DRUG SNIFFING DOGS vs. Students' Charter Rights

Reproduced below are some of the more interesting online comments
posted on the Web site of the National Post Comment pages,
www.fullcomment.com, in reaction to a blog post by Colby Cosh titled
"The Supreme Court's strange sniffer dog decision."

Join the debate at www.fullcomment.com

Ambrose99

Mr. Cosh can sniff all he wants about the decision; it's the drug
laws themselves that violate people's rights. So I'm happy that the
drug laws have become less easy to enforce. Fenral I was present at
the high school when the search took place. The backpack was not
unattended, the gym teacher forced everyone to relinquish their
backpacks so they could be searched. When I informed the teacher this
was a violation of our rights, I was told to comply or I would face
potential suspension. I don't do drugs, nor did I have anything
illegal on my person at the time, but I definitely don't agree with
not having any rights just because I'm in school.

BlueGreen

Seems to me that, if a human sniff is good enough suspicion for
further action regarding drinking and driving, a dog sniffing
something should also be good enough for further action -- even if
it's just to get a court order.

QUARK191

It is comforting to know that the police still have nothing better to
do than to harass (i.e., persistently annoy) high school students,
hundreds of whom were searched for drugs to find one culprit in this
case. As a 15-year-old high school student in 1967 I was stopped and
frisked for drugs by the Calgary police on average once a week while
walking home from school. Back then I did not even know what
marijuana looked like. Here in the Greater Vancouver area if a few
hundred homes were searched at random, chances are at least one
marijuana grow operation would be discovered. But somehow I do not
think random searches of homes would go over very well with the voting public.

Canadian Psycho

Something to consider is that these students of today are the masters
of tomorrow. If we teach them that it's OK to have their rights
violated and have no respect for the charter, where will we find
ourselves later on? You may applaud these actions of the police now,
but when you're 70 and no longer in a position of authority or
influence (aside from being a voter), your politicians and
administrators will be people who have been taught that you have no
rights just as they have never had.

phatti

How about cameras in the washrooms? We did plenty of smoking in
there. How about see-through infrared cameras? There is plenty of
technology available but that doesn't make it acceptable. I wouldn't
want my kids to attend a school where armed men with canine units
roamed the halls looking for misdemeanor offenders. Why don't they
try that tactic at a university? Better still try it in parliament.

DaveL40

Yes, in loco parentis applies. If a parent abuses a child and I, as a
teacher, notice that, am I abrogating the parent's right to privacy
by reporting those signs to the proper authorities? Not at all--I am
protecting that child's rights.

What if your child is selling drugs to other children? Does he or she
still have the right to privacy? As long as the police have the duty
to enforce laws that are on the books, those parents who seek to
protect children who are breaking the law are wrong, poor parents and fools.