FEEBLE LAW FAILS US ALL

Imagine this scenario: A drug dealer is bringing a van full of
cocaine or heroin to the Island and he's in the vehicle lineup at
Horseshoe Bay.

Security personnel are walking up and down the rows of cars, vans and
trucks with dogs who are there to sniff out explosives. One of the
canine security dogs gets a whiff of the drugs and starts making a
fuss.

The security officers call police and they come and arrest the pusher
thereby stopping the drugs from ending up in the arms, noses or lungs
of Island youngsters or addicts.

The suspect is taken to court and the judge does not pursue the
matter because the dogs were not there to detect illegal drugs. He
dismisses the evidence (the drugs) and lets the man go with an
admonishment.

Sounds farfetched even for our so-called legal system. Think again
parents and taxpayers. If a Supreme Court of Newfoundland ruling last
month stands, the accused drug pusher may get off scot-free.

Brian Crisby of Eastport, N.L. is charged with the possession of
ecstasy and cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

On Nov. 24, 2006, Crisby flew from Fort McMurray, Alta. to St. John's
and a police dog detected the drugs in Crisby's luggage. Police had
been acting on an informant's tip.

However, according to something lawyers call "fruit from the
poisonous tree," when authorities find contraband they are not
supposed to be looking for, during a valid search for something else,
that contraband should not be admitted as evidence against their
client, though it may be just as illegal. Utter nonsense.

Crisby's lawyer argues his client had an expectation of privacy over
the contents of his luggage when he checked his bags in at Fort
McMurray. The lawyer wants the drug evidence thrown out as he calls
the seizure of Crisby's luggage a violation of his client's charter
right against unlawful search and seizure.

Crown prosecutors, on the other hand, argue Crisby gave up that right
when he "voluntarily" checked his luggage because he knew, or should
have known, air travel is subject to strict controls, including
security screening.

Justice Robert Hall ruled that airport security laws are designed to
protect travellers against weapons and explosives, not to find drug
dealers. He called the Crown's argument an "incremental intrusion
upon privacy rights."

"Obviously, searching or screening the accuser's bags for the
presence of drugs does not fit into the category of purposes for
which screening was authorized," wrote Hall.

His ruling means that Crisby can continue his lengthy legal battle to
have the drug evidence against him dismissed. No evidence, no case
and Crisby walks. This is madness.

It is akin to police officers executing a search warrant at a murder
suspect's house to look for the murder weapon. While in the house,
the officer finds a large ecstasy or crystal meth lab but don't
arrest the suspect because the warrant specified searching only for
the murder weapon.

In the B.C. Ferries scenario. Under new Transport Canada regulations,
designed to increase security on ferry routes, bomb-sniffing dogs
will be at major ferry terminals starting sometime in the new year.

Transport Canada calls domestic ferry services operating on a regular
schedule "desirable targets for unlawful interference, including terrorism."

If the ruling in St. John's stands, then drug dealers can sit in their
cars next summer and watch security patrols wander up and down the
rows of vehicles knowing that our legal system offers them protection
against security personnel illegally searching their vehicles stuffed
full of drugs, laundered money or other illegal contraband.

Only in Canada you say? Pity.