Pubdate: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 Source: Regina Leader-Post (CN SN) Copyright: 2009 The Leader-Post Ltd. Contact: http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/letters.html Website: http://www.canada.com/regina/leaderpost/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/361 Author: Deborah Verhaeghe DRUG-SEARCH ACQUITTAL WAS 'MIND-BOGGLING' I write regarding the story "Decision upheld on appeal (Oct. 5 Leader-Post) The accused was acquitted of drug charges on the technicality that the police who searched his vehicle had no reasonable grounds on which to believe that he was under the influence of drugs, thereby justifying the search of his vehicle that turned up about 5,000 ecstasy pills, 8.5 kilograms of marijuana and $10,000 in cash. It is cases like this that put a glaring spotlight on the flaws in our judicial system. Yes, the public shouldn't feel threatened by the possibility of being subjected to a police search anytime, anywhere or for whatever reason, but in this case the police officer's reasons for suspecting drugs and calling in a drug-sniffing dog to search were well-founded, as is evidenced by the thousands of dollars worth of drugs found in the vehicle. To acquit him on such an absurd technicality is mind-boggling. I, for one, do not believe that the use of a drug-sniffing dog should even be considered an invasion of a person's privacy under law. After all, the dog doesn't need to look at your personal belongings, overturn your property or toss it out of the way. Privacy is essentially retained, unless the dog detects the odour of illegal narcotics, in which case the police officer now has just cause to subject you to further search. If the dogs don't react, then you don't get searched. It makes sense to me! As for this case, I certainly hope this means that the poor, acquitted suspect was given back all of his ecstasy, pot and drug money -- after all, if the police had no right to find it, then they shouldn't have the right to take it away from him, right? Deborah Verhaeghe Regina - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D