NEED TO PROTECT PUBLIC TRUMPS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

Re: Pot smell not grounds for search, court rules (SP, Feb. 13). A
reasonable person
would assume that the smell of marijuana may indicate the presence of
the drug and
provide a reasonable reason for police to conduct a search.

But apparently not so, according to our Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
and lawyer Ronald Piche. I wonder what they are smoking.

Perhaps we should just instruct all our police officers to take their
handcuffs and put them on their own wrists, because this is what the
courts are doing to officers trying to uphold the law. Does this mean
that the smell of alcohol on a driver's breath would constitute an
illegal reason for a vehicle search as well?

At times, responsibilities must trump rights. The interpretation of
the law should fall on the side of public protection rather than on
individual rights. What happened in Mayerthorpe, Alta., is a powerful
example of the need for such a change in court decisions.

I hope Piche or any of the members of the court are never in an
automobile that is hit by a driver high on pot because some "lazy"
police officer didn't want to take the time to phone for a warrant.

Usually, where there is smoke, there is fire.

Daryle Wing,

Cochin