An interesting decision in Canada:
A judge in St. John’s recently decided that a man found with 14 grams of cocaine, 62 ecstasy pills and $11,000 in cash had an expectation of privacy when he checked his luggage prior to a flight in 2006. […]
Crown prosecutors argued Mr. Crisby gave up all his privacy rights when he voluntarily checked his baggage, because he knew air travel is subject to strict controls, including security screening.
The problem with that, Justice Robert Hall ruled, is that airport security laws are designed to protect travellers against weapons and explosives, not to catch illegal drugs. He described the Crown’s argument as an “incremental intrusion upon privacy rights.”
Wow. That’s the way it should be. What a contrast to the United States, where a drug sniffing dog has the right to call for a search of your car with no suspicion (see Caballes v. Illinois). Here in the States, we pass laws, or create rules, supposedly for security purposes, and then, without even attempting to disguise it, blatantly use the law to search for drugs.
This is the land of the free?
It’s about time for people to wake up and realize that the answer to the final question in our national anthem is “No” and not “Play Ball” as some people assume.