Zach LarkinsPRIVACY
A little while ago, police in Sarnia, Ontario conducted a search of a high school for no other reason than that they had an open invitation from the school principal to make random searches of the premises. While carrying out this exercise, a drug-sniffing dog pointed the cops toward a backpack that was found to contain 10 bags of marijuana, 10 "magic mushrooms" and assorted drug paraphernalia. Now, the monkey wrench gets thrown in the works and a case against illegal search has found its way into the Supreme Court of Canada.
At issue is the question of whether or not students can expect the same right of privacy when it comes to personal possessions as say a woman with a handbag or a man with a briefcase. This is a tricky question. A woman or man walking down the street has every right to expect privacy. They are minding their own business and what they are carrying, for whatever purpose, is no one else's affair. If they happen to walk by a drug-sniffing dog that points his handler toward the miscreant, the cop should have every right to detain that person while a search warrant is issued. Also, if I am stopped for a traffic violation and drugs or guns are found in my car, the cop doesn't have to wait for a search warrant. He has every right to toss my vehicle and charge me accordingly. So why is this case different?
The police acknowledged in earlier court proceedings that they were not acting on a tip, they had no reason to believe student safety was threatened and that it would have been a "fruitless exercise" to try to obtain a search warrant. Remember, they had an open invitation to do such searches from the principal. The school board maintains that schools, because of their duty to protect students, are in a league of their own when it comes to searches, which can include calling in police. So we have a case of the schools trying to keep students as safe as possible, as demanded by parents, and doing their utmost to provide that safety. Paul Wubbin, the board's director of education said, "School boards and their officials exercise a form of control over children comparable to that of a parent. As a result, the law imposes a heightened degree of attentiveness. The appearance of police and their sniffer dogs, which happens routinely in schools, act as a deterrent that helps keep out drugs."
A 17 year old student, identified as A.M., was criminally charged, but later cleared by two courts on the grounds that police had violated his Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Now the issue has found its way to the SCOC.
Jonathan Lisus, a lawyer for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which is siding with A.M. says, "Students spend so much of their time in a school environment and one of the life lessons you should learn in school is that you are not going to be locked up and searched by the police when no one believes you have done anything wrong." This same convoluted reasoning gives us the defence of, ‘Gee, officer I didn't shoot that guy. My gun was in my back pocket all the time." "Well officer, I didn't see any shooting. By the way, can you direct me to the nearest hospital so I can get this wound looked at?" "I didn't see nuthin', officer." And the judge says, "time served. Go back to the streets and promise me you'll behave."
In his defence, A.M. hadn't done anything wrong. Yet. Why was he carrying such a stash? That's a question the defence lawyer and the CCLA would rather you didn't ask. Even a dimwit like me is not going to buy into the Paul McCartney defence that it was for ‘personal use'. It looks more like he was planning on doing a little trafficking. And aren't schools supposed to protect their students against that?
What happens if A.M. wins this fight? It would have serious ramifications for the future of police dogs to help save lives by rooting out explosives during random police patrols of trains, buses and subways. And that's something, in today's age of terrorism, we should all think about.
Sources: Janice Tibbetts Privacy Issue CanWest News
At issue is the question of whether or not students can expect the same right of privacy when it comes to personal possessions as say a woman with a handbag or a man with a briefcase. This is a tricky question. A woman or man walking down the street has every right to expect privacy. They are minding their own business and what they are carrying, for whatever purpose, is no one else's affair. If they happen to walk by a drug-sniffing dog that points his handler toward the miscreant, the cop should have every right to detain that person while a search warrant is issued. Also, if I am stopped for a traffic violation and drugs or guns are found in my car, the cop doesn't have to wait for a search warrant. He has every right to toss my vehicle and charge me accordingly. So why is this case different?
The police acknowledged in earlier court proceedings that they were not acting on a tip, they had no reason to believe student safety was threatened and that it would have been a "fruitless exercise" to try to obtain a search warrant. Remember, they had an open invitation to do such searches from the principal. The school board maintains that schools, because of their duty to protect students, are in a league of their own when it comes to searches, which can include calling in police. So we have a case of the schools trying to keep students as safe as possible, as demanded by parents, and doing their utmost to provide that safety. Paul Wubbin, the board's director of education said, "School boards and their officials exercise a form of control over children comparable to that of a parent. As a result, the law imposes a heightened degree of attentiveness. The appearance of police and their sniffer dogs, which happens routinely in schools, act as a deterrent that helps keep out drugs."
A 17 year old student, identified as A.M., was criminally charged, but later cleared by two courts on the grounds that police had violated his Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Now the issue has found its way to the SCOC.
Jonathan Lisus, a lawyer for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which is siding with A.M. says, "Students spend so much of their time in a school environment and one of the life lessons you should learn in school is that you are not going to be locked up and searched by the police when no one believes you have done anything wrong." This same convoluted reasoning gives us the defence of, ‘Gee, officer I didn't shoot that guy. My gun was in my back pocket all the time." "Well officer, I didn't see any shooting. By the way, can you direct me to the nearest hospital so I can get this wound looked at?" "I didn't see nuthin', officer." And the judge says, "time served. Go back to the streets and promise me you'll behave."
In his defence, A.M. hadn't done anything wrong. Yet. Why was he carrying such a stash? That's a question the defence lawyer and the CCLA would rather you didn't ask. Even a dimwit like me is not going to buy into the Paul McCartney defence that it was for ‘personal use'. It looks more like he was planning on doing a little trafficking. And aren't schools supposed to protect their students against that?
What happens if A.M. wins this fight? It would have serious ramifications for the future of police dogs to help save lives by rooting out explosives during random police patrols of trains, buses and subways. And that's something, in today's age of terrorism, we should all think about.
Sources: Janice Tibbetts Privacy Issue CanWest News
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
I've been stopped numerous times for no apparent reason and had my vehicle searched by "sniffer" canines...
Of course nothing was ever found because nothing was ever there to begin with...but it stands to reason that in today's terroristic society, we "need" these animals and their handlers to keep our countries safe...
And I don't give a rats ass what that kid said...he had illegal drugs in his back pack at school and he intended to sell them...case closed...
So what if some of our civil liberties are being overlooked? I don't have anything to hide, so why should I care who or what asks me to open up my briefcase or the trunk of my car? If I had a nuclear device in there that might raise some eyebrows right!?
If they were invited in to do a routine shakedown so be it...
The kid got popped, do the crime, do the time...
End of discussion...
Great blog!
Take care,
Nick
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
If, on the other hand, a *random* check was performed now and then, I would think that all but the most moronic would know better than to bring illegal stuff to school. That's a whole separate issue from the illegal search one, anyway. The kid had drugs in his backpack. Punish him accordingly.
The "random" principal worked pretty well in the Navy; air traffic controllers were all made aware that they could be tested for drugs anytime, anywhere. We rarely were, but the beauty was there was no way of knowing *when*--that was enough to deter the majority of us.