SNIFFING OUT STUPIDITY

Some elements of society will rejoice that the Supreme Court of
Canada has ruled that sniffer dogs detecting drugs in some cases
constitutes a violation of the privacy.

In a couple of landmark cases, the court has ruled (or seems to have
ruled) that a sniffer dog detecting drugs in someone's luggage is an
invasion of privacy and violates a citizen's right not to be
subjected to an unreasonable police search.

In other words, a sniffer dog detecting drugs can be similar to a
search without a warrant.

That strikes most of us as odd. No argument that the cops shouldn't
conduct searches on the basis of no evidence, or for no reason other
than prejudice or hunches. But a dog ..?

How about airline passengers having bags routinely X-rayed? Isn't
that a bit like sniffer dogs looking for contraband?

An unbiased dog discovering drugs in luggage that leads to an arrest
is somewhat mindful of a case years ago that ran on 60 Minutes, where
a highway patrol cop had an outstanding record of arresting drug
dealers heading north from Florida on I-95.

It turned out the cop stopped and searched Cadillacs and limousines
that stayed well under the speed limit, and in startling numbers
found drugs. His cases were eventually thrown out or reversed,
because what was suspicious to the cop -- i.e. big cars driving under
the speed limit -- was insufficient reason to suspect drug
trafficking, even though this was the case.

One wonders what our Supreme Court would rule if the sniffer dogs
weren't detecting marjiuana or pot, but were detecting explosives and
suicide bombs of terrorists intent on using them?

Would the court order the cops to apologize for violating the privacy
of potential terrorists, and free them to try again? To be
consistent, that seems the inevitable consequence of the court's
ruling. And it is nuts.

There are many ways our privacy is invaded, but a dog trained to
sniff out criminal activities is not a threat to most of us.

I remember at the airport once having a sniffer dog identify me as a
suspect. I was taken aside, my bag was opened, and a salami was
found. Mind you, that was 20 years or so ago, and maybe things have changed.

In this age of hyper-security and very real threats to the public, it
strikes me we should be doing all we can to help those whose job it
is to protect us.

As well as police and dogs, that should include the highest court in the land.

A sniffer dog is utterly without prejudice and is guided only by evidence.

The Supreme Court's ruling seems to favour not the public, not even
the individual in question, but drug dealers and abusers of the law.

Interpretation of the Charter of Rights seems out of step with common
sense or reality. As a people, maybe we put too much value on privacy.

Would it not be sensible to have every person born in Canada
fingerprinted at birth -- not for future retribution, but for
accountability? We assume every child born is likely to grow up
law-abiding, but that's not always the case. When a crime is
committed, would it not be useful if there was a national data base
of fingerprints for crime detection?

Why not DNA samplings from those who commit violent crimes, if not
from the general public?

Our courts are often accused of favouring the rights of perpetrators
more than the rights of victims and the public. The Supreme Court's
ruling against sniffer dogs seems to reinforce this prejudice.