proper grammar is usually a prerequisite before I am persuaded by an opinion piece.

Also, SCC are the initials for Supreme Court of Canada.

Thanks for the tip anon. I take full responsibility for all errors and I know how things like extra "O"s can irritate some people. Personally I'm more concerned with Courts creating legal loopholes to make it easier for criminals to do crimes but that's me. Thanks for chiming in. I'll try to pay more attention.

BTW, sentences start with a capital. :)

While the Court decision is important and deserves discussion I think it is unfair to simply point at the ruling out of context and state "your helping the criminals". I am sure you know full well that the decision is based on the rights and freedoms of all of us and to suggest that it's about freeing criminals (dare I say it) is just a tad self serving. You state yourself that had this been brought by people searched and not guilty you could understand but that really is just semantics. Only one student was charged after all so the rest were in fact not guilty and the ruling is as much about them as about the accused. Had it been one of the parents of the "others" would you have thought any different about the ruling? I suspect not. The only difference is that it makes for a more convenient argument against "activist judges" when it looks as if a criminal gets off easy. But that does the ruling it's own injustice by ignoring the more complicated realities of the issue.

You are nit picking, D. Stewart.
I don't have any problem with random sniffer dogs searches in schools. So they find a student's packsack with drugs. Or someday a search will turn up a bomb or a gun. The innocent has nothing to fear from police searches. This sacred-cow privacy for even a students packsack is so much BS. It's a result of barking leftists running amok again in our system.

Not nit picking at all anonymous, simply using common sense...or maybe looking at the BIG picture. Maybe you have nothing to fear and would never have a problem being searched anytime, anyplace for any reason or ever feel it wrong that the police randomly choose to go through your bags or your car or look into your personal activities without any particular reason. Quite frankly it has been my experience based on your well thought out remarks here that you are the kind of anonymous person that would scream the loudest were it ever actually to happen to you. Which in a way is kind of funny as you say you care so little about your personal freedoms...but thats what BIG picture thinking is all about I guess anonymous 1:30.

Following the chit chat between Anon and Stewart, I have to go with Anon rather than bend over backwards to make it as difficult as possible to catch and convict people involved in criminal activity.

Odd how lately I seem to be agreeing with D. Stewart on several things around here, as we normally are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. :) But I think he's right. People saying this is "good for criminals" are missing the big picture here.

Anon, how would you feel if a cop showed up at your house one day for "a random search"? If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind it, right? That's where this goes next, if things like this are allowed.

It is WRONG to think that something is okay, just because you feel you are innocent. The next person that loses their freedom could by YOU.

I see DS's and your point to Darren but these two cases seemed like odd ones to hang one's hat. A public complaint going forward from people who WERE innocent and their stories I could get behind. That guilty parties were caught? I find it impossible to cheer on the SCC for this one.

It reminded me of the story below in which a guy obviously dealing or at the very least transporting drugs for sale gets off because of the way he was caught. If innocents are being violated and have a complaint than bring it forward but that the guilty are upset about the way they were caught? I don't have any sympathy in that regard.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/09/07/ns_bagnell000907.html

Spinks,

The fact of this kid involved being innocent or guity is irrelevant. The SCC's rulings are used as reference for future cases; they set the legal precedent in the country. If this was allowed to go through, then ANY time someone's privacy is infringed in the future, by what most people would consider an unjustified/unreasonable search, this case is used as a reference point in the decision.

In other words, say a year from now you are sitting in a parking lot, a cop could walk up to your car completely at random and tell you that he's searching it, for no reason at all. It would be allowed, because if you challenge it in court, the first thing that will be noted by the prosecuting attourney is THIS case's SCC judgement, which will give you zero ability to defend your privacy against what had happened to you.

How can you think that this is OK? That seriously wouldn't bother you?

I hear what you're saying Darren but I guess it would depend on the circumstances. Warning kids that a drug sniffing dog is coming in on Tuesday at 10am would kind of defeat the purpose. The in-school trafficker just won't bring his supply that day. If I'm sitting in a parking lot and the police officer comes up and says, "we've been having a problem with drugs in this area, mind if we search your car.", I really wouldn't have a problem with it because...well, I know I have nothing to fear because I don't have any drugs. If there's a problem in the area than great, the police are doing their job by trying to combat the problem and stop the guilty parties.

I understand the concerns but keeping the criminals a little on edge that they might get caught and might not see it coming seems to be a good thing. I don't think if the SCC had ruled the other way that police would start wandering into my house and tear the place apart as some have alluded to at other forums.