PROTECTING US

Re: Schools are becoming battlegrounds, April 29.

Letter-writer Luke Robertson disagrees with the Supreme Court's
ruling on arbitrary searches. He says, "All too often, considerations
for the rights of law-abiding citizens are recklessly shelved in
favour of appeasing criminals."

He doesn't seem to understand the justification for this ruling. It
is the law-abiding citizens' rights which the court is upholding. By
refusing to allow the police to admit evidence obtained from
arbitrary searches and seizures, the court has protected the
law-abiding citizens from being subject to such unjustified police
activity. Hundreds of students are subject to having their lockers
sniffed and possibly searched when the police bring in a dog without
cause, yet only a handful may be in possession of drugs. Why should
any Court allow the police to benefit from such activities by
admitting their evidence?

Marty Gobin,

Whitby