Afrikaans text / The Canadian and South African legal systems established equivalent constitutional values and principles pertaining to searches conducted with or without a valid search warrant. It creates the basis for a comparative study on this particular aspect. The Supreme Court of Canada held in R v A. M 2008 S.C.C 19 random sniffer dog searches conducted without neither a reasonable suspicion nor any legislative authority on learners enrolled in public schools, is unconstitutional due to its infringement of a learner's reasonable expectation to privacy, as protected in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms. South African learners are randomly search by law enforcement officers by using sniffer dogs for purposes of detecting the possession of illegal drugs in instances without neither a reasonable suspicion nor statutory authority. The search is subsequently conducted in terms of the common law. The common law is not regarded as law of general application to limit a fundamental right in terms of the limitation clause. By taking into consideration the ratio in R v A. M (supra) the conclusion is subsequently that random sniffer dog searches conducted on learners in South African public schools, without neither a reasonable suspicion nor statutory authority, is unconstitutional which infringes section 14 of the Constitution of South Africa of 1996. / Die basis vir hierdie studie is ontleen aan die ooreenstemmende vereistes en beginsels in die Kanadese en Suid Afrikaanse reg ten aansien van deursoekings met of sonder 'n wettige lasbrief uitgevoer. In die Kanadese beslissing van R v A.M 2008 SCC 19 is die grondwetlikheid van ewekansige deursoekings met behuip van snuffelhonde op leerders sonder statutere magtiging uitgevoer, deur die Supreme Court of Canada as ongrondwetlik bevind aangesien 'n leerder wel oor 'n redelike verwagting op privaatheid beskik. Indien leerders sonder 'n redelike vermoede en statutere magtiging met behuip van snuffelhonde deursoek word, geskied dit ingevolge die gemenereg en dit word nie beskou as 'n algemeen geldende reg om 'n fundamentele reg kragtens die beperkingsklousule te beperk nie. Met inagneming van die ratio in R v A.M (supra) kan daar dus tot die gevolgtrekking gekom word dat ewekansige deursoekings met behulp van snuffelhonde op Suid Afrikanse leerders in die afwesigheid van 'n redelike vermoede asook sonder statutere magtiging uitgevoer, tans ongrondwetlike optrede daarstel wat op artikel 14 van die Grondwet van 1996 inbreuk maak. / Law (College) / LL.M.

Afrikaans text / The Canadian and South African legal systems established equivalent constitutional values and principles pertaining to searches conducted with or without a valid search warrant. It creates the basis for a comparative study on this particular aspect. The Supreme Court of Canada held in R v A. M 2008 S.C.C 19 random sniffer dog searches conducted without neither a reasonable suspicion nor any legislative authority on learners enrolled in public schools, is unconstitutional due to its infringement of a learner's reasonable expectation to privacy, as protected in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms. South African learners are randomly search by law enforcement officers by using sniffer dogs for purposes of detecting the possession of illegal drugs in instances without neither a reasonable suspicion nor statutory authority. The search is subsequently conducted in terms of the common law. The common law is not regarded as law of general application to limit a fundamental right in terms of the limitation clause. By taking into consideration the ratio in R v A. M (supra) the conclusion is subsequently that random sniffer dog searches conducted on learners in South African public schools, without neither a reasonable suspicion nor statutory authority, is unconstitutional which infringes section 14 of the Constitution of South Africa of 1996. / Die basis vir hierdie studie is ontleen aan die ooreenstemmende vereistes en beginsels in die Kanadese en Suid Afrikaanse reg ten aansien van deursoekings met of sonder 'n wettige lasbrief uitgevoer. In die Kanadese beslissing van R v A.M 2008 SCC 19 is die grondwetlikheid van ewekansige deursoekings met behuip van snuffelhonde op leerders sonder statutere magtiging uitgevoer, deur die Supreme Court of Canada as ongrondwetlik bevind aangesien 'n leerder wel oor 'n redelike verwagting op privaatheid beskik. Indien leerders sonder 'n redelike vermoede en statutere magtiging met behuip van snuffelhonde deursoek word, geskied dit ingevolge die gemenereg en dit word nie beskou as 'n algemeen geldende reg om 'n fundamentele reg kragtens die beperkingsklousule te beperk nie. Met inagneming van die ratio in R v A.M (supra) kan daar dus tot die gevolgtrekking gekom word dat ewekansige deursoekings met behulp van snuffelhonde op Suid Afrikanse leerders in die afwesigheid van 'n redelike vermoede asook sonder statutere magtiging uitgevoer, tans ongrondwetlike optrede daarstel wat op artikel 14 van die Grondwet van 1996 inbreuk maak. / Law (College) / LL.M.