STUDENT RIGHTS LOST IN THE BALANCE

If it had happened on the street and police were involved, the search
and interrogation that led to a Peterborough Collegiate student's
suspension for selling marijuana would clearly be unconstitutional.

There was no warrant to seize a cellphone, or to take phone numbers
from it. The student wasn't informed of his rights or told he could
contact a lawyer. He says he confessed after being threatened.

Any citizen charged and taken to court under those conditions would go
free. Protection from illegal search and seizure and coercion is a
fundamental right in Canada.

Unless you are a student and a school official is conducting the
search. At that point different rules apply.

The Grade 12 student discovered the difference when he was told he
can't attend any Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board school. He
and his mother are appealing that ruling. In the meantime, he is
getting one-on-one instruction at the public library.

Commenting on this specific case is difficult because only the
student's version of events is known. School officials have refused to
give their side.

However, the fact that city police were called and declined to get
involved suggests the "drug trafficking" element was not serious.

The student's story is that he sold a friend $10 worth of marijuana at
a house party on a Saturday night. Word of marijuana use both off and
on school property reached the school and another student's cellphone
was confiscated. Students whose names were in the cellphone directory
were called in, questioned and confessed.

The legal standard for searching students was set in a 1998 Supreme
Court of Canada decision. The court ruled 8-1 that while a Nova Scotia
junior high school vice-principal's search of a student violated
traditional rules, "Searches undertaken in situations where the health
and safety of students is involved may well require different
considerations."

However, the justices limited that special right. It applies only to
searches "conducted by teachers or school officials within the scope
of their responsibility and authority to maintain order, discipline
and safety within the school."

Does the PCVS situation meet that standard? Under the very broad
definition of a school principal's authority set out in the provincial
Education Act, it might. The act states a student can be suspended for
actions that happen off school property but "will have an impact on
the school climate."

That combination of Supreme Court precedent and provincial law appears
to give school principals almost complete leeway to override students'
Charter rights.

While the Supreme Court was right to give principals special powers to
protect school safety, there should be more balance in the Education
Act on such a fundamental issue.