| 翻訳と辞書 |
R v AM
''R v AM'', , is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police do not have the right to perform a sniffer-dog search (to use dogs to conduct random searches) of public spaces when such search is not specifically authorized by statute. In this case, a student's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated when a police officer sniffer-dog searched his unattended backpack in the gymnasium of his school finding drugs in his possession.
==Background==
On November 7, 2002 at St. Patrick’s High School in Sarnia, Ontario, the police accepted a long standing invitation by the principal of a high school to bring sniffer dogs into the school to search for drugs. The police had no knowledge that drugs were present in the school and would not have been able to obtain a warrant to search the school. While all the students were confined to their classrooms, the principal told the students to leave their backpacks in their lockers. The students who had came in late had to put their back packs in the gym. After passing the lockers the officer then had a drug-sniffing dog sniff the unattended backpacks lined up against a wall in the gymnasium. The dog reacted and bit one of the backpacks.
Without obtaining a warrant, the police opened the backpack and found illicit drugs. They charged the student who owned the backpack with possession of marijuana and psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「R v AM」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|