Supreme Court muzzles sniffer dogs

[Snowgoose]

Funny, I went to St Pats High School in Sarnia and they brought in a sniffer dogs in '94. No one complained then. My parents were actually happy that they did. They did all the high schools that day.

Plus I really don't mind a dog sniffing for bombs in luggage since the CATSA people are such stellar individuals.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story ... e8754897eb

Supreme Court muzzles sniffer dogs
Janice Tibbetts , Canwest News Service
Published: Friday, April 25, 2008

OTTAWA - Police cannot use scent-tracking canines for random searches in public places, including schools, parks, malls, airports and bus terminals, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday.

The decisions would put an end to the commonplace practice of random sweeps with sniffer dogs, especially to detect illegal drugs.

"No doubt, ordinary businessmen and businesswomen, riding along on public transit, or going up and down on elevators in office towers, will be outraged at any suggestion that the content of their briefcases could be randomly inspected by the police without any 'reasonable suspicion' of illegality," the court said in a 6-3 written judgment.
Police cannot use scent-tracking canines for random searches in public places, the Supreme Court of Canada says.

At issue was whether sniffer dogs, often called in by school principals to rid lockers of drugs, are an invasion of privacy that amount to unreasonable search and seizure under the Charter of Rights.

The court handed down rulings in two separate cases that have sparked enormous commentary and speculation in legal circles in the absence of any clear Canadian law.

One case related to whether police in Sarnia, Ont., violated the student body's constitutional rights by bringing a scent-tracking dog into St. Patrick's High School in November 2002.

In a companion case, the Supreme Court ruled on the fate of Gurmakh Kang Brown, who was caught with 17 ounces of cocaine in his luggage after RCMP conducted a random search with a sniffer dog, Chevy, at the Calgary Greyhound Bus depot six years ago. The investigation was part of Operation Jetway, a national RCMP program to monitor the travelling public for drugs, weapons and other illegal contraband.

The Alberta Court of Appeal ruled against Brown, concluding that odours emanating from the air outside his luggage do not trigger privacy rights.

[small penguin]

Yea I read that earlier. Fucking stupid.

The supreme court basically says.... "Its no longer illegal to smoke or posses drugs. However, if you are stupid enough to be caught with these drugs after a warrant has been issued... you're on you're own."

Im willing to bet the 6 old hags in the Supreme Court that voted that are in the back now smoking up. Twits..

Next thing you know I'll be able to get away with first degree murder if I can run into my house. If the cops bust in and arrest me without a warrant, that means the murder weapon and blood cant be used as evidence /sarcasm.

Funny how real world life is becoming more and more like Grand Theft Auto 3. Make it to your hideout or to a Pay 'n' Spray and you're fine.

[Jaques Strappe]

I guess the courts may be concerned with the issue of "Big Brother" and a slippery slope that might ensue if police are allowed to basically search without probable cause.

It is kind of like the Americans touting that they are the home of the "free" when in fact, the state is listening in on their private citizens having private phone conversations, all in the name of National Security. Where do you draw the line?

[small penguin]

When the school says "sure drop by any time for a drug search" or something long those lines...

And worst - When drugs ARE found on students....

[Jaques Strappe]

I am sorry but I don't particularly want to be walking through the park one day and get sniffed over by some beagle. My grandfather died in a war so we wouldn't have to endure being sniffed over by German Shepherds in the same vain.

I am glad the supreme court ruled the way they did. Not to be an anarchist but giving too much control to the government is something you never get back and it is usually a result of some dumbass stunt which invokes a law to protect us from ourselves. If little Johnny at school has a drug problem, "Reefer" the Beagle is unfortunately, not going to change that.

[Dex]

And worst - When drugs ARE found on students....

Especially when the drugs found on the students weren't theirs'; someone motivated by .......... to stash a small baggy through the breather holes of their victims locker. This happens!

There are many reasons why there are rules against arbitrary search and seizure.

[Wilbur]

I wonder how this will effect other situations now. For example, I can smell fumes from a grow-op or meth lab eminating from the house next to mine. Can the cops do anything based on the smell alone? The only difference between my nose and the dogs nose is the level of sensitivity. How about a driver who gets stopped for a burned out tail light. The cop smells liquor on the guys breath; can he do anything about it?

I would never agree to giving the cops, school principals or any other authority the right to open lockers or baggage for the purpose of random drug searches. However, a detection dog is cueing on the drug molecules being released into the air from a person or package. It's using it's nose to sense a drug crime is possibly occuring. How different is that from someone using their eyes to see (sense) that a crime is possibly being committed. If a cop sees someone walking along with a clear plastic bag full of drugs, should they be prohibitted from searching and seizing?

[2R]

Drug dealers 1 Law and Order 0

[Widow]

Sniffer dogs also sit on (hidden) command, which can result in a ripe set-up.

[Dex]

I wonder how this will effect other situations now. For example, I can smell fumes from a grow-op or meth lab eminating from the house next to mine. Can the cops do anything based on the smell alone? The only difference between my nose and the dogs nose is the level of sensitivity. How about a driver who gets stopped for a burned out tail light. The cop smells liquor on the guys breath; can he do anything about it?

Yes

I would never agree to giving the cops, school principals or any other authority the right to open lockers or baggage for the purpose of random drug searches. However, a detection dog is cueing on the drug molecules being released into the air from a person or package. It's using it's nose to sense a drug crime is possibly occuring. How different is that from someone using their eyes to see (sense) that a crime is possibly being committed.

One is a citizen, the other a police dog used for searches. The Police have rules against search and seizure for a reason. If the Police (or state) could argue that using a drug sniffing dog walking around the public sniffing the air giving Police reasonable grounds for further search does not constitute a search, then what is to stop the state from using heat, magnetic, ultrasound, etc. sensors driving through neighbourhoods peering into peoples' homes maybe finding someone breaking the law? We have problems with our RCMP improperly using tasers...............

[Siddley Hawker]

...then what is to stop the state from using heat, magnetic, ultrasound, etc. sensors driving through neighbourhoods peering into peoples' homes maybe finding someone breaking the law?

As part of the Lieberal's gun control law the police were granted the right to search and seizure, without a warrant, in either your home or place of work. The Supremes didn't have a whole lot to say about that, did they?

[Dex]

Which Supreme Court case are you citing?

[Wilbur]

Maybe the difference in what is allowed and not should hinge on passive vs active methods. Is passively looking at heat radiation with an IR sensor really any different then intercepting light waves using your mark one eyeball? If the cops walking around with a dog sniffing the air to justify a search is not OK, should cops be allowed to walk around using their eyeballs to look for violations of the law in progress? You can bet there will be some lawyers who will use this ruling to edge ever further in that direction.

Now, emitting energy such as ultrasound, radar, etc to detect what is happening is a different story. That is intrusive and should not be permitted.

[Siddley Hawker]

Which Supreme Court case are you citing?

I'm not citing any case, since as far as I know there has never been a case brought before the Court. One can speculate that there never will be either, since the search and seizure clause in the gun control law would seem to run squarely against the provisions against illegal search and seizure in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[North Shore]

would seem to run squarely against the provisions against illegal search and seizure in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It might well do - but do you have the cash to finance a legal battle all of the way to the Supreme Court? Would the Canadian Civil Liberty Society help out? The National Firearms Coalition?

[grimey]

what is to stop the state from using heat, magnetic, ultrasound, etc. sensors driving through neighbourhoods peering into peoples' homes maybe finding someone breaking the law?

Physics, budgets, and the fact that the real world doesn't work the way conspiracy theorists think it does?

This would seem to apply. The cops are not searching invasively, they're simply detecting what is being emitted. In the case of sniffer dogs, they detect an odor. In the case of marijuana grow ops, it's heat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Tessling
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/200 ... scc67.html

(I am NOT saying I agree with either decision, I'm just saying that a previous supreme court decision would seem to contradict this one).

[Dex]

what is to stop the state from using heat, magnetic, ultrasound, etc. sensors driving through neighbourhoods peering into peoples' homes maybe finding someone breaking the law?

Physics, budgets, and the fact that the real world doesn't work the way conspiracy theorists think it does?

This would seem to apply. The cops are not searching invasively, they're simply detecting what is being emitted. In the case of sniffer dogs, they detect an odor. In the case of marijuana grow ops, it's heat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Tessling
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/200 ... scc67.html

(I am NOT saying I agree with either decision, I'm just saying that a previous supreme court decision would seem to contradict this one).

I have not read the second link because it will not work for me but R._v._Tessling is not relevant to my point. And it doesn't really contradict the new decision we are discussing as it relates to random public searches. Read R._v._Tessling carefully. He was already under investigation and there was other evidence. I would further add that the FLIR technology used would not have constituted a warrant by itself. Although I do not necessarily agree with the decision myself (R._v._Tessling). It may be Monday before I can read the second link to respond.

[Dex]

would seem to run squarely against the provisions against illegal search and seizure in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It might well do - but do you have the cash to finance a legal battle all of the way to the Supreme Court? Would the Canadian Civil Liberty Society help out? The National Firearms Coalition?

LOL! Somehow I doubt anyone would have a hard time finding representation and/or finances to challenge the state in this matter.

[grimey]

I have not read the second link because it will not work for me but R._v._Tessling is not relevant to my point. And it doesn't really contradict the new decision we are discussing as it relates to random public searches. Read R._v._Tessling carefully. He was already under investigation and there was other evidence. I would further add that the FLIR technology used would not have constituted a warrant by itself. Although I do not necessarily agree with the decision myself (R._v._Tessling). It may be Monday before I can read the second link to respond.

The second link should just be the text of the Tessling verdict, if you're familiar with it don't bother. My point was that it seemed odd that the supreme court seems to think that in some ways we're entitled to more privacy outside of our homes than inside. Again, I'm not arguing one way or the other on the validity of either that case or the sniffer dog one, just that it seems inconsistent in some ways.

From the headnote in the Tessling decision:

Privacy is a protean concept, and the difficult issue is where the "reasonableness" line should be drawn. The distinction between informational and territorial privacy is of assistance in the current factual situation. Whereas the Court of Appeal treated the FLIR imaging as equivalent to a search of the home, and thus "worthy of the state's highest respect", it is more accurately characterized as an external surveillance of the home to obtain information that may or may not be capable of giving rise to an inference about what was actually going on inside, depending on what other information is available to the police. FLIR is not equivalent to entry. Because of the emphasis on the informational aspect, the reasonableness line must be determined by focussing on the nature and quality of the information FLIR can actually deliver and then evaluating its impact on an accused's reasonable privacy interest.

FLIR technology cannot, in its present state of development, permit any inferences about the precise activity giving rise to the heat. The accused had a privacy interest in the activities taking place in his home and it may be presumed that he had a subjective expectation of privacy in such activities to the extent they were the subject matter of the search. The fact that it was his home that was imaged using FLIR is an important factor, but it is not controlling and must be looked at in context and in particular, in this case, in relation to the nature and quality of the information made accessible to the police by FLIR technology. Everything shown in the FLIR photograph exists on the external surfaces of the building and, in that sense, FLIR records only information exposed to the public. Although the information about the distribution of the heat was not visible to the naked eye, the FLIR heat profile did not expose any intimate details of the accused's lifestyle or part of his core biographical data. It only showed that some of the activities in the house generate heat.

IF the Tessling case is valid, I think it holds that sniffer dogs should be allowed as well.

[87Strat]

Once again the highest court in the land confirms that the air up there is a little thin....and smells a little to much like old red (Liberal) farts.

As a parent with a child in school, I welcome any tool/tactic in the defence of their well being. Oh right, I forgot that years of telling my child "Just say no" will be adequate, when the proliferation of drugs in schools just became a little easier with this "decision".

Don't you see the connection? Minority Conservative Government, with the election promise of getting tough on crime in this country, vs. a Supreme Court with Liberal sensibilities. But that's okay, because we'll return to Government we all love and deserve soon enough.

Once again in the Supreme Courts rush to prove to the rest of the world just how morally, culturally, and intellectually superior Canadians are, we also demonstrated just how stupid we've become.

There is an old saying in law enforcement, that "you're only as good as the public you serve". Apparently the public has spoken.

Waitress......another round for me and my friends.

[GilletteNorth]

Is passively looking at heat radiation with an IR sensor really any different then intercepting light waves using your mark one eyeball?

I'd like to see that mark one eyeball that can detect IR emissions on it's own. Despite being a 'law and order' person I don't agree with law enforcement using IR technology to 'spy' on citizens. When a person is inside their home, if they take the precaution of closing their doors and windows and drawing the drapes, they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In order to avoid being watched by IR detection they would need to build a home with external surfaces that actively monitors radiated heat and has a system to neutralize those emissions. The science for this might be possible, but the cost would be prohibitive. For this reason, I think using IR sensor technology is an invasion of privacy for any Canadian (yes even the criminals) and should not be allowed under normal non-threatening circumstances when law enforcement desire to monitor a person's activities. Only if information pertinant to the situation reveals that a life threatening danger to the observer's welfare is present (for example a gun was observed being carried by an individual inside) should IR technology be allowed during surveilance. Any more than this and you continue give the Feds too much power over average Canadians. IMHO.

[Lurch]

As a parent with a child in school, I welcome any tool/tactic in the defence of their well being. Oh right, I forgot that years of telling my child "Just say no" will be adequate, when the proliferation of drugs in schools just became a little easier with this "decision".

I would like to know when the lockers on school property and owned by the schoolwhen did they become the students property? There is no expectation of privacy when it isn't your property, ie if you store something at a friends house and they allow the cops to search their house you have no say in the search.

When I was in school they had the combination to everybodys locker and as far as we were concerned they could be searched at any moment.

I agree with the "Big Brother" agrument but where do we draw the line, are the criminals rights greater then our rights? If you have nothing to hide who cares if a dog sniffs your bags, locker, or crouch?

It is a non-evasive search and should be legal.

Lurch

[JakeYYZ]

Random K-9 searches specifically for contraband or explosives in public is an invasion of privacy but police monitoring cameras aren't?

Hmmm typical dyslexic Trudeaupian reasoning...nothing in the expanding Bizzaro world of Trudeaupia surprises me....from all indications we are headed for a society that will decriminalize drug use but criminalize eating junk food or having a cigar. In Bizzaro land being overweight is punishable but being a drug addict is legal....

[Dex]

Sorry for the thread hijack.........

The state cant even keep illegal drugs, weapons and alcohol from prisoners under 24 hour guard, what makes you think random police searches through school lockers will keep drugs away from schools? Maybe parents should stop pointing fingers at others for their children's stupid fucking mistakes and start being more proactive in their children's lives; and yes that also means tough love. Drugs in schools is nothing new, it has been going on for over 30 years. No one can make your kid smoke a joint. The decision is his/hers. Don't leave it to the state to teach your kids to say no to drugs, its up to you. Schools already have the facilities to deal with disruptive students; these issues are nothing new.

[Dex]

Back on topic...

Grimey, the issue in the original post was random (arbitrary) searches with police sniffer dogs. From what I read and understood the main thesis in the Tessling case was whether the FLIR technology constitutes an invasion of privacy in the context of whether it was a form of surveillance or was invasive. Without informant testimony the FLIR technology would not really show anything besides which area of the building was warmer than the others. By itself it could not be used for a warrant to search the premises. Without seeing disclosure of the evidence from the informant I can only guess that the informant gave a detailed description of the grow-op and the FLIR signature helped corroborated the informants statement; enough for a search warrant.