COURT RULING WON'T AFFECT LOCAL BOARD

Catholic Schools Use Sniffer-Dog Searches on Case-By-Case
Basis

The director of the local Catholic school board says last week's
Supreme Court ruling outlawing random police searches of lockers by
sniffer dogs will have no impact on the board because it doesn't
employ such searches.

Michael Schmidt of the Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District
School Board said yesterday that he does not believe in random
searches to find drugs on school property.

"I've never been a believer in using dogs in this way," he
said.

He said, though, the board would and does allow police to use a dog to
search individual lockers if there is evidence that a specific student
possesses or is dealing drugs on school property, and the principal
would be the one to call police.

The Supreme Court decision stemmed from an incident in Sarnia in 2002
when a police dog detected marijuana and magic mushrooms in the
backpack of a Catholic school student there. The backpack was in the
gym while students were confined to their classrooms during the search.

An accompanying case involved a sniffer dog being used in a Vancouver
bus station.

In their ruling, the judges ruled that the use of dogs in such a way
amounted to an unconstitutional warrantless search.

The decision has touched off a lively debate about what rights
students have in schools, particularly when their right to be
protected against arbitrary police searches conflicts with schools'
stated goal of being drug-free.

Schmidt said educators had been following the Sarnia case closely as
it wound through three levels of court because of the fundamental
nature of the issues it raised.

The case has been taught in school supervisory officers'
courses.

"It's quite a well-known case at this point," he said.

In the Catholic board, principals can request a police search if they
or staff members have evidence or strongly suspect that drugs are
present on school property. He said if school authorities suspected
that a student had a weapon or an explosive device in their
possession, police would also be called, and more expeditiously than
in a case involving drugs because of the possibility of imminent harm.

The Supreme Court ruling only inhibits the ability of police to search
schools or public places for drugs when they have no evidence or
belief drugs are present there. It will have no effect on use of the
dogs at airports, border crossings or even sporting events and
concerts, where dogs are sometimes used, often supplied by private
companies.

The expectation of privacy is low at an airport where passengers know
they and their belongings will be subject to search for security
reasons, and they cannot argue, as did the Sarnia student, that police
made an unreasonable search of their belongings.

In the case of entertainment events, being searched may be a condition
of entry imposed by the promoter and such information is often printed
on the ticket. Legal experts point out that if a person does not want
to be searched, they do not have to attend the event.