Random use of police sniffer dogs breaches charter: top court
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.
The companion case involved Gurmakh Kang Brown, who was found with cocaine and heroin after his bags were flagged by a drug-sniffing dog at a Calgary bus terminal in January 2002.
The top court wrote that the police had no evidence that any crime had been committed and that there was nothing to establish that bus depots in general or in Calgary in particular were rampant with drug dealers.
The court wrote that the fact that buses going from Vancouver to Calgary are sometimes used by drug couriers is not sufficient justification to submit every passenger on every bus to a random sniff search.
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.
Dogs are an integral part of Policing both Military and civilian.What next tell us that Explosive Dogs are not allowed to assist their Handlers in saving Lives.
If you are carrying Drugs or Explosives in your backpack then you deserve to be caught by any manner available to us if it is a K-9 then so be it. Canada and indeed most of the wotld is fighting a war on Drugs and terrorism. These animals are dedicated to their Duty and handlers. Let us not MUZZLE the Dogs of War nor Crimefighting!!
Midge (on the right) is the tiniest breed used in Drug Detection Joe is her larger partner.
I cannot understand our Liberal Appointed judges in this ridiculous decision. Disappointed with decision
Karl Walsh, president of the Ontario Provincial Police Association, said he was disappointed by the decision and that the ruling will serve to decrease public safety.
He said officers who are in schools, train stations and bus terminals are there because of a drug problem.
If you think we have a drug problem or had a drug problem then, we're going to have a big drug problem now, he told CBC News. Where there are drugs, there are weapons, so essentially what's happened is the safety of our officers and the safety of the public have been placed in increased jeopardy.
Dogs are indeed man's best friend and they are not imposing on anyones rights by sniffing. For full story and comments check out cbc.ca/news
Please Support our Troops and canine warriors.
Nil Sine Labore
Robby
