COURT SNUFFS OUT COMMON SENSE

The Supreme Court of Canada's disappointing ruling Friday that police
cannot deploy scent-tracking dogs for random searches in public places
removes an important enforcement technique used for decades to sniff
out drugs, explosives and dangerous fugitives.

The court has put privacy rights ahead of the protection of society,
ruling the use of sniffer dogs in two cases -- one at a Calgary bus
depot six years ago -- violated the constitutional right to privacy.

Had police randomly searched the briefcases and backpacks of ordinary
citizens riding public transit, perhaps the civil liberty argument
would be more persuasive. Strong civil liberties, after all,
strengthen democracies and are there to protect innocent people from
police-state tactics. In both cases reviewed by the Supreme Court,
however, officers were simply doing their jobs. And doing it well.

RCMP were at the Calgary terminal as part of Operation Jetway, a
national campaign "to investigate and disrupt narcotics trafficking at
bus terminals, train stations and airports in Canada," according to
facts of the case.

An experienced and highly trained Labrador retriever was called in
after an officer had reason to be suspicious of Gurmakh Kang-Brown on
at least two occasions. First, the officer with over 26 years of
experience made eye contact with the passenger in an "elongated stare"
- -- body language the officer had been trained to pay attention to as
suspicious behaviour. Then Kang-Brown turned around several times to
stare back at the sergeant. Such "rubbernecking," the court heard, is
also a red flag police are taught to view suspiciously.

The canine, a talented sniffer dog with a success rating in detecting
drugs 90 to 92 per cent of the time, led police to 17 ounces of
cocaine found in Kang-Brown's luggage.

Kang-Brown was caught red-handed, yet his privacy rights trumped the
crime. The flaw is that had police searched him because they detected
an odour in the air, there would have been no constitutional
violation. Yet, the court ruled the same logic won't be extended to
dogs, even though they have a much keener sense of smell with a high
degree of accuracy.

In the companion case, the court determined police in Sarnia, Ont.,
violated the constitutional rights of high school students by bringing
scent tracking dogs to the building after being called in by the
principal. The high school has a zero tolerance policy and wanted
police to rid lockers of drugs.

But the threats of terrorism after 9/11 -- and random school shootings
after the Columbine massacre -- necessitate the protection of innocent
people such as students, even if that means trampling on the privacy
of individuals under suspicion.

It's unclear whether random searches will still be permitted at
airports. Some experts believe the bar for privacy rights is lower
when balanced against security concerns at airports. Security concerns
may be equally valid at schools, train stations, bus depots and malls,
just not in the eyes of the law.

Sniffer dogs have been commonly used by police forces in Canada for
the past 30 years. If the use of such investigative tools required
police to first have strong evidence that drugs or firearms are
present, then they wouldn't need the dogs to take further action.
They'd already have the grounds needed to obtain a search warrant. The
dog's role would simply be reduced to that of confirming the evidence
police have already collected.

Friday's ruling is a blow to policing and public security. Police have
a general duty to investigate crime, using the tools at their
disposal, including instinct and common sense. But without the help of
police dogs to follow up on an officer's educated gut feeling, law
enforcement will be much more difficult. More tools, not fewer, are
needed in dealing with the increasingly creative methods today's drug
dealers and terrorists employ while playing out their own agendas.