POLICE SEARCH OF BUS LOCKER VIOLATES RIGHTS

Supreme Court Acquits Man After Marijuana Found in City Depot

WINNIPEG police showed a "blatant disregard" for Charter rights when
they searched a bus locker for drugs without a warrant, the Supreme
Court of Canada has ruled.

Legal experts say the case is important because it helps clarify what
expectations people can have when it comes to privacy.

"If you're renting a locker and you pay for it and you have a key you
expect that what's inside will remain personal," said Brian Bowman,
who specializes in privacy law.

In a unanimous decision, the high court acquitted Mervyn Buhay, who
was charged in 1998 with possession for the purpose of trafficking
after marijuana was found in the central bus depot in Winnipeg.

Const. Bob Johnson of the Winnipeg Police Service said they will
review their training and procedures regarding searches in light of
the decision.

Buhay was arrested after security guards at the Winnipeg bus depot
discovered drugs were being stashed in a locker. During his trial,
court was told that Buhay and another man had approached the security
desk at the depot to ask about the use of lockers there.

While one man spoke to the security guards, the other one opened a
locker. The security guard noticed a slight smell of marijuana and,
after the two left, he sniffed the vent of the locker and smelled a
strong odour of marijuana.

He called police, who had security staff open the locker, and the
drugs were seized.

One police officer testified that it didn't even cross his mind that
they would need a search warrant.

"It's important that procedures are followed," said
Bowman.

That point was made by the high court. "The administration of justice
does not have to be brought into disrepute on a national scale before
courts may interfere to protect the integrity of the process within
which they operate," wrote Madam Justice Louise Arbour.

The right to privacy is protected under the Charter but only against
intrusions by the state.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal had ruled that there had been no Charter
violation because it was security guards who initially opened the
locker and that when the drugs were eventually turned over to police
it was a transfer and not a search and seizure.

But the Supreme Court differed.

"I see no basis for holding that a person's reasonable expectation of
privacy as to the contents of a rented and locked bus depot locker is
destroyed merely because a private individual -- such as a security
guard -- invades that privacy by investigating the contents of the
locker," wrote Arbour.

Buhay's lawyer, Bruce Bonney, said there was no indication given to
his client that his locker might be searched without his consent.

Bowman said he expects even more issues of privacy to come before the
courts, particularly concerning the use of video surveillance.

He said more businesses are using the technology concerning their
employees but it's not always clear how far they can go.