DUE PROCESS GONE TO DOGS

It's "unduly dogmatic" that Chris Laurin was suspended based solely on a
police dog's judgment the smell of pot was on his jacket, says one activist
lawyer.

"Canine adjudication has no place in our system," said Alan Borovoy,
general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

"Even if we assume for a moment that the dog's instincts are unerring, are
infallible, the best that tells you is that youngster may have been exposed
to the drug," said Borovoy. "But it doesn't tell you that he dealt in it,
that he consumed it, that he possessed it.

"All it tells you is that he may have been exposed to it. You can walk into
a room where other people are smoking and get exposed to it. Canine
judgment, as far as I know, is not quite sophisticated enough to make those
distinctions."

Borovoy said it is unjust for a student to be suspended under these
circumstances.

"Normally, the dog may help to narrow the field of inquiry, to narrow the
investigation," he said. "This is the first I've heard of anyone depending
on the dog to make the ultimate decision.

"It has the distinction of being both silly and unfair simultaneously," he
said.

Borovoy said he has reservations about the "lockdowns" themselves but added
he wants to learn more about it before passing judgment.

"I, of course, have some real problems with it, but in all fairness to the
other side, I want to hear all those (arguments)."