Urdedpal
New Member
Ottawa schools have ended random drug searches after the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled spot searches without warrants violate students' constitutional rights.
Criminal lawyer Lawrence Greenspon said yesterday a ruling that random school drug searches violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will protect the rights of all students.
Mr. Greenspon said the decision prevents police with sniffer dogs from searching student backpacks and lockers unless school principals have reasonable grounds to suspect there are drugs in their schools.
Students interviewed outside Sir Robert Borden High School were divided in their reaction to the court decision. Some said random searches would discourage drug use while others suggested the decision would protect students' rights.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal of the acquittal of a student at St. Patrick's High School in Sarnia after a police sniffer dog found marijuana and psilocybin, commonly known as magic mushrooms, in the student's backpack on Nov. 7, 2002.
The trial court in June 2004 excluded evidence that the student had drugs after his lawyer argued the random search was wrong because it violated the section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that prevents unreasonable search and seizure.
Judge Mark Hornblower said at the trial the random search, which was done while students were confined to their classrooms, was unreasonable, illegal and violated the rights of the accused and every student in the school.
In their April 28 decision, Appeal Court judges Robert Armstrong, Robert Blair and Stephen Goudge said a student's backpack should receive the same degree of respect as an adult's briefcase.
"This was a warrantless, random search with the entire school body held in detention," the decision said. "It was not authorized by either the criminal law or the Education Act and subsidiary school policies. The breach was serious."
Mr. Greenspon said the police usually don't have specific information about students using or trafficking in drugs before the searches.
"For drugs, you have to have a reliable informant about a particular place and person before a judge will issue a search warrant," Mr. Greenspon said. "But in high schools the principal gives permission and the dogs sniff all the lockers."
Mr. Greenspon added it would be legitimate for police to inspect a student's locker if the principal had information that the student had been using or selling drugs.
"There is a wholesale suspension of the rights of students with few results," Mr. Greenspon said. "They may find some pot in a locker or backpack, but there is no justification for this because they don't uncover major drug rings this way."
Sir Robert Borden student Sam Carson, 17, said random searches are a good idea unless they are part of a constant witch hunt. "I think random searches are a good idea because they discourage drugs," Mr. Carson said. "I don't think it is violating anybody's rights if they look for illegal drugs.
"I think there could be more drugs in schools if there weren't searches. It seems to me that stopping the searches would be a bad idea."
Chris Francis, 17, said school principals should have reasonable grounds to suspect drugs before calling in police with sniffer dogs.
"Getting expelled could ruin a kid's life because getting kicked out can send you down the wrong path," Mr. Francis said.
"Drugs should not be in our schools, but the principal should have reasonable grounds before calling in the police because such searches could even be racially motivated."
Dan Wiseman, who is responsible for the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board's safe schools program, said the school board suspended random drug searches in September 2005 because of the Sarnia case and the latest court ruling reinforces the reasons to stop the searches. He added the board board does not tolerate drugs because narcotics and alcohol dramatically interfere with learning and school safety.
"Our procedure, which was revised in September, says you have to have grounds to believe there are drugs before a police search," Mr. Wiseman said. "But there is no expectation of privacy in lockers because they are rented to students.
"I would disagree with Mr. Greenspon about lockers. We can search lockers at will and that is outlined in student handbooks."
Julian Hanlon, deputy director of education at the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board, said the board stopped random searches in September 2005 after the Sarnia student was acquitted. Mr. Hanlon said principals now approve drug searches if they have reliable information that there are drugs on school property.
Under the previous policy, principals would ask police to search their schools whenever they wanted without any direct knowledge drugs were in the schools.
Newshawk: Urdedpal -420 Magazine
Pubdate: Thu, 11 May 2006
Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Copyright: 2006 The Ottawa Citizen
Criminal lawyer Lawrence Greenspon said yesterday a ruling that random school drug searches violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will protect the rights of all students.
Mr. Greenspon said the decision prevents police with sniffer dogs from searching student backpacks and lockers unless school principals have reasonable grounds to suspect there are drugs in their schools.
Students interviewed outside Sir Robert Borden High School were divided in their reaction to the court decision. Some said random searches would discourage drug use while others suggested the decision would protect students' rights.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal of the acquittal of a student at St. Patrick's High School in Sarnia after a police sniffer dog found marijuana and psilocybin, commonly known as magic mushrooms, in the student's backpack on Nov. 7, 2002.
The trial court in June 2004 excluded evidence that the student had drugs after his lawyer argued the random search was wrong because it violated the section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that prevents unreasonable search and seizure.
Judge Mark Hornblower said at the trial the random search, which was done while students were confined to their classrooms, was unreasonable, illegal and violated the rights of the accused and every student in the school.
In their April 28 decision, Appeal Court judges Robert Armstrong, Robert Blair and Stephen Goudge said a student's backpack should receive the same degree of respect as an adult's briefcase.
"This was a warrantless, random search with the entire school body held in detention," the decision said. "It was not authorized by either the criminal law or the Education Act and subsidiary school policies. The breach was serious."
Mr. Greenspon said the police usually don't have specific information about students using or trafficking in drugs before the searches.
"For drugs, you have to have a reliable informant about a particular place and person before a judge will issue a search warrant," Mr. Greenspon said. "But in high schools the principal gives permission and the dogs sniff all the lockers."
Mr. Greenspon added it would be legitimate for police to inspect a student's locker if the principal had information that the student had been using or selling drugs.
"There is a wholesale suspension of the rights of students with few results," Mr. Greenspon said. "They may find some pot in a locker or backpack, but there is no justification for this because they don't uncover major drug rings this way."
Sir Robert Borden student Sam Carson, 17, said random searches are a good idea unless they are part of a constant witch hunt. "I think random searches are a good idea because they discourage drugs," Mr. Carson said. "I don't think it is violating anybody's rights if they look for illegal drugs.
"I think there could be more drugs in schools if there weren't searches. It seems to me that stopping the searches would be a bad idea."
Chris Francis, 17, said school principals should have reasonable grounds to suspect drugs before calling in police with sniffer dogs.
"Getting expelled could ruin a kid's life because getting kicked out can send you down the wrong path," Mr. Francis said.
"Drugs should not be in our schools, but the principal should have reasonable grounds before calling in the police because such searches could even be racially motivated."
Dan Wiseman, who is responsible for the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board's safe schools program, said the school board suspended random drug searches in September 2005 because of the Sarnia case and the latest court ruling reinforces the reasons to stop the searches. He added the board board does not tolerate drugs because narcotics and alcohol dramatically interfere with learning and school safety.
"Our procedure, which was revised in September, says you have to have grounds to believe there are drugs before a police search," Mr. Wiseman said. "But there is no expectation of privacy in lockers because they are rented to students.
"I would disagree with Mr. Greenspon about lockers. We can search lockers at will and that is outlined in student handbooks."
Julian Hanlon, deputy director of education at the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board, said the board stopped random searches in September 2005 after the Sarnia student was acquitted. Mr. Hanlon said principals now approve drug searches if they have reliable information that there are drugs on school property.
Under the previous policy, principals would ask police to search their schools whenever they wanted without any direct knowledge drugs were in the schools.
Newshawk: Urdedpal -420 Magazine
Pubdate: Thu, 11 May 2006
Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Copyright: 2006 The Ottawa Citizen
