![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jawnbcThe 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 out 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. 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.
Opponents counter that it's more intrusive and allowing such techniques could lead to widening the powers of police to conduct random searches in public places such as churches, schools and shopping malls.
[gangked from here]
In other news, we've an appreciation day today. So it's a pedicure, followed by a visit to the GP and lunch with a pal. w00t!
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 out 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. 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.
Opponents counter that it's more intrusive and allowing such techniques could lead to widening the powers of police to conduct random searches in public places such as churches, schools and shopping malls.
[gangked from here]
In other news, we've an appreciation day today. So it's a pedicure, followed by a visit to the GP and lunch with a pal. w00t!
