« GROW-OP TEAM SUSPENDED OVER CLAIM OF THEFT | Main | Letter from Health Canada to Ted Smith »
COURT WAS RIGHT TO PROTECT PRIVACY WITH BAN ON RANDOM SEARCHES
By Hempology | May 10, 2008
Wed, 07 May 2008
Review, The (CN ON)
COURT WAS RIGHT TO PROTECT PRIVACY WITH BAN ON RANDOM SEARCHES
As controversial as the decision might be, Canada’s Supreme Court got it right when it ruled recently that specially trained police dogs randomly searching backpacks was a violation of privacy rights.
In a 6-3 decision, the court tossed out charges against a teenager after a dog sniffed out marijuana in a backpack in a random search at a Sarnia high school. The court ruled such searches can only be done if there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
While acknowledging the court was trying to strike a balance between protection of privacy and law-enforcement efforts, police are concerned.
It’s understandable.
There is no denying there is a significant drug problem in Canada and police need every tool at their disposal to help to fight it.
But unreasonable search and seizure is not one of them.
The fact is that we live in a democracy, not a police state.
In our criminal justice system there is a presumption of innocence. You are innocent until proven guilty and individuals are protected from unreasonable search and seizure.
It might be politically expedient to argue that the enormity of the drug problem requires special enforcement measures, considering how it affects young people.
But that doesn’t take away from the basic right that anyone – regardless of age – is protected against unreasonable search by the state.
It’s important to note that the decision applies to random searches. Our politicians, police, school board officials or teachers would be outraged at similar searches brought to bear on their own offices, briefcases, vehicles or houses. Students of all ages deserve the same protection of privacy rights.
Police and their highly trained dogs can still be used in instances where there is a strong suspicion of drug activity in a school, as both Niagara board of education representatives point out.
“This ruling comes down to randomness versus reasonable suspicion. At the end of the day, sniffer dogs will be used in appropriate circumstances if the reasonable suspicion is based on fact,” John Crocco, superintendent of education with the Niagara Catholic District School Board, said.
Society is keenly aware of the problem of the illegal drugs and supports those charged with the responsibility of keeping drugs off the street – but not at the high cost of restricted civil liberties. The foundation of our legal system was born from a desire to protect individual rights from being violated by the state.
It’s a foundation well worth preserving.
Topics: Articles | Comments Off
Comments are closed.