Pubdate: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 Source: North Bay Nugget (CN ON) Copyright: 2008 North Bay Nugget Contact: http://www.nugget.ca/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2226 Author: Gord Young Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?237 (Drug Dogs) TOP COURT MUZZLES DRUG-SNIFFING POLICE DOGS Local School Searches Won't Likely Continue A ruling by Canada's top court has put the leash on the use of police dogs to randomly search for drugs at local high schools. North Bay police Chief Paul Cook said a protocol allowing principals to call in drug-sniffing dogs to search their schools will likely be terminated following Friday's Supreme Court of Canada ruling that both a random high school search in Sarnia and one at a Calgary bus terminal were unlawful breaches of privacy. "I don't see it being resurrected," said Cook, noting the protocol involving local municipal and provincial police services and the area's four boards has been on hold pending the Supreme Court decision. He said the agreement, allowing school principals who suspect drugs in their schools to initiate searches, was inked with all four district school boards in 2004. But Cook said the protocol was suspended in 2006 following an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling upholding the acquittal of a student in the Sarnia case, in which the incident was described as "a warrantless, random search with the entire student body held in detention." The case stems from the sudden arrival in 2002 of police and a canine team at St. Patrick's high school in Sarnia. Students were confined to classrooms for about two hours while a drug-sniffing dog eventually led officers to a pile of backpacks in an empty gymnasium - one containing bags of marijuana and some magic mushrooms. "The subject matter of the sniff is not public air space," said the Supreme Court decision in the case. "It is the concealed contents of the backpack. "As with briefcases, purses and suitcases, backpacks are the repository of much that is personal . . . Teenagers may have little expectation of privacy from the searching eyes and fingers of their parents, but they expect the contents of their backpacks not to be open to the random and speculative scrutiny of the police. This expectation is a reasonable one that society should support." The companion case involved a man found with cocaine and heroin after his bags were flagged by a drug-sniffing dog at a Calgary bus terminal in January 2002. A student identified only as A.M. was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking in the school case, while Gurmakh Kang Brown was charged in the second case. Police had no search warrant or prior tip that there were drugs in the school. The officers had instead visited on the basis of a long-standing invitation from school officials. At trial, the drugs were excluded as evidence and the charges dropped. The Supreme Court said Friday that the dog-sniff search was unreasonably undertaken because there was no proper justification. "While the sniffer-dog search may have been seen by the police as an efficient use of their resources, and by the principal of the school as an efficient way to advance a zero-tolerance policy, these objectives were achieved at the expense of the privacy interest (and constitutional rights) of every student in the school." In the other case, the Alberta Court of Appeal majority said Brown was neither unlawfully detained nor illegally searched. The top court disagreed. "Any perceived gap in the present state of the law on police investigative powers arising from the use of sniffer dogs is a matter better left for Parliament," said the Brown decision. Cook said the protocol between police and area school boards was considered more of a disciplinary tool for principals, rather than a method of law enforcement for police. "I can't recall any case in which charges were laid," said Cook, noting drugs were found during a number of searches. But he said it was left up to school principals to decide on what disciplinary actions should be taken. "It was a valuable tool," said Cook, noting the searches were aimed at ensuring the safety of students and enforcing a zero tolerance drug policy at local schools. Although canine searches were available, Debbie Piekarski, principal at St. Joseph-Scollard Hall Catholic Secondary School, said they were never conducted at the high school. She said administrators opted not to call in the dogs out of concerns about having the animals in the school and the possibility of intimidating some of the students. But Piekarski said the top court decision gives other principals some clear direction in a legal area that had become cloudy. Kelly Brown, Near North District School Board's superintendent of schools and programs, noted canine searches haven't been conducted in recent years. He said administrators will continue to work closely with police in other ways to keep drugs out of local public schools. And Brown said principals also maintain the power to search under the Education Act. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom