'TAKING THE DOG'S WORD OVER THE KID'S'

'Drug' Case Shows Error Of Zero-Tolerance Rules: U.S. Experts

The case of an Orleans high school student suspended because a
drug-sniffing dog identified the smell of marijuana on his coat is "zero
tolerance run amok," according to the author of We the Students, a book
about the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of children's rights.

"So we're taking the dog's word over the kid's?" asked Jamin Raskin, author
and professor of constitutional law at American University's Washington
College of Law. He was asked to comment on the case of Chris Laurin, 15,
who was suspended even though administrators and police found no drugs in
his jacket, school bag or locker.

"Dogs can't speak and they can't tell you what they smell. What are we
telling the students of North America when we trust a dog over a person?"

While Chris is still fighting to understand why he was suspended, Mr.
Raskin said the act could be damaging because high school students have a
strong sense of what's fair.

"The suspension will put that stain on his record, based on something as
arbitrary as a dog smell, you've done harm to that kid's sense of fairness."

Mr. Raskin and other American experts said the same thing may well have
happened in the U.S., where zero-tolerance is a preferred weapon in the war
on drugs.

He has collected many examples where such policies were implemented while
ignoring the circumstances. One of his favourites is the story of a
Washington, D.C., high school student who juggled school and a part-time
job at a pharmacy.

One day, the boy was running to class from work and had forgotten to leave
his work tool, a small knife he used to open pharmacy boxes. It was inside
his bag and set off the school's metal detector.

He explained but it didn't matter. His punishment? A 90-day suspension.

"They said they had zero-tolerance and the circumstances weren't relevant,"
Mr. Raskin said. "Everyone acknowledged that this was a good kid -- with a
solid B-plus average -- and they knew why he had the knife."

Mr. Raskin and his students eventually had the suspension lifted.

Supreme courts in Canada and the U.S. have acknowledged that while at
school, because the administrators and teachers play a quasi-parental role,
students can expect some limitations on their rights. But that erosion of
rights worries civil libertarians.

Mr. Raskin pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court argument this week. In a
lower-court decision, jurists decided it was OK for schools to test
athletes for drugs because, the school argued, athletes are role models.
The school also argued that drug use could be harmful to an athlete's
health. Using that decision, schools across the country extended the drug
testing to all students in extracurricular activities.

"So the kids in the Bible groups were being drug-tested," Mr. Raskin said.
"The thing is, these are the good kids," he said. "If you can test them,
why not everybody?"

The lack of due process is what bothers Theodore Orlin, a human rights
professor at Utica College of Syracuse University.

"When the search turned up nothing, then we have to ask, 'Why was there a
punishment?' There was no hearing, no chance to defend himself."