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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:unisa/oai:uir.unisa.ac.za:10500/3921 |
| Date | 06 1900 |
| Creators | Van Rensburg, Angelique Gene Janse |
| Contributors | Bekker, P.M. (Prof.) |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | other |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | 1 online resource ([xii], 259, [52] leaves) |
Page generated in 0.0031 seconds