This article was last updated on April 16, 2022
Canada: 
Oye! Times readers Get FREE $30 to spend on Amazon, Walmart…
USA: Oye! Times readers Get FREE $30 to spend on Amazon, Walmart…
The Supreme Court of Canada has mentioned in an iconic ruling that police shall be allowed wider autonomy to use “sniffer dogs” while searching people’s belongings for drugs, Canada’s top court ruled in two cases that searches initially deemed illegal by trial judges were in fact conducted properly. However, the court seemed intensely split about what constitutes a “reasonable suspicion” by the police that allows for the dogs to be brought out.
The latest case was of Saskatchewanian Benjamin MacKenzie, who was stopped for speeding, while police claims that his erratic driving, nervousness, the pinkish hue of his eyes and contradictory answers about where he was going made them suspicious. Consequently, Police recovered as much as 14 kg of marijuana in the trunk of his car. Conclusively, five of the court’s nine judges agreed that their suspicion was reasonable and based on objective factors, not just a hunch or an intuition.
In his court ruling, Justice Michael Moldaver wrote that “while it is critical that the line between a hunch and reasonable suspicion be maintained to prevent the police from engaging in indiscriminate or discriminatory practices, it is equally vital that the police be allowed to carry out their duties without undue scepticism or the requirement that their every move be placed under a scanning electron-microscope.” On other hand, Justice Louis LeBel, claimed that “the police cannot simply draw on their experience in the field to create broad categories of ‘suspicious’ behaviour into which almost anyone could fall.”
Be the first to comment