DRUG DOG MUST GO

Everyone Has The Right To Be Secure Against Unreasonable Search And Seizure.

So says Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And, because of its existence, Ebony the drug dog must be pulled from
Porter Creek Secondary School.

The animal's presence in the school violates the students' rights,
according to a Supreme Court of Canada decision delivered Friday.

The court ruling stemmed from a drug sweep of a Sarnia, Ontario,
school by a police canine team in 2002.

Police conducted a random search of the student body for drugs. No
search warrant was obtained and no tip provoked the search.

There, as at Porter Creek, the police attended through a longstanding
invitation from school officials.

"The police had no knowledge that drugs were present in the school
and would not have been able to obtain a warrant to search the
school," according to the court decision written by Louis LeBel.

"The subject of the search is not public air space. It is the
concealed contents of the backpack.

"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.

"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 dog sniff was unreasonably undertaken because there was no proper
justification.

The police lacked any grounds for reasonable suspicion, wrote LeBel.

"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."

Sniffer dogs are not infallible, wrote the court.

And, therefore, a record of a particular dog's record of success will
be important in assessing the reasonableness of a search.

From a police perspective, a dog that fails half the time is better
than no detection at all, according to the decision.

"However, from the perspective of the general population, a dog that
falsely alerts half of the time raises serious concerns about the
invasion of the privacy of innocent people," wrote LeBel.

"Moreover, the sniff does not disclose the presence of drugs. It
discloses the presence of an odour that indicates either the drugs
are present or may have been present but are no longer present, or
that the dog is simply wrong.

"In the sniffer-dog business, there are many variables."

"Students are entitled to privacy even in a school environment,"
wrote Justice William Ian Corneil Binnie in support of the decision.

"Entering a schoolyard does not amount to crossing the border of a
foreign state.

"Students ought to be able to attend school without undue
interference from the state, but subject, always, to normal school discipline.

"A search was conducted. The authority for that search was nowhere to
be found in the statute law or at common law.

"This is not a case, for example, where the police would have entered
the school under the authority of a search warrant and used sniffer
dogs to assist in effecting a more focused search."

Therefore, the drug evidence found through the search was properly
excluded, he concluded.

"What was done here 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, wrote Justice Marie
Deschamps in support of the decision.

"But these objectives were achieved at the expense of the privacy
interest (and constitutional rights) of every student in the school,
as the youth court judge and the Court of Appeal pointed out. The
Charter weighs other values, including privacy, against an appetite
for police efficiency.

"A hunch is not enough to warrant a search of citizens or their
belongings by police dogs."

Currently, at Porter Creek Secondary, that's exactly what's happening.

Doug Green, Ebony's handler, is probably providing useful drug
information to the school's students.

But the presence of Ebony, a trained dog sniffing around pockets,
backpacks and lockers throughout the day, is sending the wrong
message to impressionable young minds.

It erodes their personal freedom. The dog's presence suggests it's OK
for the state to monitor a person's affairs throughout the day, even
without just cause.

As well, any seizures or actions spurred by Ebony's efforts are now
likely to be ruled inadmissible following the Supreme Court's ruling.

So, why have her there?

The three-year drug-dog pilot project at the school will cost
$275,000. That's a lot of money for a project that now violates the
Canadian Charter.

It will be more costly if a student challenges the project in court.

In Canada, everyone has a right to protection against unreasonable
search and seizure.

The drug-dog project proceeded under the understanding that our
children were exempt from that protection.

Friday the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

And, in light of that decision, the Education department has no
choice but to get the dog out of the school.