[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

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.




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.



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.



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.



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.

1. In the Sekhon case, the officer said the vehicle was suspicious because it had mud on it. During intial questioning at PIL the mud was explained by a trip to a farm which, the officer admitted, was not uncommon in that area. The officer said that Sekhon made good eye contact initially but later that kind of broke off. That was enough to refer the driver for a secondary exam (currency was marked off on the E-67). To me, that seems pretty weak.

2. Stuff like this happens in all law enforcement agencies, no doubt. There are some big differences I see between Customs and, say, the RCMP. For starters, the scrutiny that recruits go through to enter the RCMP is more intense than CBSA. I like to think that helps weed out some poor candidates. There is also a significant difference in training though that gap may be lessening if Rigaud is taken a little more seriously. Most importantly, though, is the difference in application of the Charter. As you noted above, there is a lower (almost no) expectation of privacy when you're crossing the border. Questions and routine searches are pretty much allowed almost as a matter of course. A teenager cruising around 16th avenue pulled over for no good reason can complain about that treatment (perhaps nothing comes of the complaint) but the same does not follow at the border.

3. With respect to non-verbal indicators and the like... making too much eye contact can be considered an indicator just like making too little eye contact. It's incredibly arbitrary and subject to so much interpretation. A few weeks in Rigaud talking about such indicators of shifty behaviour isn't sufficient, in my opinion, to become an expert at judging veracity during a 30 second PIL interview.

4. There are differences in training in any profession, for sure. The poorly-trained fry cooker at MacDonalds doesn't have the authority to drill holes in my car though.

5. Much of my concern has to do with the officers' attitude towards the law and their job. See, for instance, this quote from the case:

[143] Inspector Couse referred Mr. Sekhon for a secondary examination because Mr. Sekhon appeared to grow more tense and nervous as the primary examination went on; not because anything criminal was revealed during the primary inspection. Inspector Couse made the selective referral for secondary examination on the basis of a currency concern.
[144] Inspector Raynor was of the view that a referral for a secondary examination is a licence to the inspector to conduct any search he or she wishes; that the secondary inspector is not constrained by the reasons for the referral.
[145] She did not question or inspect Mr. Sekhon with respect to a currency concern prior to embarking upon a search of the vehicle.
[146] Interestingly, in her testimony, Inspector Raynor continually referred to her “rights.” Once again, she demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the Constitutional relationship between she and Mr. Sekhon. Mr. Sekhon enjoys Constitutional rights vis-à-vis the State; a Border Services Agency inspector, on the other hand, has Constitutionally permissible powers.

and

[166] Inspector Raynor was not conversant with when a person is detained in law and must be informed of his or her right to counsel. Her complete lack of knowledge of constitutional rights of individuals bars a finding of good faith on her part.
[167] Additionally, the Charter breaches were very egregious. Not only were three discreet sections of the Constitution violated, the violations occurred because of what appears to be a deliberate ignorance of Canadian Constitutional mandates.
[168] Inspector Raynor was of the view that she had the “right” (read: power) to hold anyone in a form of custody for as long as she wishes without advising that person that he or she is being detained and has a right to retain and instruct counsel. All four Inspectors shared the belief that search warrants are never necessary in a border-related context and that they need not therefore edify themselves of the search warrant provisions of their governing statutory authority.

6. Despite all this, the officers were probably on stable legal ground up to the point that they drilled a hole in the truck. From that point on, the exigency of the circumstances. It was the officers' intent to seize the vehicle and slowly disassemble it. There was no more exigency and a search warrant should have been obtained.


7. I know for a fact that CBSA officers have a thankless job. It can be a real drag to go into work every day knowing that you basically get paid to irritate people and that if you don't, you're probably not doing your job.



8. Am I a proponent of the Mexican red/green light system? Maybe something similar. (Disclosure: I got the stupid red light last time I was in Mexico). More "random" selections subject to brief dog sniffs.