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.