DRUG SEARCH WAS "REASONABLE"

The Supreme Court of Canada was set to hear an appeal yesterday on
whether a drug-sniffing dog inside an Ontario school went beyond the
"reasonable limits of police powers". During an unexpected police
visit to St. Patrick's High School in Sarnia, a trained police dog
sniffed out a backpack containing marijuana and magic mushrooms,
leading to trafficking charges against a youth known only as A.M.

At issue is whether the actions that led to those charges breached
Sec. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms covering what constitutes
reasonable search and seizure.

In 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a previous trial judge's
decision to acquit the youth, calling it a "warrantless random search"
after police said they didn't have grounds for getting a search
warrant beforehand. Crown lawyers were to argue the dogs didn't
constitute a search, and that they only provide information that could
lead to one.

The student's guilt was not in question, just how he got
caught.

After all, the police were not dealing with a private residence -- a
school is a public place. The dog's actions established probable cause
and the search of the student's personal property came about as a
result. This is no different than an officer detecting the odour of
alcohol on a driver's breath.

The danger is that this argument could also be applied to dogs used to
detect explosives, etc. in baggage or on individuals in airports. It
could also be argued that police don't have a warrant when they
randomly stop cars during RIDE programs and have drivers submit a
breath sample on the spot if the police detect alcohol.

If we expect the police to deal with criminals we cannot tie their
hands by suggesting this is outside "reasonable limits of police
power".