Another example of idiot judges.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

So you want them searching every semi truck completely, but they aren't allowed to search your car? Your reasons for allowing weed into the US are pretty weak. BC residence doesn't mean squat, it's still illegal everywhere in our two countries. You are really contradicting yourself a lot in these posts.

Where did I say because I am from BC I am exempt from the law? However, I was talking about them lecturing me about doing it, that is not their right and they shouldn't tell me how to live my life.

Also what I am trying to say about searching my car vs a semi is they spend TWO hours on my car, the car I was driving was a Chevy Cavelier. Considering I saw them take two german shepards to my car, how long do you think it would take those dogs to search that car?

They can search my car any time and honestly I dont care if they do. I just think they should have a time limit on a search considering there was 3 gaurds and two dogs.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.d...07bcpc224.html


What bothers me about this case, and how some officers at the border conduct themselves generally, is the attitude of the officers towards the law.

"I can search for whatever I want wherever I want."

"You aren't permitted to leave but you have no rights unless I say so."

"I spend dozens of hours every month interviewing people crossing the border and my instincts and suspicions are infallible."

You seemed to have a hate on for customs people...

The individual displayed non-verbal indicators from original questioning until they found the drugs. You can't just ignore that. As previous case law has stated a person is not considered detained will a routine examination is being conducted but they also cannot leave.....why are you mad about that? You think that they should be able to leave if they want to?

Just like any other job, people know what is normal and what isn't. These officers can pick up on peoples behavoir when it is not normal. The officer questions hundreds of people and hour....they all act pretty much the same and then comes buddy who is nervous. They are going to pick up on that.

The biggest thing in this case is before they did any king of removing or drilling the dog indicated that there was drugs present....that alone is enough to have reasonable grounds to believe there are drugs present.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

You seemed to have a hate on for customs people...

The individual displayed non-verbal indicators from original questioning until they found the drugs. You can't just ignore that. As previous case law has stated a person is not considered detained will a routine examination is being conducted but they also cannot leave.....why are you mad about that? You think that they should be able to leave if they want to?

Just like any other job, people know what is normal and what isn't. These officers can pick up on peoples behavoir when it is not normal. The officer questions hundreds of people and hour....they all act pretty much the same and then comes buddy who is nervous. They are going to pick up on that.

The biggest thing in this case is before they did any king of removing or drilling the dog indicated that there was drugs present....that alone is enough to have reasonable grounds to believe there are drugs present.

This is one thing I don't get and hate about the borders, what happens if that dog was wrong and they just finished drilling this guys truck and ripping it apart?

Nothing, he is left with his truck in a disaster and left to fix it on his own.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by HOOT

This is one thing I don't get and hate about the borders, what happens if that dog was wrong and they just finished drilling this guys truck and ripping it apart?

Nothing, he is left with his truck in a disaster and left to fix it on his own.

Having seen these dogs in action....they are almost never wrong. If they indicate on something, that something has been incontact with drugs. It might not mean that there is measurable drugs there but it was in contact with drugs.

In this case, there appeared to be a hidden compartment in the bed of the truck. The dog can show where the odor is coming from and it indicated on the back of the truck. One could only assume that there was drugs in the compartment, and even if there wasn't, if there was a hidden compartment, they could still seize the truck as it had been altered to smuggle good across the border.

Like I said before.....if they are wrong....they have to pay for the damages.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't trust border cops. One guy I went to highschool with who was a big drug dealer, was a border cop for years (until he got busted for a B&E). Of course, I'm not saying they are are like that, but I think like any subsection of society, there are probably enough that we should not blindly trust them. (Would you blindly trust anyone with that much power)?

Personally, I think that before they can search anyone to the degree that they did, you should have the right to a lawyer present. Too much can happen if there is no one neutral around to hold them accountable.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't trust border cops. One guy I went to highschool with who was a big drug dealer, was a border cop for years (until he got busted for a B&E). Of course, I'm not saying they are are like that, but I think like any subsection of society, there are probably enough that we should not blindly trust them. (Would you blindly trust anyone with that much power)?

Personally, I think that before they can search anyone to the degree that they did, you should have the right to a lawyer present. Too much can happen if there is no one neutral around to hold them accountable.

You don't trust border officers because some dude you know was a criminal. I can give many examples within almost any police force and any other job for that fact. You are always going to get bad people any in job so really......you base your opinion on one dick head. Do you trust the police?? If say that there are enough criminals in the border services agency as you suggest, there are just as many in the police agencies.

In this case...once they formed the opinion that there was reasonable grounds to believe there was drugs present, they detained and cautioned the individual....which is normal practice....the guy declined a laywer?

When someone is detained....they are given the right to a lawyer....not sure why you think they are not given that right.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

When someone is detained....they are given the right to a lawyer....not sure why you think they are not given that right.

I had my car searched without being told I had that right. Thanks for letting know.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I had my car searched without being told I had that right. Thanks for letting know.

Having your car search does not mean you are detained as per S8 of the charter. That is normal customs exam. Once the exam goes from routine to non-routine....that is when you have the right to talk with a lawyer and be given that right.

[fredr123]

I wonder which would result in a greater incidence of successful contraband seizures:
1. Selective referrals based on CBSA officers' observing indicators; or
2. Randomly selecting travellers for inspection by drug dogs.

I would put my money on the dogs. I've read they are over 95 or 97% accurate in their indications.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I wonder which would result in a greater incidence of successful contraband seizures:
1. Selective referrals based on CBSA officers' observing indicators; or
2. Randomly selecting travellers for inspection by drug dogs.

I would put my money on the dogs. I've read they are over 95 or 97% accurate in their indications.

These two options are not the same.

I can guarantee you that just randomly selecting people or vehicles out of a line up and having the dogs search them would be less resultant than having a customs officer send in people based on indicators and having the dogs search them. It is a combination of both.

Are you really saying that a random referal rate would result in more seizures than having the officers refer based on indicators?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

You seemed to have a hate on for customs people...

The individual displayed non-verbal indicators from original questioning until they found the drugs. You can't just ignore that. As previous case law has stated a person is not considered detained will a routine examination is being conducted but they also cannot leave.....why are you mad about that? You think that they should be able to leave if they want to?

Just like any other job, people know what is normal and what isn't. These officers can pick up on peoples behavoir when it is not normal. The officer questions hundreds of people and hour....they all act pretty much the same and then comes buddy who is nervous. They are going to pick up on that.

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).

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. 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.

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.

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.

[jolinar of malkshor]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by HOOT

This doesn't suprise me. I hate crossing the boarder not because I have something on me or have done anything wrong but jsut the fact I know they can rip my car apart and leave it for me to put back together.

I was once held up at the Alberta/Montana boarder for a few hours, they took my car, searched it with dogs and then they gave me a huge hassel about a lighter than had marijuana risidue on it.

I just told them they searched my car and found nothing, the risude could have come from someone borrowing it at the bar and I was not sure what the hassel was as what was I going to do scrape off the risidue and sell it for big money down in the states

They know what kind of power they have and they definetly abuse it sometimes!

Just out of curiosity ... was it?

Maybe they knew your CP handle and the two signs together suggested the car should be searched.

In all seriousness, I'm ok with border patrol taking this as a cue to seach a car throughly. I'm sure part of their training is that if they want to find fire, look for the smoke, and residue on your lighter is about the best smoke, or clue I can think of.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Having seen these dogs in action....they are almost never wrong. If they indicate on something, that something has been incontact with drugs. It might not mean that there is measurable drugs there but it was in contact with drugs.

I was told by a dog handler for Correctional Service Canada that something like 80% of the $20 bills in circulation have traces of cocaine on them. During a public display of his dog's drug sniffing capabilities, the dog walked right up the Warden and indicated the Warden was hot ... turned out to be his wallet. So while these dogs are indeed good, a positive ID of the presence of drugs by the dog still doesn't necessarily mean a person is guility of using or carrying drugs.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Like I said before.....if they are wrong....they have to pay for the damages.

Are you sure of this? I've heard otherwise from people who've had their vehicles damaged during a search that found nothing. Maybe they weren't aware of their legal recourse, but they were told tough luck by the border workers.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Just out of curiosity ... was it?

Maybe they knew your CP handle and the two signs together suggested the car should be searched.

In all seriousness, I'm ok with border patrol taking this as a cue to seach a car throughly. I'm sure part of their training is that if they want to find fire, look for the smoke, and residue on your lighter is about the best smoke, or clue I can think of.

Was it...Probably not, but it was a Pink Playboy lighter so I am assuming it was my girlfriends at the time and maybe I or one of my friends or one of her friends borrowed it to light up a fatty, who knows.

Also my CP handle has nothing to do with smoking pot or any drugs. My last name is ---- and people seem to have a problem pronoucing it without calling me Hoot or Hot, since grade 1 to now. Friends from work picked up on it whenever customers would come back and ask for Shaun Hoot, it just kinda stuck from there.

Like I said I have NO PROBLEM with them searching mine or anyones car, the only problem I have is the 2.5 hours I had to wait around the border while two dogs and 3 officers tear my vehicle apart and then lecture me about marijuana and the effects it could have on me. It should be a pretty quick procress if the dogs are as good as someone else has claimed.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I was told by a dog handler for Correctional Service Canada that something like 80% of the $20 bills in circulation have traces of cocaine on them. During a public display of his dog's drug sniffing capabilities, the dog walked right up the Warden and indicated the Warden was hot ... turned out to be his wallet. So while these dogs are indeed good, a positive ID of the presence of drugs by the dog still doesn't necessarily mean a person is guility of using or carrying drugs.

Your right....most money will have some drug residue on them, And when I said that the dog was very accurate, that shows as such. I never said that if a dog indicated on someone or something that they were guilty or had possession of drugs. I said that there was drugs incontact with that thing or person. That is why the human handler is an essential component of the team. They can determine what might not be a realistic hit. In this case...the dog had indicated at the end of the vehicle...not on someones wallet or pocket, therefore, it would be reasonable to believe that there should not have been any unintended contamination from some other thing (ie: cocaine hit on money could easily be explained off as it is very common for such). There is no reason that a dog should indicate on the back of a pickup unless there was cocaine transported in the back of it.

Originally Posted by ford perfect

Are you sure of this? I've heard otherwise from people who've had their vehicles damaged during a search that found nothing. Maybe they weren't aware of their legal recourse, but they were told tough luck by the border workers.

There are two possible recourse options. 1.) If they perfromed an illegal search, such as the one I described before, the court can have the evidence tossed. 2.) If they find nothing but damaged property during the exam, the person can have that item fixed or replaced at the expense of the agency. I am pretty sure that that would have to be done by filing a complaint and requesting that the damages be repaired.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Like I said I have NO PROBLEM with them searching mine or anyones car, the only problem I have is the 2.5 hours I had to wait around the border while two dogs and 3 officers tear my vehicle apart and then lecture me about marijuana and the effects it could have on me. It should be a pretty quick procress if the dogs are as good as someone else has claimed.

Agreed.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I never said that if a dog indicated on someone or something that they were guilty or had possession of drugs.

Sorry ... I didn't mean to be argumentive or say that you suggested a hit automatically equals guilt. I just threw that anecdote in to back up your statement about the dogs' efficiency. I thought it kind of humourous too that the dog indicated the Warden was hot.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

2.) If they find nothing but damaged property during the exam, the person can have that item fixed or replaced at the expense of the agency. I am pretty sure that that would have to be done by filing a complaint and requesting that the damages be repaired.

Thanks ... that's good to know. I have always been lead to believe a person is SOL in that situation.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Sorry ... I didn't mean to be argumentive or say that you suggested a hit automatically equals guilt. I just threw that anecdote in to back up your statement about the dogs' efficiency. I thought it kind of humourous too that the dog indicated the Warden was hot.

np....I knew what you ment....just wanted to clarify it.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Was it...Probably not, but it was a Pink Playboy lighter so I am assuming it was my girlfriends at the time and maybe I or one of my friends or one of her friends borrowed it to light up a fatty, who knows.

Also my CP handle has nothing to do with smoking pot or any drugs. My last name is Huot (Hew-Ott) and people seem to have a problem pronoucing it without calling me Hoot or Hot, since grade 1 to now. Friends from work picked up on it whenever customers would come back and ask for Shaun Hoot, it just kinda stuck from there.

Like I said I have NO PROBLEM with them searching mine or anyones car, the only problem I have is the 2.5 hours I had to wait around the border while two dogs and 3 officers tear my vehicle apart and then lecture me about marijuana and the effects it could have on me. It should be a pretty quick procress if the dogs are as good as someone else has claimed.

Just joking about your name.

I have no experience with what one needs to be sure that they have completely surveyed a car. Nor do I know if there is any evidnece that these lectures have any impact, however I do know that choices in life come with outcomes ... some good some bad. I guess one of the things you and everyone else can expect is to get worked over at the border if you have 'traces' of drugs on you.