Quote:
Originally Posted by fredr123
On the detenion issue, I've read the case law and agree it was applied properly in this case. However, I'm sure you can imagine a situation where an officer is conducting an examination tha is, in effect, nothing more than a fishing expedition. There is no reasonable suspicion but the officer continues to dig based on his instinct or "spidey sense". Those situations are entirely wrong in my opinion and occur much more often than they should (or so I've heard).
|
Contrary to popular belief, officers cannot just search anyone at their whim unless it is the result of a random selection or a if there is some sort of project going on ie: when the G8 was in Calgary, then they could search everyone. But if someone just drove up and the officer did not get any indicators off of the person, he couldn't just search him. Indicators come in many forms such as verbal, non-verbal, documents, intel and past history. If the subject did proceed with an examination and found something....that evidence then could be deemed inadmissible. Does it occur? Sure, just like in anyother law enforcement field. How many police do you think pull people over for no reason other than they are young teenagers? How often do you think police search people and places that shouldn't but get away with it? Lots. It is not specific to customs. Therefore if you don't trust customs officials for that reason, you shouldn't trust the police.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fredr123
I disagree that CBSA officers are capable of perceiving subtle psychological clues that indicate some shenanigans are afoot. Not maintaing eye contact may be an indication of nervousness but it is not exclusive to the nervous condition. As well, nervousness may be indicative of being up to no good or concealing illegal activity but there are also dozens of harmless/legal reasons that a person may be nervous.
|
Well, I will have to completly disagree with you on this one. I believe they can pick up no-verbal indicators and they are trained to do such. Yes, the more years of work one has the better they are at detecting these....again....like any field. And again....it is much more than just shifty eyes. They need a multiplicity of indicators to have reasonable grounds to suspect. One indicator alone is not enough and I don't believe any reasonable officer would search someone on one indicator....and if they did.....they didn't have reasonable grounds to suspect and anything found could possibly be thrown out of court.
Yes, there are many reasons to be nervous. Just driving through the border makes me nervous and I know I don't have anything on me. But they are trained to determine what is normal nervousness and what isn't. although you don't believe such.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fredr123
On top of all this you have to consider the individual differences across CBSA officers in their level of training and expertise plus the natural differences in their ability to objectively observe human behaviour and judge it against the norm. Then there's the possibility that an officer may be biased towards a particular observation.
|
So what? There is always a difference in training....anywhere. Some can observe things better than others. So what. They are human.....every person has a bias....that cannot be changed. They are professionals just like any other law enforcement agency and are expected to abide by all the policies and laws. If not, then the courts can remedy it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fredr123
All of this adds up to a great deal of unreliability in my opinion. I would not be opposed to diverting some resources from personnel towards more detector dogs and x-ray/ion scanners. Those tools are far more reliable and objective and less subject to bias than relying on humans.
|
Detector dogs are far more reliable in detecting drugs yes, but there is also a human component to it aswell. Not to mention you would basically have to search everyone to have the dog effective......you can't expect the process obtain reliable and effective results by just rending in random referals and hoping the dog will pick up something. Hell, you might as well change it to the Mexico system where you just push a button....and if you get a red light....then you are search. Come on.....that is absurd. As for the other tools....again....they all require human components and they all require that initial referal for examination otherwise you would have to search everyone.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fredr123
And I don't hate Customs officers, I just don't have a lot of trust in them and their ability to responsibly use their broad powers.
|
Why? Have you been wronged in the past? Have they abused you? The problem is that someone always has a customs story to tell....and it is never a good one because nobody likes to be searched. It can be embarassing. They are going through your private things and it can be very intrusive.....so why would someone have a good story to tell? And it is never their fault.....just like HOOT's post.....he started off as if they were in the wrong and had no reason to search the vehcile....when infact they did find indicators that marijuana may be present.
You never here about the good stories....the ones where they prevent drugs and guns coming into the country....the ones where they find missing children....the ones where they prevent disease, fungus and germs from infecting Canadian animals and crops. The ones about protecting the Canadian economy and business.....preventing criminals and wanted people from coming into the country.
No....that stuff is never mentioned.....just like with the police....they are always the bad guys....always doing something wrong to someone yet they are the first people someone will call when they need help.