Sniffer-dog searches illegal?

dcbogey · May 22, 2007

This is an interesting case currently before the SCC that, as the article mentions, could have far-reaching ramifications. The arguement put forward by the Crown is imaginative, to say the least.

http://www.thestar.com/article/216319

BuffNaked · May 22, 2007

star said:
In its brief to the court, the Civil Liberties Association contends the Crown has artificially framed the case around the "metaphysics of the dog sniff" when the real question is "what the police were doing in the school in the first place and how they came to apply their dog's snout to the backpacks of students who had been confined to their classrooms."

This is my favorite quote in the article.

star said:
Excluding "emissions" from personal belongings from Charter protection could open the door to police intrusions into a wide range of activities, including the monitoring of sounds coming from inside houses and communications from wireless technology, their brief says.

Also, this is scary.

baci2004 · May 22, 2007

The use of a drug-sniffing dog does not amount to a search because there is no privacy interest attached to smells in the public air.....

Gimme a break.

Quest4Less · May 22, 2007

Public interest...

A school is a 'public' place - there should be NO expectation of privacy.

You are in school to LEARN - not smoke up.

Besides - the dog just sniffs air, it's not like they strip searched the kid or anything.

dcbogey · May 22, 2007

It's the the proverbial thin edge of the wedge. What's next? Just imagine the "success" the police could have if they used dogs on transit buses for example. Or any busy street corner in the city. Just walk around and sniff the air. I think one's perspective on this issue may depend on if you are a "participant" or not. I am not but I worry about the use of "smells in the public air". If what is in the air is public why are radar detectors illegal in Ontario? They are only a receiver of microwaves in the "public air" Although I know it goes on already i'm still uneasy about about the "powers that be" intercepting my cell phone calls.

frankcastle · May 22, 2007

Is it true that cell phone transmissions are public domain and anyone can listen in if they so choose to..... the catch is that they can't do anything with that info without a warrant for a wire tap?

As for radar detectors.... they are illegal because their soul purpose is to help the user break the law and speed. That supercedes the freedom to detect what is in the air.

As for the drug dogs. The only people that should be concerned are those that want to bring drugs to school.

Could this ruling set a precedence for the use of dogs in other public places? Maybe but that's using the slippery slope fallacy..... the idea that if we allow one thing then next thing you know there's a drug dog at every corner. Furthermore, the cost to do this is not practical. The police are interested in catching bigger fish than some dude on foot with a joint in his pocket.

I think with the way possesion by an adult is viewed by the courts I don't see things moving towards a police state (if it isn;t one already some might argue).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not an anti drug person but nor am I pro drugs.

What I do agree with is the idea that children and drugs shouldn't mix.

dcbogey · May 22, 2007

frankcastle said:
As for the drug dogs. The only people that should be concerned are those that want to bring drugs to school.

Could this ruling set a precedence for the use of dogs in other public places? Maybe but that's using the slippery slope fallacy..... the idea that if we allow one thing then next thing you know there's a drug dog at every corner. Furthermore, the cost to do this is not practical. The police are interested in catching bigger fish than some dude on foot with a joint in his pocket.

If the police are interested in bigger fish, then why, in the case of this one dog has the xxxxxxx taken him into schools 140 times? I would think there are better uses of the resources of the Sarnia Police.
I'm not sure but I don't see the distinction between public and private places. Are the airports private? I think the arguement could be made that they are not. So what about the the dogs looking for drugs there?

frankcastle · May 22, 2007

The big fish is to try and curb drug distribution amongst kids. I would argue that a good portion of drug deals take place in and around the school. Why it's conviniant, it can be pretty conspicous, most of the kids don't have cars.

Going to each kids house is not practical. At the very least this would help to reduce the number of kids brazen enough to bring drugs to school.

dcbogey · May 23, 2007

frankcastle said:
As for radar detectors.... they are illegal because their soul purpose is to help the user break the law and speed. That supercedes the freedom to detect what is in the air.

Maybe in Ontario. In the US the airwaves are "owned" by the public and anyone has a right to receive those airwaves, for whatever purpose. Going back quite a few years, radar detectors were legal in at least BC, AB and SK. So go west and drive fast!
I suspect I have a different point of view than some regarding radar - if the police can use "covert" ways of catching me speeding, why can't I use covert means to detect them. If they were tapping my phone and I use an electronic device to find out, is that illegal?

Never Compromised · May 23, 2007

A school is not a public place. If you don't believe me, try walking into a public school that you don't have a child enrolled in. See how long you last before you are taken into custody.

frankcastle · May 23, 2007

dcbogey said:
I'm not sure but I don't see the distinction between public and private places. Are the airports private? I think the arguement could be made that they are not. So what about the the dogs looking for drugs there?

I think I'm missing your point here. All I'm saying is that allowing dogs into schools and having dogs on street corners is a pretty big jump.

frankcastle · May 23, 2007

dcbogey said:
Maybe in Ontario. In the US the airwaves are "owned" by the public and anyone has a right to receive those airwaves, for whatever purpose. Going back quite a few years, radar detectors were legal in at least BC, AB and SK. So go west and drive fast!
I suspect I have a different point of view than some regarding radar - if the police can use "covert" ways of catching me speeding, why can't I use covert means to detect them. If they were tapping my phone and I use an electronic device to find out, is that illegal?

See your arguments keep expanding. I simply offered an explanation as to why I think radar detectors are illegal.

The fact that a cop is hiding doesn't allow you to try and hide as well. He/she is hiding with a radar gun. You are speeding. Whether the cop is hiding or not is irrelevant.

This idea of if police do X then you can counter with Y is silly. Concealing a crime is exactly that.

dcbogey · May 23, 2007

frankcastle said:
The big fish is to try and curb drug distribution amongst kids. I would argue that a good portion of drug deals take place in and around the school. Why it's conviniant, it can be pretty conspicous, most of the kids don't have cars.

Going to each kids house is not practical. At the very least this would help to reduce the number of kids brazen enough to bring drugs to school.

I agree that getting drugs, not to mention weapons, out of the schools is a good thing. But if the police were really interested in getting the "big fish" why not identify the school yard dealer, track him and get his supplier? Or is that not practical and too much work for the over-worked police in Sarnia?

dcbogey · May 23, 2007

Compromised said:
A school is not a public place. If you don't believe me, try walking into a public school that you don't have a child enrolled in. See how long you last before you are taken into custody.

Agreed

frankcastle · May 23, 2007

dcbogey said:
I agree that getting drugs, not to mention weapons, out of the schools is a good thing. But if the police were really interested in getting the "big fish" why not identify the school yard dealer, track him and get his supplier? Or is that not practical and too much work for the over-worked police in Sarnia?

Neither myself nor the article suggests that the dog is the first and only line of defense in the war on drugs. It would stand to reason that the kid would be questioned about where he/she got the drugs.

Can you summarize what your main points are?

At first it was
1) look at this interesting article
2) then you start talking about what it could lead to
This is where I jumped in to point out that the move from schools to street corners with dogs is a flawed argument. The bigger fish comment was to point out that dogs on the corner is not likely to happen because it's a move in the wrong direction and not practical. Checking for drugs in schools, buses or other known centres for drugs are.
3) This is where I lose you.

Sorry I'm not trying to be an ass but I do think this is an interesting topic so I want to try and have a thoughtful discussion about it.

dcbogey · May 23, 2007

frankcastle said:
I think I'm missing your point here. All I'm saying is that allowing dogs into schools and having dogs on street corners is a pretty big jump.

If the SCC rules that this "search" was illegal without a warrant, I suspect that the dogs at the airport checking all those bags from the Caribbean will be out of work.
And why is it such a big jump to think that the police would start walking around know drug areas with dogs, simply sniffing the air to see what comes up? Come to think of it I'm a little surprised they haven't started already.

frankcastle · May 23, 2007

dcbogey said:
If the SCC rules that this "search" was illegal without a warrant, I suspect that the dogs at the airport checking all those bags from the Caribbean will be out of work.
And why is it such a big jump to think that the police would start walking around know drug areas with dogs, simply sniffing the air to see what comes up? Come to think of it I'm a little surprised they haven't started already.

Simple solution to the problem if deemed illegal without a warrant. Then use the dog as probable cause, call for a warrant, then search.

As for why the cops don't wander around with dogs. I'd assume resources are a key limiting factor. Also, walking down the street one could see the cop coming a mile away and avoid them and perhaps measures could be taken to mask the scent more easily then say at an airport where you'd have to pack the drugs in such a way as to not attract attention in the first place. On the street I wouldn't have to be concerned about X-ray devices so my bag could be stuffed with contraband in sealed containers with scent blocking agents (do coffee grinds actually work?). But honestly these are questions for the police chief I can only guess.

21pro · May 23, 2007

the very well trained dogs are excellent at what they do- and they only do their job. absolutely no unfair violation of privacy whatsoever.

dcbogey · May 23, 2007

frankcastle said:
Neither myself nor the article suggests that the dog is the first and only line of defense in the war on drugs. It would stand to reason that the kid would be questioned about where he/she got the drugs.

Can you summarize what your main points are?

At first it was
1) look at this interesting article
2) then you start talking about what it could lead to
This is where I jumped in to point out that the move from schools to street corners with dogs is a flawed argument. The bigger fish comment was to point out that dogs on the corner is not likely to happen because it's a move in the wrong direction and not practical. Checking for drugs in schools, buses or other known centres for drugs are.
3) This is where I lose you.
Sorry I'm not trying to be an ass but I do think this is an interesting topic so I want to try and have a thoughtful discussion about it.

I agree it is an intersting topic and a thoughtful discussion would be a refreshing thing here.
The police have a vey difficult job to do but I am loathe to give them any more leeway than society deems acceptable. And I realize that is a moving target. An early poster mentioned that the school is a public place and there is no expectation of privacy. Why then do we give them a locker with a lock? What lesson are we teaching them? In any given school the vast majority of kids are good and law-abiding. I'm just not sure I want my child locked down for 2 hours while a dog patrols the lockers. There has to be a better way than that. More work and cost perhaps, and therein lies the rub.

dcbogey · May 23, 2007

frankcastle said:
Simple solution to the problem if deemed illegal without a warrant. Then use the dog as probable cause, call for a warrant, then search.

As for why the cops don't wander around with dogs. I'd assume resources are a key limiting factor. Also, walking down the street one could see the cop coming a mile away and avoid them and perhaps measures could be taken to mask the scent more easily then say at an airport where you'd have to pack the drugs in such a way as to not attract attention in the first place. On the street I wouldn't have to be concerned about X-ray devices so my bag could be stuffed with contraband in sealed containers with scent blocking agents (do coffee grinds actually work?). But honestly these are questions for the police chief I can only guess.

I like the idea of using the dog as probable cause but unless there is a judge at the airport imagine the potential delays!

Coffee doesn't work. I worked with dogs and know a couple of cops that work with dogs - you would be amazed at what they can find. Labradors are some of the best!

Sniffer-dog searches illegal?

New member

Buff and I got's da stuff

Bad girl Luv'r

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Hiding from Screw Worm

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Crotch Sniffer

New member

New member