[fredr123]

Originally Posted by @theCBE

Your title is misleading. No where does it say sniffer-dog searches are unlawful. It says that in these two cases they were unlawful because there was no resonable suspicion to justify searching the two people that were caught with drugs.

In one case they searched a school while confining kids in the classrooms. They received no tips that there were drugs in the school, and on the information they had at the time there was no way they would have been given a warrant to search the school.

In the second case the police officer searched the man because as he came off the bus the man gave him an "elongated stare". He actually searched the guy because he looked at him funny.

I would think that allowing the two cases to stand would set a much worse precedent then allowing their appeals.

+1 for rationality

Here are links to the cases if you want to read them yourself:
R. v. Kang-Brown, 2008 SCC 18; http://canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008...2008scc18.html

An RCMP officer involved in a special operation designed to detect drug couriers at bus stations observed a bus arriving at the station and the accused getting off. The accused gave the officer an elongated stare and went into the station lobby. He then turned and looked back at the officer, who found this behaviour suspicious. The officer eventually approached the accused, identified himself and told him that he was not in any trouble and was free to go at any time. The officer asked the accused if he was carrying narcotics. The accused said no. The officer then asked to look in the accused’s bag. The accused put his bag down and was unzipping it when the officer went to touch the bag. The accused pulled it away, looking nervous. At that point, the officer signaled another officer with a sniffer dog to approach. The dog sat down, indicating the presence of drugs in the bag. The accused was arrested for possession of and/or trafficking in drugs. The accused was searched and drugs were found on his person and in his bag. The trial judge found that the accused was neither arbitrarily detained nor unlawfully searched and entered a conviction. She held that the odours from the bag, which emanated freely in a public transportation facility, did not constitute information in which the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was accordingly not engaged. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

R. v. A.M., 2008 SCC 19; http://canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008...2008scc19.html

The police accepted a long‑standing invitation by the principal of a high school to bring sniffer dogs into the school to search for drugs. The police had no knowledge that drugs were present in the school and would not have been able to obtain a warrant to search the school. The search took place while all the students were confined to their classrooms. In the gymnasium, the sniffer dog reacted to one of the unattended backpacks lined up against a wall. Without obtaining a warrant, the police opened the backpack and found illicit drugs. They charged the student who owned the backpack with possession of cannabis marihuana and psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking. At trial, the accused brought an application for exclusion of the evidence, arguing that his rights under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated. The trial judge allowed the application, finding two unreasonable searches: the search conducted with the sniffer dog and the search of the backpack. He excluded the evidence and acquitted the accused. The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal.