Case Comment
Topic: Search,
Seizure and Detention
R. v. J.M.G.
(1986). 17 OA.C. 107 (
A student told his teacher that he had seen James Michael (J.M.G.), a fellow student, putting drugs in his socks just before class. The teacher immediately reported this information to the principal. The principal, in turn, contacted a police officer and another principal for advice on how to handle the affair.
The principal then went to J.M.G.’s class and asked the fourteen year old to come to his office. With the school’s vice principal in attendance, the principal requested that J.M.G. remove his shoes and socks. While doing so, the student managed to swallow a hand rolled cigarette which was presumed to contain marijuana.
The principal then took some tin foil from J.M.G.’s pant leg which was later found to contain marijuana. He then telephoned the police who arrested the student on a charge of possession of narcotics and told him of his right to counsel.
J.M.G. was tried under the Young Offenders Act, convicted and fined $25. He appealed the decision to the District Court. The District Court overturned the ruling on the basis that the principal had seized the marijuana in violation of the student’s rights under sections 8 and 10(b) of the Charter. The Crown Attorney then appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal dealt with the following three questions:
1)
Did the
principal’s search violate J.M.G.’s right to be secure against
unreasonable
search and seizure?
Justice Grange, in giving the decision of the
majority,
relied on the
[i]n light of this duty it was not
unreasonable that the student should be
required to remove his socks in order to prove or disprove the allegation.
2) Was J.M.G. detained within the meaning of the Charter?
Grange, J. believed that requiring the student to submit to this search in the circumstances of this case was not a detention within the meaning of section 10(b). He held that the student,
was already under detention of a kind
throughout his school attendance. He
was
subject to the discipline of the school and required by the nature
of his attendance to undergo any reasonable disciplinary or
investigative
procedure.
The court characterized the search as an extension of normal school discipline and concluded that it was therefore reasonable.
3) Did the principal
have the proper authority to conduct the search?
Yes. The Court held that a principal must turn a matter such as this over to the police only where the crime is so apparent and appalling that police participation is unavoidable. On the facts of this case, the Court regarded the search as necessary to determine the nature and extent of the offence and that the minor penalty of $25.00 showed that it was a lesser offence. Therefore, the principal had the proper authority to conduct the search.
Also, the Court did not accept the argument that the principal required prior authorization, such as a search warrant, to conduct the examination. Relying on the principal’s statutory duty to maintain discipline and order, the Court maintained that the relationship between a student and a principal was not like that between a citizen and a police officer. Accordingly, the principal would not require a search warrant to conduct a search of a student in such circumstances as evidenced in this case.
The Court of Appeal reinstated the trial court’s decision which had convicted J.M.G. and fined him $25.