SNIFFING OUT A BALANCE

If the police have authority to do random searches in schools for
drugs, will that help make students more safe from the ravages of
illicit drugs or only introduce them early to an acceptance of a
police state?

If public transit users are subject to similar random searches, will
this compromise of privacy be offset by a reduction in the trafficking
of drugs or will it merely make users of such substances easier
picking for police?

And is a drug dog, trained to sniff out illicit substances, a tool
that supplements the police's investigation or instigates one?

They may seem like easy questions to answer for people who aren't
users or sellers of illegal drugs. We don't want drugs or weapons, for
that matter, in our schools. We don't want public spaces to be abused
by criminals who then threaten the public good.

But is it reasonable for an individual, whether a child or an adult,
to be subjected to a police search without cause? If police don't need
reasons to suspect the presence of drugs in order to put sniffer dogs
on the case, would this not open the flood gates to sniffer dogs on
every corner? And what happens to a society where citizens can be
subjected to search and investigation for no reason other than they
happen to be in a public space?

These are some of the questions Canadians are left to ponder after the
Supreme Court ruled recently on two random police dog searches - one
in a Calgary bus terminal, the other in a high school in Sarnia, Ont.

In 6-3 decisions, the court said police need "reasonable suspicion" of
a drug crime before allowing a drug dog to sniff around.

Civil libertarians hailed the ruling as a proper balance between law
enforcement and privacy rights. Critics suggested the court lacked
common sense.

The judges, however, weren't just split on the outcome of the two
appeals. While all agreed the use of drug dogs sniffing the air
outside a person's backpack amounts to a search just as though a
police officer was picking through the bag's contents, five said the
court could set limits on how police use sniffer dogs. Four others,
however, said any gap in existing law on police investigative powers
relating to sniffer dogs would be best left to Parliament.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said the federal government will
consider legislation to allow random checks by sniffer dogs in public
transit systems, but he didn't say expanded powers would necessarily
be in the cards for random school searches.

Existing federal law already allows use of sniffer dogs in airports
and border crossings where citizens expect heightened security and
some compromises to individual privacy.

Sniffer dogs, while highly sensitive in their sniffs, are not perfect.
Drug dogs detect the odour of narcotics, not their presence. And
they're not infallible.

"The accuracy of Chevy, (the dog involved in the Calgary search) while
high, showed that in 100 searches, she would register a false positive
against eight or 10 law-abiding citizens," wrote Justice Ian Binnie.
"This may seem like a modest figure unless you happen to be one of
them."

Common currency can carry the odour of drugs even when the person
holding the cash is clean, so a false positive could well make life
difficult for someone who, without crossing paths with a drug dog,
would never have come under police scrutiny.

It's easy to see how nine of the country's greatest legal minds could
be so divided about the limits to be drawn on police powers involving
the sensitive snouts of canine members. The Canadian public should
consider the tender balance between our expectation of privacy and the
authority of law enforcement as law makers consider rewriting the rule
governing random searches. The next bag being sniffed could be yours.