As for the original post. This is a simple case of a Canadian with an undeserved sense of entitlement playing games. Got called on his actions and arrested. Likely denied entry to the USA and released without charge (would have been a weak Uttering Threats or Assault case).
3 "terrorists" a day is BS. 3 major criminals, definitely, but not 3 terrorists. Their job at the border is not fun and games, they don't play nice, and they don't put on a fake smile and practice "customer service". They are protecting a border, not working at the f***ing GAP.
Crossing the border is simple. Customs/Immigration will ask questions. Not all of them will seem reasonable to you. You will answer them fully. You may or may not be searched (don't ask why... it doesn't matter). You will then recieve a stamp in your passport and be on your way (as long as you are not inadmissible).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor
ISection 98 of the customs act which authorizes the search states this:
98.(1) An officer may search
(a) any person who has arrived in Canada, within a reasonable time after his arrival in Canada,
(b) any person who is about to leave Canada, at any time prior to his departure, or
(c) any person who has had access to an area designated for use by persons about to leave Canada and who leaves the area but does not leave Canada, within a reasonable time after he leaves the area,
if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has secreted on or about his person anything in respect of which this Act has been or might be contravened, anything that would afford evidence with respect to a contravention of this Act or any goods the importation or exportation of which is prohibited, controlled or regulated under this or any other Act of Parliament.
Section 99 allows for the examination of goods, which would be anything you are bringing into the country such as your car or luggage.
So basically, a customs officer can search you whenever they want but they also need to be able to articulate the grounds as to why. Because of case law that requirement is very low, but it still must be done. |
Section 98 is for personal searched (strip searches). Those ones require grounds and I believe require consent os a Superintendant (I did 2 summers as a Student Customs Officer).
All goods are subject to searches. Grounds are "I wish to verify your declaration". Goods = Cars, planes, luggage, and pockets.
Immigration Officers must have grounds to search someones baggage. Customs Officers really already have their grounds built into the Customs Act.
R v. Simmons reinforces that. It was in regard to the charter's (Specifically S.8) applicability at a border crossing. It states that a person crossing a border should expect to be searched and that S.8 does not apply during routine customs exams.
"
Per McIntyre and L'Heureux‑Dubé JJ.: Appellant was not detained within the meaning of s. 10(b) of the Charter when she was subjected to a strip search at customs pursuant to s. 143 of the Customs Act. The definition of detention in R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613, does not go as far as to cover a search by a customs officer who carries out the routine procedures in order to control the illegal importation of goods and substances across the border. Persons entering Canada, whether or not they are citizens, are placed in a unique legal situation at the point at which they enter the country. They expect to submit to a certain degree of inspection of their baggage, and in some cases, their person. Their situation is distinguishable from one where an individual is stopped or detained in the course of his activities within Canada. It is incidents of this latter nature to which the definition in Therens was meant to apply.
The purpose of s. 10(b) of the Charter gives also a clear indication that the provision does not apply to a border search. The purpose of the right to counsel is to ensure that the individual is treated fairly in the criminal process and, in particular, to prevent the individual from incriminating himself. In a border search the issue is not one of self‑incrimination. A search at the border is part of the process of entering the country and is not part of the criminal process. The right to counsel will arise only where a searched person is placed under custody as part of the criminal process. This does not mean, however, that no right to counsel can ever arise in searches which occur at ports of entry. Where the purpose of the detention, interrogation, or search arises in criminal proceedings, as distinct from those concerning entry into the country, the Charter protection against unreasonable search and seizure and the right to counsel will apply.
Finally, considering this unique situation and the state interest in preventing the entry of undesirable persons or goods, customs searches pursuant to ss. 143 and 144 of the Customs Act are reasonable and do not therefore infringe s. 8 of the Charter. The search itself was conducted in a reasonable manner. Appellant, who was not detained within the meaning of s. 10(b) of the Charter, was sufficiently informed of her right to appeal the search to a higher customs authority when she was shown the text of ss. 143 and 144 of the Customs Act. "