SUPREME COURT RULING ON SNIFFER DOGS IS WRONG

Re: "No more random drug sweeps by dogs: top court; Ruling does not
apply to airport security checks," The Journal, April 26.

The Supreme Court's ruling on sniffer dogs is wrong. What is the
difference if the sniffer dog finds someone carrying illegal
substances at a bus station, or school? What if the sniffer dog could
show you that someone is carrying a concealed gun or knife? Would
that not be useful, and perhaps help avert a tragedy?

If someone is breaking the law, it should not matter how the evidence
against them is obtained. Law-breakers should be held responsible for
their actions. If the sniffer dog alerts authorities to suspicious
parcels, that should be enough reason to search.

Far too many cases are thrown out of court because the evidence was
not obtained by proper procedures. What should matter most is that
laws are upheld, and violators are held accountable.

The public should have more freedom than lawbreakers.

Manfred Drews, Sherwood Park