Court rules sniffer-dog searches are unlawful

[@theCBE]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

The problem with your 'tool' argument is like saying a cop shouldn't be allowed to use anything which enhances a sense - like vision (i.e. glasses or contact lenses), since those aren't "natural".

There is a difference. Glasses, contacts do not enhance your vision, they correct it. Enhancing your sense of sight would be giving you x-ray vision. If a cop sat at a corner wearing a pair of x-ray specs and looked through everyone bag as they walked by with out asking for permission, would that be fair? There is not a whole lot of difference between that and the sniffer dog. The difference I am refering to is the difference in the result. Obviously there is a difference as to the actual act. One is clearly more obtrusive than the other. I think that there is a tendancy to associate unobtrusive searches with fair searches. Just becasuse a search is not obtrusive (like a sniffer dog) does not automatically make it fair and justified.

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

If a cop was innocently walking down the street with a drug dog and it caught the scent of drugs - would the cop then be able to perform a search or would that also be illegal?

Yes it would be illegal. That is pretty much what the cases have just decided. 8-ball summed it up very well. If the cop has no reasonable suspicion in the first place, the dog cannot be used as a grounds to justify a search.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fotze

Exactly. You smoking drugs matter to the planet like Dion Phaneuf playing in the blabla cup but only 7000 times more unimportant.

And you know this how? How do you know that his drug habit is not funded by organized crime, neighborhood break ins, vehicle thefts, or child exploitation?

All I can do is shake my head when people think drug use is a victemless crime.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Jayems

Ah, criminals getting off on a technicality. Love our justice system.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is... not a technicality!

how did that case turn out where the police used FLIR to detect the infra-red heat signature of a grow-op inside a house instead of actually searching?

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is... not a technicality!

how did that case turn out where the police used FLIR to detect the infra-red heat signature of a grow-op inside a house instead of actually searching?

That's just it. Somewhere, someone decided that these people were unlawfully searched, and thus, overturned their conviction or charges. I have to respect that, even though I disagree.

My problem is, that it doesn't make them any less of a drug dealer or any better of a human being, and does nothing to deter others from doing it. I respect that people deserve the rights they are entitled to, but I can't help but think in the effort to ensure that no one is wrongly searched, the system panders to those rights when it seems the only ones really benefiting from it are the criminals.

I get 'randomly' searched at the airport nearly every time i fly. I've had police sniffer dogs come up and sniff me. I don't care. I've got nothing to hide, I say good on you "Mr. Supernose PD" or whatever we're calling him. And why should an airport be different than a bus stop? A high-school? (Other than the obvious international trafficking, but that could be relevant to the bus stop too)

I just can't see the difference in what happens in a car.

Police : Can i search your car?
Guy: No.
Police: Why not?
Guy: It's my right not to let you.
Police: Sure is.
Guy: Can I go?
Police: Not yet, Supernose PD is coming.
Guy: Why?
Police: You're suspicious.


Dog comes, smells drugs, off he goes to jail. Now this is only on those reality police shows, undoubtedly from the States, but this scenario has happened countless times... where a guy says he doesn't want to be searched, and the dog comes anyway. How is that different?

By everyones reactions, I'm obviously missing something here that would make me say "Ah, yeah. That was wrong of the police."

I just can't see it yet.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Jayems

By everyones reactions, I'm obviously missing something here that would make me say "Ah, yeah. That was wrong of the police."

It's wrong for two reasons.

One: It's illegal. The courts have established that it is a violation of our rights. At no point should the police or any security agency be allowed to violate the law in order to uphold the law.

Two: It's morally wrong. The freedom from illicit search and seizure is one of the most important freedoms that we have. One of the unfortunate trade-offs of this freedom is that people will exploit it for illegal purposes, but that it no way means we should give up that freedom. We could have a perfectly safe society, but it would require the existence of a totalitarian state, where 'safety' is the paramount concern and rights and freedoms are secondary.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by @theCBE

There is a difference. Glasses, contacts do not enhance your vision, they correct it. Enhancing your sense of sight would be giving you x-ray vision. If a cop sat at a corner wearing a pair of x-ray specs and looked through everyone bag as they walked by with out asking for permission, would that be fair? There is not a whole lot of difference between that and the sniffer dog. The difference I am refering to is the difference in the result. Obviously there is a difference as to the actual act. One is clearly more obtrusive than the other. I think that there is a tendancy to associate unobtrusive searches with fair searches. Just becasuse a search is not obtrusive (like a sniffer dog) does not automatically make it fair and justified.

How about using a telescope or a camera then? Those allow you to enhance your vision to various degrees. Are cops not allowed to use telephoto lenses then?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

How about using a telescope or a camera then? Those allow you to enhance your vision to various degrees. Are cops not allowed to use telephoto lenses then?

Not to take pictures of random people or to peer in random windows. They use those tools on people they actually suspect of a crime.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Not to take pictures of random people or to peer in random windows. They use those tools on people they actually suspect of a crime.

So if a police officer is on a stake out (has a legitimate suspect) and sees a completely unrelated crime in progress through his binoculars (For example a random Edmonton stabbing), should that be admissible in court or not - The crime would not have been visible to the police officer without his vision enhancement tool.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by driveway

It's wrong for two reasons.

One: It's illegal. The courts have established that it is a violation of our rights. At no point should the police or any security agency be allowed to violate the law in order to uphold the law.

Two: It's morally wrong. The freedom from illicit search and seizure is one of the most important freedoms that we have. One of the unfortunate trade-offs of this freedom is that people will exploit it for illegal purposes, but that it no way means we should give up that freedom. We could have a perfectly safe society, but it would require the existence of a totalitarian state, where 'safety' is the paramount concern and rights and freedoms are secondary.

I understand that. I'm just confused why it's OKAY to do this in an Airport, and everyone accepts that this is not infringing on their basic human rights, (dogs randomly sniffing your luggage and person) but why everyone is up in arms that just because this guy was in a bus stop, it's suddenly different, and everyone is crying foul...

This is where I get confused, and why I see this as a "technicality"

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Jayems

I understand that. I'm just confused why it's OKAY to do this in an Airport, and everyone accepts that this is not infringing on their basic human rights, (dogs randomly sniffing your luggage and person) but why everyone is up in arms that just because this guy was in a bus stop, it's suddenly different, and everyone is crying foul...

This is where I get confused, and why I see this as a "technicality"

It is a little bit of a double standard, but there are some pretty key differences from airports to bus-stations.

1: Airplanes and airports have been and will continue to be targets for violence.

2. People are scared to death of flying to begin with, add in the nebulous threat of violence and people get scared enough to give up freedoms to protect themselves - even if the threat isn't really that serious.

3: This is the biggie - Airports are often international borders as well as transportation hubs. Once you bring the crossing of borders into the question, the legal situation changes, because you're dealing with the laws of different nations and because border control is such an important aspect of national sovereignty.

Basically, because of the nature of air-travel a consensus has been reached that airports are a special case in regards to the law. Bus stations do not have that status.

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by Jayems

I just can't see the difference in what happens in a car.

Police : Can i search your car?
Guy: No.
Police: Why not?
Guy: It's my right not to let you.
Police: Sure is.
Guy: Can I go?
Police: Not yet, Supernose PD is coming.
Guy: Why?
Police: You're suspicious.


Dog comes, smells drugs, off he goes to jail. Now this is only on those reality police shows, undoubtedly from the States, but this scenario has happened countless times... where a guy says he doesn't want to be searched, and the dog comes anyway. How is that different?

You absolutely have the right to refuse a search. After that, the police
must have grounds to show that you are, or did, commit a crime. The
search cannot be a fishing expedition. The police cannot search and
then say, "Hey, drugs!" and then arrest you. They must have some
sort of evidence BEFORE the search.

That's my read in the bus station/long glance situation. The officer
used the dog without any reason to believe there was anything wrong
in the first place. He used the dog to fish for evidence, found it, then
attempted to prosecute on it.

In those reality shows you never do find out what happens to the people,
but the cops also know most of them do not have the ability to actually
fight the "but you have no right to search me" fight. Fortunately for
us the above guy did, and got the correct decision.

Heck, on one COPS episode, the cop tasered a guy to get him to stop
running, then threatened to taser him again if he didn't tell where his
friend went off to. [stolen car]

ers

[@theCBE]

Originally Posted by Jayems

I understand that. I'm just confused why it's OKAY to do this in an Airport, and everyone accepts that this is not infringing on their basic human rights, (dogs randomly sniffing your luggage and person) but why everyone is up in arms that just because this guy was in a bus stop, it's suddenly different, and everyone is crying foul...

This is where I get confused, and why I see this as a "technicality"

It is not a technicality. You consent to being searched, as a condition to your being allowed to fly. If you don't want to be searched you can drive, or take a bus, or a train, or a boat.

This guy was not searched as a condition for him to be allowed to take the bus. As far as I understand it the police and the drug dog were not in anyway involved in his travel process. That along with the particular circumstance of his case show why this was unreasonable. If he was told before hand that he was going to be or may be searched before, during of immediately after disembarking the bus I don't think this would even be an issue.

Airport searches are not random, they are a part of the process and anyone expecting to fly can reasonably expected for their privacy to be invaded to a certain degree for the priviledge of being allowed to fly.

[@theCBE]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

How about using a telescope or a camera then? Those allow you to enhance your vision to various degrees. Are cops not allowed to use telephoto lenses then?

I think you are missing my point. I never said police can't or shouldn't use police search dogs. I actually advocate their use in the proper circumstances.

There is a difference though between a police walking around with a sniffer dog, and catching someone who otherwise would never have been under any sort of suspicion, and the police officer who happens to catch someone committing a crime with his telephoto lense. Its subtle but there is a difference. One of them is a coincidence that luckily (or unluckily if you are the criminal) leads to an arrest. The other one happened because a dog specifically trained to seek out people carrying drugs has sought you out. There is no coincidence involved with a drug seeking down finding a person holding drugs.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by driveway

It is a little bit of a double standard, but there are some pretty key differences from airports to bus-stations.

1: Airplanes and airports have been and will continue to be targets for violence.

2. People are scared to death of flying to begin with, add in the nebulous threat of violence and people get scared enough to give up freedoms to protect themselves - even if the threat isn't really that serious.

3: This is the biggie - Airports are often international borders as well as transportation hubs. Once you bring the crossing of borders into the question, the legal situation changes, because you're dealing with the laws of different nations and because border control is such an important aspect of national sovereignty.

Basically, because of the nature of air-travel a consensus has been reached that airports are a special case in regards to the law. Bus stations do not have that status.

I'd also like to add that the charter applies under some circumstances and not others. It essentially only applies to public acts (ie. acts by the government). Private actors are not subject to the charter. So when I enter a private club the bouncer is legally entitled to pat me down, and the charter does not apply. The police who act as agents of the government cannot pat me down randomly since the charter applies to their actions.

Also, certain rights are suspended at borders and customs. Sicne I think the charter does not apply until you have entered Canadian soil either (not 100% sure of this).

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

So if a police officer is on a stake out (has a legitimate suspect) and sees a completely unrelated crime in progress through his binoculars (For example a random Edmonton stabbing), should that be admissible in court or not - The crime would not have been visible to the police officer without his vision enhancement tool.

Good lord. In this rather unlikely scenario, I would imagine that "evidence" would be valid enough.

"Yes your honour, that's how it happened. I was sitting in the van watching Mr. Spaghettini's driveway when I happened to notice Mr. Smith, who is seated over there, throwing a big hunk of cinder block through the picture window of the house next door".

Seems reasonable to me.

[Isbrant]

I don't have a lot of understanding of how the laws are worded and are to be interpreted so please correct any misunderstanding I may have. With this disclaimer, I have the following problem.

With this verdict, the two defendants become not guilty right? The way I see it, there were actually 2 "crimes". The people trafficing drugs and the police conducting an illegal search. To me, the trafficing drugs are still guilty of trafficing drugs. Just because the police used an illegal search does not make them not guilty.

If the police were to conduct the search on someone who was not trafficing drugs and they complained, I assume there would be punishment X. If ther conduct the search on someone trafficing drugs, I assume there would be punishment X and the person would be found not guilty. There shouldn't be a "bonus" given to someone breaking the law.

Looking at it from another angle, if I was to knock someone out and if when the police came they found outstanding warrents for the other guy I am assuming we would both be arrested. Me for assult and the other guy for whatever the warrent was for. He would not be released because I did something illegal that got him captured.

This is my understanding on how things work, if I am wrong, let me know.

[driveway]

^What happens when the court rules the use of the dog illegal is that the evidence that was collected by the dog, or as a consequence of the use of the dog becomes inadmissable.

In these cases that would be the presence of narcotics. Without that evidence it is almost completely impossible to build a case against the defendant. Also remember, the burden of proof is never on the defendant, always on the prosecution ie. I don't have to prove I didn't commit a crime, you have to prove I did.

Without the evidence of a crime, the only option is a verdict of not guilty.