Sentences with phrase «sniffer dog searches»

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 woDog» explores his relationship with dogs but goes far beyond that and investigates what makes the dog perfect for search and rescue, assistance and sniffer wodog 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.