 Top News - May 10, 2008 |
|
Sniffer dog ruling remains in effect
St. Albert MLA had asked if notwithstanding clause applied |
By Cory Hare
Staff Writer
|
St. Albert MLA Ken Allred asked Alberta Justice Minister Alison Redford whether the province could invoke the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ notwithstanding clause to effectively opt out of the Supreme Court’s recent sniffer dog ruling.
In a 6-3 decision, the top court ruled in late April that random searches of property with drug sniffer dogs breaches the charter’s Section 8, which covers what constitutes reasonable search and seizure.
Redford responded that a provincial government can only use the often misunderstood notwithstanding clause if legislation has somehow been involved. The Supreme Court decision falls outside this guideline, because it involved common law, she said.
Allred asked the question during Wednesday’s legislature sitting because he’s concerned that the court ruling makes it difficult for authorities to control drugs in schools and protect students.
"I don’t think [students] should be singled out for random searches but I think in general, we’ve got to expect that where there is a major concern about something like drugs … that there can be random searches to find the source," Allred said.
"I guess I lean on the side of protection of the public as opposed to the supposed rights of the citizen. If you’ve got nothing to hide, what’s the problem?" he said. "We seem to be bending over backwards to give the criminal element the benefit of the doubt."
In its decision, the top court looked at two cases in which random searches turned up drugs. One involved an Ontario school that was locked down while students’ backpacks were piled in the gymnasium and sniffed by a police dog. The other was a random search of a Calgary bus terminal. The court found in both cases that the police searches didn’t originate from reasonable suspicion of illegal activity and were, therefore, in violation of the charter.
"No doubt ordinary businessmen and businesswomen riding along on public transit or going up and down on elevators in office towers would be outraged at any suggestion that the contents of their briefcases could randomly be inspected by the police without ‘reasonable suspicion’ of illegality," the court wrote.
The expectation in a free society is that the state has limited powers over the people, powers that can only be exercised when there’s good grounds to do so, said lawyer Stephen Jenuth, president of the Alberta Civil Liberties Association.
He added that a society that values civil liberties also has to value their children’s civil liberties.
"To abandon them so that the police or the school or the school authorities, without any grounds, can come and just search them, whether by sniffer dog or otherwise, is something that’s repugnant to any free and democratic society," Jenuth said.
St. Albert’s RCMP uses a sniffer dog in local schools, but the searches aren’t random because they only happen when school principals have reasonable suspicion, said Const. Greg Hawkins.
"A reasonable suspicion for a principal is a lot less than a reasonable suspicion for a police officer," Hawkins said. "A lot of the times if they have a suspicion, they’ll just go ahead and look in the locker or talk to the student."
He stressed that searches in St. Albert schools aren’t police searches because it’s the principals who lead them.
"It’ll be the principal who directs the searching. We’re just kind of like a tool for him," Hawkins said.
The local detachment is still waiting for word from RCMP legal experts on whether its dog sniffing policy needs to change, he said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Navigate |
|
|
|
| More News |
|
|
|
| Contact Us |
|
|
|
|
