FREEDOM FROM CASUAL SEARCHES IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

Ivan Satori's letter about sniffer dog searches in schools troubles me
("Ruling helps student drug dealers," May 6). If Satori's child was
returning home from school, the store or the park and a police officer
stopped the child and demanded to see inside his backpack, would
Satori feel the same way about this issue? That search would be just
as arbitrary and unwarranted as the dog-sniffer searches (based on no
evidence of wrongdoing) that were recently banned by the Supreme Court.

It is true that we sometimes put limits on young people's rights,
although I wouldn't necessarily call the items Satori referred to as
rights. The activities he listed mostly seemed more like earned
privileges to me (driving, buying tobacco and alcohol, buying houses
and voting in elections.) These limitations are for their (or our own)
safety, or are related to physical or mental ability as it commonly
exists at various stages of development in a young person's life.

So, for privileges that the state already regulates, we set limits
based on rational evaluations of the level of skills, abilities,
judgment, etc., in people of certain age groups. We also set limits on
some of those activities for the very old, such as the annual
re-examination for drivers over 80 years old.

What is at stake in the searches is a human right that is guaranteed,
in the Constitution of our country, to all persons. Section 7 of the
Constitution states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and
the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof
except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
Section 8 says, "Everyone has the right to be secure against
unreasonable search or seizure."

These sections make it clear that everyone, not just certain age
groups, can feel comfortable with their right to live unmolested in
our society, unless they do something forbidden by law or give such
clear evidence by their behaviour, or reports of that behaviour by
credible others who know of it first hand, that the police have a
clear reason to make a search.

These are freedoms for which every Canadian should be prepared to
fight. They form a basic part of what we call "the rule of law."
Upholding the law can only happen by methods that are within the rule
of law. If we are not ruled by law, then we can expect despots and
tyrants to take over.

The Supreme Court ruling did not outlaw sniffer dog searches. It
merely made clear the limitations placed on such searches. They must
be founded on some information that leads to the strong suspicion that
there are drugs to be found in lockers at a school. This is exactly
the same right that allows people of all ages to feel confident that
their personal possessions are not subject to random, irrational searches.

There is endless case law precedent for these limitations, and the
precedents are correct. People should be able to feel secure that
their privacy will not be breached without just cause.

I know there are drugs in our schools. I know that they cause often
irreparable damage to hitherto innocent people who start using them
and can't stop. I know parents want their children to be safe, as do
I, a parent of four, one of whom will be entering high school in a
year and a half. I also know that my child has as much right to
security from unreasonable search and seizure as do I and as does
Ivan Satori.

Caroline Yull

Stella