The reasonable suspicion standard was subsequently adopted unanimously by the Supreme Court and applied to
sniffer dog searches in R. v. Chehil, 2013 SCC 49 and R. v. MacKenzie, 2013 SCC 50
Not exact matches
Over the years, Golden Retrievers have been bred to make excellent companions to owners as retrievers in hunting expeditions, as service
dogs for people with sight or physical disabilities, or as
sniffer dogs working with the narcotics or
search and rescue divisions in police departments.
Labradors are known for their hunting,
search and rescue and
sniffer dog skills.
His new book, «A Farmer and His
Dog» explores his relationship with dogs but goes far beyond that and investigates what makes the dog perfect for search and rescue, assistance and sniffer wo
Dog» explores his relationship with
dogs but goes far beyond that and investigates what makes the
dog perfect for search and rescue, assistance and sniffer wo
dog perfect for
search and rescue, assistance and
sniffer work.
Because
sniffer -
dog searches are conducted without prior judicial authorization, the after - the - fact judicial scrutiny of the grounds for the alleged «reasonable suspicion» must be rigorous.
The Supreme Court concluded by a 6 - to - 3 majority that the use of a
sniffer dog in these circumstances constituted a
search, and that the
search constituted a breach of the suspect's rights under Section 8 of the Charter.
In 2002, the police accepted a standing invitation from a principal at a Sarnia, Ontario high school to bring
sniffer dogs into the school to
search for drugs.
[3] In that case, the Ontario Court of Justice judge found that
searches at a high school by a
sniffer dog and police were unconstitutional and excluded the evidence found as a result of such
searches.
[1] This is a «
sniffer -
dog» case under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the «Charter»), which sets out the right to be secure against unreasonable
search and seizure.
On September 27th the Supreme Court released its decisions in R. v. MacKenzie and R. v. Chehil, a pair of cases involving police
searches with
sniffer dogs and the «reasonable suspicion» standard.
Although a warrantless
sniffer ‑
dog search is available where reasonable suspicion is demonstrated, the
sniffer ‑
dog search of the students» belongings in this case violated their Charter rights under s. 8.
The Supreme Court of Canada holds that a
search by a
sniffer -
dog constitutes a «
search» under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The trade ‑ off for permitting the police to deploy their
dogs on a «reasonable suspicion» standard without a warrant is that if this procedure is abused and
sniffer ‑
dog searches proceed without reasonable suspicion based on objective facts, the consequence could well tip the balance against the admission of the evidence if it is established under s. 24 (2) of the Charter that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The use of
sniffer dogs engages section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against unreasonable
search and seizure.
Sometimes the faffing even starts in the carpark, with a squad of armed officers and
sniffer dogs lining everyone up and
searching them.