the law and order hand-wringing ninnies were there shreiking about the same bollocks we see here from leslie, fiumara, tim etc. You guys have it exactly right, the police can’t just wander around sniffing at stuff. They have to have probable cause to violate the security of your person for a search or get a warrant. The blind fools who think this is ok because it happened in a school and a school is public property, miss the point completely. they violated the privacy rights of the student by searching his posessions without cause or warrant. If you want to let that go because of some hysteria over DRUGS IN SCHOOLS (and for god sakes it was a little weed and some shrooms, not crack) you fail to realize it is a very slippery slope and the prosecutorial establishment loves chipping away at out due process rights because it simply makes their jobs easier. And we must fight that the regression of our relationship with the stae every step of the way.
But wait I forgot, all cops are angels and prosecutors never get it wrong. Let’s ask Guy Paul Moran or Rob Baltovitch about how well it served them.
” … driving on a public road is so a “right”.
Skip you better check the Highway Traffic Act in your province if you think you have a “right” to drive. Unlike walking – for example. For starters you have no choice but to produce identification papers (licences, insurance etc) if asked by the police at any time. Your “right” to drive can be stripped (for cause) by the province for infractions or for health. No Skip … driving is regarded as a privledge, not a right.
Sentenel
The next step to you argument is when you leave your home you are fair game….for the police to stop and search you because the dog would have but he/she/it was/is sick today and you were targeted for a search so bend over.
Jeff K – detecting and acting upon the odour of the contraband you are carrying is one thing, a completely random and arbitrary search is another!
Drug pushers 1
School kids 0
But of course this is the kind of injustice you get when most of the appointed Judges come a little narrow strip of land, which in no way, shape or form, is anywhere close to representing the demographics of 85% of the country.
Elected judges needed right now.
Call me crazy but I think that there has to be a way to attempt to keep schools as drug and gun free zones. As a parent, this further erodes my confidence in the public schools system to be able to create a safe learning environment.
The SCC is brain dead (6 of 9 anyway). A dog sniffing isn’t a “search” any more than me seeing something is a “search”. If a dog detects a suspicious odour it is reasonable grounds for an actual search.
i fully support outlawing arbitrary, random searches in publicly owned buildings and spaces. i’m no fan of increasing the powers of the State.
but there’s a difference between publically (tax-payer owned) and privately owned property. a manager of a public property (school principal, museum conservator etc.) who deems something is amiss, has the freedom to call the authorities to do what needs to be done to ensure the safety of all within the building or space.
however, private property is a different matter. anyone who, without my permission, sets foot on my property without a rock solid, valid search warrant may be staring down the business end of my wrath.
…kin yuh heer thuh banjos playin’?…
Mention of Baltovich and Morin, I might also add Truscott.
I would not want to bet money on the innocence of all three. Especially Truscott.
For all the fools arguing that the SCC was correct on this one, lets play a game of “what if”. What if instead of carrying cocaine and heroin, the guy at the calgary greyhound had a bomb. And what if he planned on going to Vancouver on a greyhound, and then blowing up the Vancouver bus station. A police dog sniffs the bag and alerts the officers, but the police can’t force the guy to open it because they know it’d be a violation of his privacy. End result? He gets on the bus, and when the bus pulls into the bus station, he detonates his bomb killing everyone on the bus and several dozen bystanders as well. Still agree with the SCC ruling?
I love the ridiculous hysteria about “drug pushers”. It was a kid with a little bit of weed.
Yes manager of a public place can have the authorities check things out if he thinks something is amiss, but the authourities cannot then go wandering around checking whatever they want willy-nilly without first establishing cause, which is exactly what they did in Sarnia.
pete, pull your head out, its effecting your ability to reason
“It was a kid with a little bit of weed.”
Matt, what if it had been a kid with several handguns and a semi-automatic assault rifle? Would it be okay then?
It is not the police who randomly enter schools and execute searches. Most school drug searches, are requested by the school authorities. After this ruling the schools can still request searches, but now they have to first obtain warrants from (mostly) liberal judges. I would think there will be fewer school searches after this ruling and, likely, more drugs in the schools.
I usually rail against the controversial rulings from the bad Santa suits, but they may have this one right. However, Parliament could also act to restore the ability of school authorities to call in random searches. If you disagree with this ruling, write your MP.
Michael, you apparently have no idea about what rights are.
Skip wrote, “While they are public schools, schools are not public places.” Skip, you’re dead wrong on that count.
matt writes, “It was a kid with a little bit of weed”. I don’t think you’re correct on that one. Apparently, the amount of drugs was enough to indicate trafficking.
I’ve taught over a 1000 kids in my career: I can pretty well guarantee that this kid was not an asset to the school. What he was doing was injurious to both himself and others—not just physically. It would affect the moral tone of the school as well—don’t laugh, matt: what he did was against the law. And I’ll bet this kid wasn’t exactly concentrating on his studies or behaving very well in class.
I suggest it’s the extreme libertarians here who don’t get it.
I suggest it’s more subtle than that, Lookout. For example, say the school district had a policy of using a private investigator firm to conduct investigations and surveillance in the name of identifying and eliminating the sorts of elements that legitimately distract from providing an effective and relatively secure learning environment for humans of that age. I would have less problem with that than I have with the notion of the school district calling in our state police force to conduct a planned and organized search without a warrant.
We delegate incredible powers to our state police forces, and with good reason, yet it is a mistake to let such power be wielded without appropriate checks and balances. As much as you see the limitations to what I consider to be these necessary constraints, Lookout, from your perspective in the trenches, which I do think I appreciate, it remains the case that I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to throw the system of checks and balances out the window.
If our state police are going to conduct a planned, organized search, then I think they should have to check with our state judiciary, in order to obtain the balance that we impart to the system in the name of a search warrant.
skip you’re right. I have no idea what rights are. Please forgive me – I was born before PET’s Charter gave Canadians “rights”.
I have to disagree with that, vitruvius. I don’t believe that drug-sniffing dogs finding the people with the illegal/banned objects/substances is an infringement of anybody’s rights. The fact is, these substances are illegal, and you shouldn’t have any expectation of safety if you choose to be stupid enough to transport them in a backpack. If the cops single someone out because they look like they might be trouble, that’s one thing. But a dog smelling it? Forget it. Dogs sniff. If you’re carrying a concealed weapon, and an officer happens to catch a glimpse of it when you move the wrong way, are you going to argue that he invaded your privacy by looking at you?
Vitruvius, is a search warrant the only method of balance in the case of a school?
If the principal comes to realize a locker search is needed “today” (and it often happens that way)he calls the police onto the school grounds. I’m trying to imagine how well that would work if you had to wait for a search warrant.
If you’ve got an overzealous principal, the checks and balances rest in the hands of the parents who will most certainly complain to the school board, who in turn will pressure the principal to back off or even reassign him or her.
To me that allows parents and schools the authority they need to serve their roles responsibly without having to rely on the courts for accountability.
Vitruvius, I hear you, and I do understand your point.
However, the constant conferring of non-rights—a student’s apparent right to conceal illegal substances at school—which break down society and aggrandize the rule breaker, at the expense of the rest of us, is, IMO, wrong.
I don’t believe the judges—6 of 9—HAD to make the decision they did (of course not, there were three dissents). The protocols of the court system are rigidly set so judges can efficiently and effectively—well, that’s a debatable point!—get their work done. And they’ll make sure to keep it that way.
On the other hand, a judgement like this is a horrendous handicap to teachers being able to do their jobs. It empowers those who would undermine the very purpose of an educational institution. (And, believe me, if you worked in close quarters with some of the thuggish saboteurs teachers have to deal with, I think you might see the situation differently.) This judgement puts all of us in schools at risk. Why bother with cameras at the doors, re strangers entering, and wearing “Visitor” nametags, and signing in, and only allowing kids out of the classroom in twos, and . . . and all the other precautions boards are taking, when the kids, themselves, are free, apparently, to break the law by carrying illegal substances in their backpacks, while the authorities, who are responsible for the safety of those in their charge, are not allowed to assertively pursue their suspicions? Even worse is the EROSION OF THE AUTHORITY OF EDUCATORS: I can tell you, the kids smell it like a shark smells blood. This judgement fills me with despair and a deep sense of foreboding.
Ok, consider this case. Say we had a socially agreed upon policy that had a police officer or two stroll through the school once or twice a day in the name of community relationships (sounds like a good idea to me). Say some immature kid exposed himself to a violation of the law in front of said officers, with or without dog. Well, sorry kid, they don’t need a warrant to call you out on that. And to the degree that there are problematic elements within the environment, said officers are in a position to observe, deduce, and escalate, according to the rules.
The limitation that I consider significant has to do with the notion of a planned and organized specific operational search by the most powerful force we deploy within our society. That’s supposed to be based on a standard of cause, as delimited by a search warrant. That’s what needs checks and balances, not simply officers of the law going about doing their normative duty.
Because it isn’t the officers of the law going about their normative duty that become a problem if we don’t insist upon these due process methodologies being respected, it those officials who would corrupt their duty in the name of fraudlent advantage that we construct these defenses against.
I think they are important defenses.
Vitruvious et al:
Do you agree/disagree that schools have the right to have metal detectors at their entrances?
If a car is weaving a lot but within its lane of travel do the cops have the right to pull it over?
Do cops have the authority to examine with a magnifying glass a fingerprint on a public facilities handrail?
As I understand the judgement all of the above would be illegal according to the SCC.
I would leave the question of schools and metal detectors up to the responsibility of the schools. The police should have the ability to stop and investigate any operator of a lethal mass running at speed upon a public street if the operator’s observable behaviour appears bad enough; it’s a judgment call. The police should be able to examine a fingerprint on state property without a warrant, on private property they need a warrant. Of course, Gord, that’s just my opinion, I can’t speak for the SCC 😉
I failed to stitch that last comment back up into the thread appropriately, so please let me add: I think that if our police are going to conduct a planned, organized search, even in a public space, then they should have to get a warrant for it. Unchecked police searches (not that that’s necessarily what’s happening here, but as a matter of principle) are something that are characteristic of the behaviours of the kind of states that we don’t want to live in.
Seems, the learned ones don’t go to school and public places that much, though they fly a lot.
“By use of the dog, the policeman could ‘see’ through the concealing fabric of the backpack.”
No they couldn’t “see through” it. The odour was in a public space. The identification of the odour is reasonable grounds to search the backpack.
These judges are idiots. How could one expect them to rule reasonably on the question of hate speech?
Good point, hoss
I suppose this will also hold for a person carrying a backpack full of explosives … SCC rules!!!!
Boom … Ha, Ha, Ha!!!!
Last time I looked CRA or Canada Customs could use dogs , cats , rats, bats or small gnewts for that matter with impunity to inspect your personal space each and every time they felt like it. Regardless of the port of entry into the country. Exactly how will this now change? This is the role CRA and Customs play. Regardless of what you felt about it. Now that these donkeys in the highest court have made their ruling.
This is just plain stupid.
You score again Kate! Excellent title. When will the lefties start understanding that they can’t have it both ways? They can’t handcuff the police, and at the same time go posting hate comments on internet sites. Where has common sense gone?
Master spy Stacey testifies.
http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=819
Play the audio clip.
It seems like a good ruling to me. We don’t allow the police to search people’s briefcases at random looking for evidence of, say, money laundering, say, so (airports aside) I can’t see how it should be any different for drugs or diamonds or explosives.
Mind you, as long as the dogs plant drugs or explosives and *then* sniff them out, that should be allowed, in keeping with the evidence-gathering precedents set by our vaunted CHRCs.
Talkinghead,
A few months ago a BC judge decided that a check for illegal drugs … was, like, illegal.
We need to have a “pre-check” on the US side for things like drugs, bombs, guns etc … CRA has no teeth thanks to our alleged judges.
BTW: I cross the border 100-200 times a year … I get checked out 1-2 times on each side.
Today, I saved .24 a liter on gas … when the carbon tax kicks in (in BC) … I’m saving another 2.5 cents.
The overturning of the ON School sniffer search and the sniffer search done at the Greyhound bus depot in Calgary has reinforced just how out of tune with society the Liberal Justices really are.
That one of these two cases (perhaps both as they were dealt with together) was a 6-3 decision by the SCC to overturn the conviction speaks volumes in terms of just how sad our judiciary really is.
Is it possible to over-rule a supreme court decision by invoking the notwithstanding clause in the respective provinces? How else is anything going to change in terms of having the SCC basically allowing criminals to pursue their trade unencumbered.
Along the same line in Calgary (Thursday Herald). A car with two guys was stopped for speeding. A check was made of the vehicle and a stash of drugs was found, confiscated, and the two charged on both counts. In her wisdom, the judge held that the drug evidence be excluded (thus no drug conviction) because of a violation of the Charter. It seems that this may be appealed but time will tell. In her judgment – she felt that “the community” (whoever this is) “would not countenance” such a procedure on the part of the police. Pathetic. Of course, the judge does not have an e-mail address so the next best is the Minister of Justice.
The criminals here and abroad are laughing hard these days and no doubt planning a trip to Canada in the near future to pursue “business”.
I’m with the SCC on this one. The key point, as I see it, is the matter of random searches. Not at borders. Not in specific security contexts. Jus’ you an’ me, walkin’ down the street, with a dog’s nose up our asp.
If we are to maintain the notion of due process, then under most circumstances the state should not be allowed to search us without due cause, and in particular, without a duly executed search warrant. We can’t have law and order without law and order.
I’m going to try to get a grant (after the libs get into power again) to train dogs to sniff another dogs ass. I know … seems impossible … but thats why I want the big bucks!!!
I’ve watched the comments on the globe and cbc websites run into the hundreds today over this story. What everyone seems to be missing here is that the police really, truly, did step over the line in both of these cases.
These weren’t searches of “suspects”, they were searches of everyday ordinary citizens. In the one case the defendant was getting off the bus and “looked” suspicious. That’s it. They didn’t see him with the drugs, no one told them he may have drugs, he didn’t say he had drugs. They just assumed that he “might” have drugs.
How many other people did they search this way before they got a hit? How many innocent ordinary people were delayed, accosted and distrupted from their every day lives by the police because they may have appeared or acted differently?
In the other case they rounded up an entire school, forced them to put their personal backpacks into the middle of a gym, and then wait for 2 hours while they put the hounds to the bags. They found one kid with a bit of weed, what about the other several hundred kids that were inconviencened and made to feel like criminals?
I for one would feel really offended, and violated if the police demanded that I put my bag down so a dog could sniff it for no good reason.
We have civil rights for a reason. Yet for some reason it seems the vast majoriy of us are willing to just give them up or let them be erroded.
The SOC got it right on this one.
And by the way, this doesn’t effect airports or border crossings at all.
So many people have the view “I don’t have drugs and I do nothing wrong so lets let the police do whatever they need to do”
That is all fine well and good until the police stop you.
Some people really baffle me, they want police to sniff them, they accept red light cameras, photo radar and will stand in line to pay a fee to register a gun. Unbelievable.
The company I work for has a GPS in the company vehicle.
I get my work done, and any problems are customer related with little or no bearing where my van is at any given time. I am in a company vehicle on company time so there is zero argument for not having it, but, I tell you from experience, it is not a comfortable feeling having a authoritative force(management) having a power over you.
The point is, the police need to follow the rules. And this is not a free pass for kids in school with drugs. One kid with a score to settle can still give the police a tip and then they have just cause. Just no random searches.
One more thing, this was a “Libertarian” vs. “Totaltarian” ruling, not “Liberal” vs “Conservative”. I’m a conservative, but I value my freedoms more than any political party.
Jeff, one kid with a score to settle will be mince meat the day after the sniffer dogs arrive. That`s the beauty of random searches…there wasn`t necessarily an informant to settle with.
The Supreme Court should have left schools out of the equation. This is very bad news for schools. On the other hand, at least socialist Canada has found a good way to support free enterprise in state education.
AS usual, when common sense does not apply we get rulings like this. Those that used common sense were the minority view on this one.
What they did not take into account is that canines are highly trained police constables. The see with their noses. If a police canine constable sees that there are drugs then the human constable can correctly conclude that there are drugs present. We use similar logic at airports and the border.
Just more controls on the police by the loony left based on false assumptions.
There’s always bomb sniffing dogs removed from the entrance to the SCC.
I can see this being quickly revisited, and reversed.
Any depressed Ragheads wanna pitch in?
Drug dealers using kids as mules in our schools. Drug dealers, laughing in the streets of Canada. We’re not making this up…
The next time you pass a cop aiming a radar gun down the 401, randomly targeting civilian drivers,
stop and give him a piece of your mind… something to the effect that its an invasion of your privacy,
and that the Supreme Court backs you up. Much the same thing, isn’t it?
Alienated – the radar gun you cite is a poor example. Driving a car is not a ‘right’ and that includes any activity associated with operating a motor vehicle. The onus is on the operator to be safe, sober, sane etc. and to prove it at any time.
But random dog sniffs ARE a reduction of basic rights. So are TV cameras in public places. The world is getting smaller – less room for rights I guess.
Its amazing the number of people here don’t understand why the SCC ruled against this. This has nothing to do with drugs, or even schools.
While they are public schools, schools are not public places. The police, at a minimum, should have obtained a warrant. If regular, unannounced, inspections are desired, these should be arrived at through open, and agreed upon, public policy.
A police search, in the absence of reasonable or probable cause, or with lack of public debate to become public policy, is a presumption of guilt. It is a totalitarian exercise of authority to enforce an ideology, not investigate a criminality. The role of police in a free democratic society is to investigate an observed or apparent criminality, not enforce a morality on citizens. The police do not have discretion to coach against bad behavior.
With the collection of statutes and bylaws which now exist, everyone needs to understand that with unfettered access, NO ONE can escape a criminal or civil charge. NO ONE. Absolutely none of you can get through a day, a week, a month without breaking some law.
Michael said: “…Driving a car is not a ‘right’ and that includes any activity associated with operating a motor vehicle. The onus is on the operator to be safe, sober, sane etc. and to prove it at any time.”
Ah, Michael, driving on a public road is so a “right”. You have a legal responsibility to to do so safely and with due regard to other users, but you have a right to do so, nonetheless.
People seem to forget, in a democratic state, the state doesn’t grant either rights or privileges to its citizens. Citizens grant rights and privileges to government, not the other way around. We don’t exist to serve government, government exists to serve us.
If a person chooses to leave their home with contraband in their possession then I figure they are fair game. If a police officer can smell your dope and formulate grounds to arrest or detain you, then why not allow the use of a method that has a better sense of smell? Once the odour of your contraband goes beyond your personal space, it becomes public domain (like your garbage). I wonder at the mentality of our Courts. I wish we could hold them legally responsible for the damages their decisions cause. Let’s not forget, there ARE dogs that detect explosives, and many drug dogs also detect firearms! We’d hate to miss those now wouldn’t we?
Did I not read where the school itself call in the police? So what do school officials do to make their school a safe environment for dear johnny and jane?
Thank you skip, vitruvius and mike. One of the most depressing things i have done in my life was read the comment thread at the origninal story on CTV. It was at least 50-1 agaiinst this ruling. Most of the law and order hand-wringing ninnies were there shreiking about the same bollocks we see here from leslie, fiumara, tim etc. You guys have it exactly right, the police can’t just wander around sniffing at stuff. They have to have probable cause to violate the security of your person for a search or get a warrant. The blind fools who think this is ok because it happened in a school and a school is public property, miss the point completely. they violated the privacy rights of the student by searching his posessions without cause or warrant. If you want to let that go because of some hysteria over DRUGS IN SCHOOLS (and for god sakes it was a little weed and some shrooms, not crack) you fail to realize it is a very slippery slope and the prosecutorial establishment loves chipping away at out due process rights because it simply makes their jobs easier. And we must fight that the regression of our relationship with the stae every step of the way.
But wait I forgot, all cops are angels and prosecutors never get it wrong. Let’s ask Guy Paul Moran or Rob Baltovitch about how well it served them.
” … driving on a public road is so a “right”.
Skip you better check the Highway Traffic Act in your province if you think you have a “right” to drive. Unlike walking – for example. For starters you have no choice but to produce identification papers (licences, insurance etc) if asked by the police at any time. Your “right” to drive can be stripped (for cause) by the province for infractions or for health. No Skip … driving is regarded as a privledge, not a right.
Sentenel
The next step to you argument is when you leave your home you are fair game….for the police to stop and search you because the dog would have but he/she/it was/is sick today and you were targeted for a search so bend over.
Jeff K – detecting and acting upon the odour of the contraband you are carrying is one thing, a completely random and arbitrary search is another!
Drug pushers 1
School kids 0
But of course this is the kind of injustice you get when most of the appointed Judges come a little narrow strip of land, which in no way, shape or form, is anywhere close to representing the demographics of 85% of the country.
Elected judges needed right now.
Call me crazy but I think that there has to be a way to attempt to keep schools as drug and gun free zones. As a parent, this further erodes my confidence in the public schools system to be able to create a safe learning environment.
The SCC is brain dead (6 of 9 anyway). A dog sniffing isn’t a “search” any more than me seeing something is a “search”. If a dog detects a suspicious odour it is reasonable grounds for an actual search.
i fully support outlawing arbitrary, random searches in publicly owned buildings and spaces. i’m no fan of increasing the powers of the State.
but there’s a difference between publically (tax-payer owned) and privately owned property. a manager of a public property (school principal, museum conservator etc.) who deems something is amiss, has the freedom to call the authorities to do what needs to be done to ensure the safety of all within the building or space.
however, private property is a different matter. anyone who, without my permission, sets foot on my property without a rock solid, valid search warrant may be staring down the business end of my wrath.
…kin yuh heer thuh banjos playin’?…
Mention of Baltovich and Morin, I might also add Truscott.
I would not want to bet money on the innocence of all three. Especially Truscott.
For all the fools arguing that the SCC was correct on this one, lets play a game of “what if”. What if instead of carrying cocaine and heroin, the guy at the calgary greyhound had a bomb. And what if he planned on going to Vancouver on a greyhound, and then blowing up the Vancouver bus station. A police dog sniffs the bag and alerts the officers, but the police can’t force the guy to open it because they know it’d be a violation of his privacy. End result? He gets on the bus, and when the bus pulls into the bus station, he detonates his bomb killing everyone on the bus and several dozen bystanders as well. Still agree with the SCC ruling?
I love the ridiculous hysteria about “drug pushers”. It was a kid with a little bit of weed.
Yes manager of a public place can have the authorities check things out if he thinks something is amiss, but the authourities cannot then go wandering around checking whatever they want willy-nilly without first establishing cause, which is exactly what they did in Sarnia.
pete, pull your head out, its effecting your ability to reason
“It was a kid with a little bit of weed.”
Matt, what if it had been a kid with several handguns and a semi-automatic assault rifle? Would it be okay then?
It is not the police who randomly enter schools and execute searches. Most school drug searches, are requested by the school authorities. After this ruling the schools can still request searches, but now they have to first obtain warrants from (mostly) liberal judges. I would think there will be fewer school searches after this ruling and, likely, more drugs in the schools.
I usually rail against the controversial rulings from the bad Santa suits, but they may have this one right. However, Parliament could also act to restore the ability of school authorities to call in random searches. If you disagree with this ruling, write your MP.
Michael, you apparently have no idea about what rights are.
Skip wrote, “While they are public schools, schools are not public places.” Skip, you’re dead wrong on that count.
matt writes, “It was a kid with a little bit of weed”. I don’t think you’re correct on that one. Apparently, the amount of drugs was enough to indicate trafficking.
I’ve taught over a 1000 kids in my career: I can pretty well guarantee that this kid was not an asset to the school. What he was doing was injurious to both himself and others—not just physically. It would affect the moral tone of the school as well—don’t laugh, matt: what he did was against the law. And I’ll bet this kid wasn’t exactly concentrating on his studies or behaving very well in class.
I suggest it’s the extreme libertarians here who don’t get it.
I suggest it’s more subtle than that, Lookout. For example, say the school district had a policy of using a private investigator firm to conduct investigations and surveillance in the name of identifying and eliminating the sorts of elements that legitimately distract from providing an effective and relatively secure learning environment for humans of that age. I would have less problem with that than I have with the notion of the school district calling in our state police force to conduct a planned and organized search without a warrant.
We delegate incredible powers to our state police forces, and with good reason, yet it is a mistake to let such power be wielded without appropriate checks and balances. As much as you see the limitations to what I consider to be these necessary constraints, Lookout, from your perspective in the trenches, which I do think I appreciate, it remains the case that I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to throw the system of checks and balances out the window.
If our state police are going to conduct a planned, organized search, then I think they should have to check with our state judiciary, in order to obtain the balance that we impart to the system in the name of a search warrant.
skip you’re right. I have no idea what rights are. Please forgive me – I was born before PET’s Charter gave Canadians “rights”.
I have to disagree with that, vitruvius. I don’t believe that drug-sniffing dogs finding the people with the illegal/banned objects/substances is an infringement of anybody’s rights. The fact is, these substances are illegal, and you shouldn’t have any expectation of safety if you choose to be stupid enough to transport them in a backpack. If the cops single someone out because they look like they might be trouble, that’s one thing. But a dog smelling it? Forget it. Dogs sniff. If you’re carrying a concealed weapon, and an officer happens to catch a glimpse of it when you move the wrong way, are you going to argue that he invaded your privacy by looking at you?
Vitruvius, is a search warrant the only method of balance in the case of a school?
If the principal comes to realize a locker search is needed “today” (and it often happens that way)he calls the police onto the school grounds. I’m trying to imagine how well that would work if you had to wait for a search warrant.
If you’ve got an overzealous principal, the checks and balances rest in the hands of the parents who will most certainly complain to the school board, who in turn will pressure the principal to back off or even reassign him or her.
To me that allows parents and schools the authority they need to serve their roles responsibly without having to rely on the courts for accountability.
Vitruvius, I hear you, and I do understand your point.
However, the constant conferring of non-rights—a student’s apparent right to conceal illegal substances at school—which break down society and aggrandize the rule breaker, at the expense of the rest of us, is, IMO, wrong.
I don’t believe the judges—6 of 9—HAD to make the decision they did (of course not, there were three dissents). The protocols of the court system are rigidly set so judges can efficiently and effectively—well, that’s a debatable point!—get their work done. And they’ll make sure to keep it that way.
On the other hand, a judgement like this is a horrendous handicap to teachers being able to do their jobs. It empowers those who would undermine the very purpose of an educational institution. (And, believe me, if you worked in close quarters with some of the thuggish saboteurs teachers have to deal with, I think you might see the situation differently.) This judgement puts all of us in schools at risk. Why bother with cameras at the doors, re strangers entering, and wearing “Visitor” nametags, and signing in, and only allowing kids out of the classroom in twos, and . . . and all the other precautions boards are taking, when the kids, themselves, are free, apparently, to break the law by carrying illegal substances in their backpacks, while the authorities, who are responsible for the safety of those in their charge, are not allowed to assertively pursue their suspicions? Even worse is the EROSION OF THE AUTHORITY OF EDUCATORS: I can tell you, the kids smell it like a shark smells blood. This judgement fills me with despair and a deep sense of foreboding.
Ok, consider this case. Say we had a socially agreed upon policy that had a police officer or two stroll through the school once or twice a day in the name of community relationships (sounds like a good idea to me). Say some immature kid exposed himself to a violation of the law in front of said officers, with or without dog. Well, sorry kid, they don’t need a warrant to call you out on that. And to the degree that there are problematic elements within the environment, said officers are in a position to observe, deduce, and escalate, according to the rules.
The limitation that I consider significant has to do with the notion of a planned and organized specific operational search by the most powerful force we deploy within our society. That’s supposed to be based on a standard of cause, as delimited by a search warrant. That’s what needs checks and balances, not simply officers of the law going about doing their normative duty.
Because it isn’t the officers of the law going about their normative duty that become a problem if we don’t insist upon these due process methodologies being respected, it those officials who would corrupt their duty in the name of fraudlent advantage that we construct these defenses against.
I think they are important defenses.
Vitruvious et al:
Do you agree/disagree that schools have the right to have metal detectors at their entrances?
If a car is weaving a lot but within its lane of travel do the cops have the right to pull it over?
Do cops have the authority to examine with a magnifying glass a fingerprint on a public facilities handrail?
As I understand the judgement all of the above would be illegal according to the SCC.
I would leave the question of schools and metal detectors up to the responsibility of the schools. The police should have the ability to stop and investigate any operator of a lethal mass running at speed upon a public street if the operator’s observable behaviour appears bad enough; it’s a judgment call. The police should be able to examine a fingerprint on state property without a warrant, on private property they need a warrant. Of course, Gord, that’s just my opinion, I can’t speak for the SCC 😉
I failed to stitch that last comment back up into the thread appropriately, so please let me add: I think that if our police are going to conduct a planned, organized search, even in a public space, then they should have to get a warrant for it. Unchecked police searches (not that that’s necessarily what’s happening here, but as a matter of principle) are something that are characteristic of the behaviours of the kind of states that we don’t want to live in.