SEARCH DEEMED UNLAWFUL

Canada's Top Court Says A Random High-School Search For Drugs In
Sarnia Was Unlawful And Breached Charter Rights.

In A Precedent-Setting Decision With National Implications, The
Supreme Court Of Canada Ruled 6-3 Friday That A Nov. 7, 2002 Search
By Sarnia Police Was Unreasonable And Unjustified.

Students At St. Patrick's High School Were Confined To Their
Classrooms For About Two Hours As Police Officers, With The Aid Of A
Drug-Sniffing Dog, Located 10 Bags Of Marijuana And 10 Magic
Mushrooms In A Student's Backpack.

A Student Identified As A.M. Was Charged With Possession Of Marijuana
For The Purpose Of Trafficking. His Identity Is Protected Under A
Court-Ordered Publication Ban.

"As With Briefcases, Purses And Suitcases, Backpacks Are The
Repository Of Much That Is Personal," Said The High Court's Decision.

"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."

The Case's Journey To The Supreme Court Began In The Summer Of 2004
When Sarnia Justice Mark Hornblower Ruled The Search Violated Charter
Of Rights Protection Against Unreasonable Searches.

Police Had No Search Warrant Or Prior Tip That There Were Drugs In
The School And The Officers Visited On The Basis Of A Long-Standing
Invitation From School Officials.

The Case Was Appealed By Prosecutors Seeking To Maintain The Legality
Of Mass Searches, Seen As Important Tools In The Battle Against Drug Use.

The Ontario Court Of Appeal Unanimously Upheld The Acquittal. In
Deciding There Was More Than A Whiff Of Illegality Regarding The
Search, The Court Described It As "A Warrantless, Random Search With
The Entire Student Body Held In Detention."

This High Court Decision Sets An Important Precedent In The
Protection Of Student Rights, Said Jonathan Lisus, Lawyer For The
Canadian Civil Liberties Association Which Intervened In The Case.

Lisus Said The Decision Clarifies Two Things: "Students Have The Same
Kind Of Privacy Expectations And Rights ... As Adults ... And The Use
Of A Dog To Assist The Police Constitutes A Search."

The Association Became Involved After Receiving A Complaint From A
Parent Who Was Upset That The Random Searches Came At The Expense Of
Individual Student Rights.

Lisus Told The Observer Such Searches Sent The Wrong Message To
Students About Their Charter Rights.

"We Have To Ask Ourselves A Fundamental Question. What Kind Of
Environment Do We Want To Set In Our Schools? Do We Want An
Environment With Police And Sniffer Dogs?"

In Submissions Filed To The Supreme Court On Behalf Of Ontario's
Attorney General, Lawyers Argued The Use Of A Drug-Sniffing Dog Does
Not Amount To A Search Because There Is No Privacy Interest Attached
To Smells In The Public Air.

The Supreme Court Disagreed, Ruling: "The Dog-Sniff Search Was
Unreasonably Undertaken Because There Was No Proper Justification."

In Another Decision Friday, The Supreme Court Ruled Similarly On A
Companion Case Involving 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.