WE MUST PERMIT RANDOM CHECKS AT SCHOOLS

Re: Reining in the dogs, April 26.

The Citizen editorial applauding the recent Supreme Court of Canada's
rulings on the inadmissability of evidence by "random searches" of
sniffer dogs is deeply flawed. How could anybody argue that there
were no grounds to suspect that drugs would be found in a high school
in Sarnia?

Certainly here in Ottawa, I see drugs being dealt and used openly in
the immediate vicinity of high schools and for that matter,
elementary schools, and there have been many studies over the years
indicating very significant use of drugs among teens.

I'm sure nobody doubts that the dealers are usually members of the
student body. They were in my day, and I think they still are. In any
case, no sane person would say it was mere chance that drugs were
found at St. Patrick's High School.

But if the Supreme Court insists that a "specific tip or
intelligence" is required to make evidence from a sniffer dog search
admissible, then obviously we cannot have random airport sniffer dog
evidence allowed. The fact that we expect to be searched at airports
is hardly relevant. If we instituted monthly searches at high
schools, that too would become expected.

Or looking at it another way, if and when the first terrorist bomb
goes off on a Canadian bus or train (remember London or Madrid?) we
might want to see some random checks at bus and train stations. It
will be a shame that this absurd ruling will prohibit prosecution of
any would-be bombers we find. If Gurmakh Kang-Brown had been carrying
a bomb instead of cocaine at the Calgary bus station, would he have
been let off?

The real truth of this ruling is that what the justices are defending
is not privacy, but drug use. But even if they, or you, approve of
children taking drugs, this is bad law.

David Eaton,

Ottawa