DRUG-SEARCH ACQUITTAL WAS 'MIND-BOGGLING'

I write regarding the story "Decision upheld on appeal (Oct. 5
Leader-Post) The accused was acquitted of drug charges on the
technicality that the police who searched his vehicle had no
reasonable grounds on which to believe that he was under the influence
of drugs, thereby justifying the search of his vehicle that turned up
about 5,000 ecstasy pills, 8.5 kilograms of marijuana and $10,000 in
cash.

It is cases like this that put a glaring spotlight on the flaws in our
judicial system.

Yes, the public shouldn't feel threatened by the possibility of being
subjected to a police search anytime, anywhere or for whatever reason,
but in this case the police officer's reasons for suspecting drugs and
calling in a drug-sniffing dog to search were well-founded, as is

evidenced by the thousands of dollars worth of drugs found in the
vehicle. To acquit him on such an absurd technicality is
mind-boggling.

I, for one, do not believe that the use of a drug-sniffing dog should
even be considered an invasion of a person's privacy under law. After
all, the dog doesn't need to look at your personal belongings,
overturn your property or toss it out of the way.

Privacy is essentially retained, unless the dog detects the odour of
illegal narcotics, in which case the police officer now has just cause
to subject you to further search. If the dogs don't react, then you
don't get searched. It makes sense to me!

As for this case, I certainly hope this means that the poor, acquitted
suspect was given back all of his ecstasy, pot and drug money -- after
all, if the police had no right to find it, then they shouldn't have
the right to take it away from him, right?

Deborah Verhaeghe

Regina