PRIVACY UPHELD

THE Supreme Court of Canada this week re-asserted the right to
personal privacy -- one's expectation that one is protected from
unwarranted intrusions by the state.

In a society with increasing encroachments, in a myriad of forms, upon
individual privacy, the ruling is a welcome line in the sand.
Canadians can feel more confident their fundamental rights to privacy
and the due process of law are recognized.

The court, in a unanimous decision released Thursday, acquitted Mervyn
Allen Buhay, who was charged by Winnipeg police in 1998 after security
guards at the central bus depot opened a locker he was using and
discovered a duffle bag of marijuana.

Police arrived shortly after, opened the locker and seized the
drugs.

They arrested Mr. Buhay the next day when he showed up at the depot.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms' protection of privacy applies to
state actions.

But the Supreme Court unanimously agreed it didn't matter who opened
the locker; The search and seizure occurred without a warrant and
therefore was not legal.

Further, there was no warning posted that lockers might be opened by
the depot.

It is a salutary decision in this post-Sept. 11 age, as rights are
increasingly squeezed and tested by widening state powers and
encroaching intrusions of cameras in public places, such as street
corners, and in private property, such as shopping centres,
workplaces, restaurants and, more oppressively, in schools.

The decision reminds police that their powers are limited and they
cannot take advantage of the expanding infringements on privacy. Rules
for search and seizure cannot be manipulated nor circumvented. Had the
court decided that the security guards' own search was reasonable
grounds for police to exert their authority without a warrant, their
powers would have been greatly expanded and the foundation of law eroded.

Mr. Buhay today is a free man not because he did no wrong but because
he is entitled to certain protections, and so those rights are better
preserved for all Canadians. Unless the threat to public safety is so
imminent and great as to require immediate action, police need a
warrant before moving in to search.

Such judicial oversight is the front-line check on extraordinary state
powers.

The court's decision is a reminder that while the separate values of
privacy and security often conflict, privacy, in fact, is the core of
individual and collective security.