Pubdate: Sun, 04 May 2008 Source: Chronicle Herald (CN NS) Copyright: 2008 The Halifax Herald Limited Contact: http://thechronicleherald.ca/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/180 AN IFFY SNIFFY COURT RULING What's the world coming to when sniffer dogs don't pass the sniff test? That's what the Conservative government in Ottawa is asking after the Supreme Court of Canada, in a pair of recent rulings, curbed the use of police sniffer dogs for random drug searches at an Ontario high school and an Alberta bus terminal. The new rules are expected to apply across a wider spectrum of quasi-public spaces, like shopping malls and sports stadiums. Airports and border crossings, however, are exempt under federal law. The Tories, who have never made a secret of their distaste for "judge-made law," aren't ruling out "new initiatives" to respond to the court rulings. But it's important first to reflect on what the top court said. Both the high school student in Sarnia, Ont., and the traveller in Alberta were busted after sniffer dogs smelled drugs either among their possessions or on their person. But the evidence uncovered through these searches was ultimately ruled inadmissible, in a pair of 6-3 split decisions, because the culprits were entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. In other words, sniffer dogs can't be deployed willy-nilly on the unsuspecting public; police must first have probable cause that an individual is in possession of a narcotic. "As with briefcases, purses and suitcases, backpacks are the repository of much that is personal - particularly for people who lead itinerant lifestyles during the day, as in the case of students and travellers," Mr. Justice Ian Binnie said, writing for the majority, in the high school case. "No doubt, ordinary businessmen and businesswomen riding along on public transit or going up and down on elevators in office towers would be outraged at any suggestion that the contents of their briefcases could be randomly inspected by the police without 'reasonable suspicion' of illegality. Because of their role in the lives of students, backpacks objectively command a measure of privacy," he argued. Mr. Justice Binnie's point is well taken, although a tad alarmist. The police actions in question were not fishing expeditions per se, but were conducted in a more narrowly defined context. When they got their man in Calgary, RCMP were conducting a special operation aimed at rooting out drug couriers at bus depots. How much different is that from RCMP pointing a radar gun at cars in a known speeding zone? As for the Sarnia school, when police showed up, it was on the basis of a longstanding agreement with the school, which had enacted a zero-tolerance policy for drugs and alcohol. The drugs were found after a sniffer dog was turned loose on a pile of backpacks in the gym. In our view, schools aren't wide-open public places; they are controlled environments where expectations of personal freedom are lower than they would be on the street. Furthermore, students are required by law to congregate at school, so the state has an additional responsibility to protect them. If the student body is a known target for drug dealers, schools should be afforded reasonable means to defend it. An occasional visit by a sniffer dog seems minimally intrusive. The government should not roll over on this one. - --- MAP posted-by: Derek