Previous Headline
May 2008
Sniffer dogs also need a warrant sometimes
A passenger gets off a bus at a Calgary bus station. An RCMP officer, watching the people passing by, thinks that the passenger looks suspicious. He decides to have the passenger’s bag sniffed by a specially trained dog. The dog gives the agreed upon signal and the officer arrests the passenger and then searches him. The bag contains drugs.
A principal in Sarnia is worried about drugs in his school. He allows police officers to inspect the school with the help of sniffer dogs. One of the dogs stops in front of a student’s backpack. The police officer opens the backpack. Again, drugs are found.
Both the passenger and the student are charged. But, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the drugs that were discovered could not be taken into consideration. As there was no other evidence with which to convict the accused persons, both were acquitted.
Why? First, having something sniffed by a dog in order to detect the presence of drugs is a search. Second, all citizens have the right to a certain minimum level of respect of their privacy. Police officers can only search someone to collect evidence that they can use against him when the law, a warrant, or reasonable suspicions expressly allow them to do so.
Therefore, police officers are not allowed to have a passenger’s bag sniffed just because they think that the passenger looks like he has something to hide. They also cannot get a dog to sniff all student backpacks in the hope that the dog finds something.
Why did the Court decide to disregard the drugs that were found?
The
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes certain fundamental rights for every Canadian. One of those rights is to be secure against unreasonable searches.
It could happen that a police officer doesn’t respect these rights. Sometimes, in the middle of a situation, it is very difficult to determine what is or is not allowed. In those cases, police officers may gather evidence that they should never have obtained in this way (such as the drugs in the cases described above).
Often, the court will simply choose to disregard this evidence. In fact, when a police officer breaks the law, when her methods violate a person’s rights- whether or not the person is blameworthy- it is considered an attack on our confidence in the justice system. Disregarding the evidence is seen as a way to preserve that confidence. However, if the crime committed is very serious and the anomaly in the investigation is minor, the steps that the court must follow may lead it to conclude that the evidence can be taken into account.
Rest assured… whether the search was unreasonable or not, the accused will not be able to get back the drugs that were seized…
Will sniffer dogs still be used?
Yes. Police officers may use sniffer dogs to find something hidden if they have reasonable grounds to suspect someone or if they have obtained a judge’s permission to do so. Also, there are places and situations in which searches are allowed by law. An airport, for example, is a place where a traveller can be searched by both the customs’ officers and security services. The dogs have definitely proven their worth in that field!
Can the police or school personnel still conduct searches?
There are important distinctions that must be made here. A search is one thing, and the charges that can be laid as a result of this search are another thing. The Supreme Court refused to allow the result of an abusive search to be used to lay criminal charges. The police can still accept the invitation of a school principal to inspect the building and seize the drugs and weapons that they might find.
Also, there is nothing that prevents school officials from ensuring the safety of the students. Locker inspections, backpack searches, or emptying a student’s pockets can thus be justified. The goal in that case is to ensure the safety of the students, not to conduct a police investigation. In fact, the Supreme Court has already recognized the right of school personnel to search a student if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a school rule has been broken and if a search is necessary.
Whenever they are carrying out a search, both the police and the school personnel must use methods that are as respectful as possible. They must not unnecessarily humiliate a student. The persons conducting the search, as well as their employers, could be liable if they use excessive force, hurtful words, or conduct a search that is unnecessarily invasive.
To learn more, consult our Infosheets:
