This script is based on R. v. M. (M.R.). This video portrays a general focus of the case and is not intended as a full account. For an actual account of the decision, read the case R. v. M. (M.R.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 393 found at the Resources tab.
R. v. M. (M.R.)
Justice Cory of the Supreme Court of Canada said that "teachers and those in charge of our schools are entrusted with the care and education of children. It is difficult to imagine a more important trust or duty. To ensure the safety of the students and to provide them with the orderly environment so necessary to encourage learning, reasonable rules of conduct must be in place and enforced at school."i Several of our fundamental freedoms are also at stake including: everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
But there are outside forces that can get in the way. Illicit drugs are often a problem at schools. Students often know who is selling drugs on school property. However, protecting students from drugs can come into conflict with the privacy of students in the school.
Students often take notice of what's happening and don't want to be associated with it or are concerned about the long term effects on them and their school. At this school, the students knew that with the up-coming dance later in the week, one student would be bringing drugs to the dance. A heads-up to the VP seemed in order.
Even on the day of the dance, the vice principal met with a student concerned that drugs would be at the dance that evening.
The vice principal watched the suspected drug seller walk past his office on the way to the gym. He knew that he could call the RCMP following school policy and decided that that's what he would do.
The vice principal asked the suspected student and his friend to come with him to his office.
The police officer identified himself when he walked in and watched the search. The vice principal asked the boys if they were in possession of drugs and told them that he was going to search them. The vice principal conducted the search and told the suspected student to pull up his pant leg; in his sock was a cellophane packet containing marijuana. The other student was also searched but nothing was found. The vice principal gave the packet to the police officer who then arrested the accused for possession.
The accused was arrested for possession of a narcotic, and then the police officer explained to him his rights including calling a lawyer and the right to speak to a parent. The accused tried to call his mother but was unable to reach her. When the vice principal asked if he wanted to call anyone else, he said "no".
The police officer accompanied the student to his locker. He then searched the locker, but found nothing.
There are so many questions that this case presents:
Does a vice-principal have the same authority as a police officer, that of the right
to search a student?
What is more important: the safety of a student or the privacy of a student?
Does a student have a right to privacy concerning the contents of a locker?
Is a report from another student, reasonable grounds to search someone suspected
of drug possession?
These and other questions are raised by this case. How do you respond?
- R. v. M. (M.R.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. at 404.
