Another example of idiot judges.

[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.

[mykalberta]

So what is the deal, do Border agents need search warrants to search vehicles or not. Seems pretty simple.

Either Customs is correct or this Judge in BC. From what the original poster indicated it would seem Customs is correct because of previous Supreme Court rulings and the Judge should quit being activist and start using the law.

MYK

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

So what is the deal, do Border agents need search warrants to search vehicles or not. Seems pretty simple.

Either Customs is correct or this Judge in BC. From what the original poster indicated it would seem Customs is correct because of previous Supreme Court rulings and the Judge should quit being activist and start using the law.

MYK

No they don't need search warrants to go through your vehicle. Jolinar of Malkishor can fill you in on the details.

Part of the reason for not requiring search warrants is because of the exigency of the circumstances. The timing and situtaion is such that getting a warrant would be impractical. Where this case is a bit different, though, is that the CBSA agents made up their mind that they were going to seize the vehicle and slowly take it apart anyway. The exigency no longer existed. Ergo, warrant may be required.

There were also violations of the accused's rights that occurred, again in part, because the exigency no longer existed.

As I said earlier, the officers (and probably CBSA in general) deserves to get smacked in the nose with a rolled up newspaper for stuff like this. In the end, however, I think the decision will be overturned on appeal and the evidence found to be admissible under 24(2). Guy makes a deal and we never hear about this again.

[tvp2003]

I didn't read the entire thread and just skimmed the judgment -- without speaking to the merits, I just wanted to point out that the judgment was issued by the B.C. Provincial Court. In other words, it's not something that I would take to be the black letter law -- there are three superior levels of court in which this case could get overturned on appeal (it's not unusual for the judicial system to take a couple of tries before getting it right!).

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

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.

Yes, the vehicle had mud on it. That alone is sufficient to have the vehicle refused entry and further examination to determine the exent of how much mud is on the vehicle and where. You cannot bring soil into Canada without proper import permits. That includes mud on a vehcile.

Yes, according to the primary officer he did give good eye contact at the beginning of the exam but then she goes on to say:

[10] Inspector Couse formed the impression that Mr. Sekhon was tense and nervous. His jaw was apparently rigid, he didn’t move his neck freely, he held tight onto the steering wheel, and his eyes moved in a manner that telegraphed uneasiness to Inspector Couse. Mr. Sekhon apparently changed from making good eye contact to a failure to retain steady eye contact.

So it was more than just a failure in eye contact and like I said before it was a multipicity of indicators. As happens when most people are interviewed when they are lieing or have something to hide they get more nervous as the interview continues and the more questions are asked. That is interviewing 101.

I agree with you that the training program CBSA has in place is some what inadequate. Having said that, I am a firm believer that on the job training and experience is by far the best way to train someone. As far as I can tell we do not know how long this officer has been working but several years would be sufficient in giving her the ability to pick up on indicators. And as this case shows, she did and she was right.

Questions are mandatory when entering Canada not just a matter of routine; and searchs although are not mandatory are always done and only require mere suspicion and not reasonable grounds. I guess I don't get why you are questioning the application of the charter regarding this?

If any traveler feels that they were searched or questioned inappropriately, they have the same complaint mechanism as any other police agency.

Originally Posted by fredr123

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.

You seem to be stuck on this eye contact issue. Your right, either of the two examples that you provided could indicate that someone is hiding something, but once again, it is never based on 1 indicator alone, there must be a multiplicity of indicators to form reasonable suspicion. And again, training at the Customs college only gives the tools an officer requires to do their job. Of course no one is an expert after just completing academic training.....there must be years of on the job training in order for those tools to work properly....like any profession....same as the RCMP. I never said that these officers were experts as soon as they graduated from the college.

Originally Posted by fredr123

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.

So what? The officers initial concern was that 1.) he was hiding something as his behaviour indicated such and 2.) a likley reason for it was that he had more than $10,000. The fact that the reason he was nervous was because of a totally different reason (still illegal) has nothing to do with it. She observed the indicators and thought that the subject was hiding something.

Originally Posted by fredr123

[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.

They are not restricted at looking only for what the initial primary concern is, they can and do search for anything that is controlled, regulated or prohibited ito Canada. The initial suspicion was for currency but can change really fast once the exam starts. Like you said, they only have 30 secs to make a decision. The secondary exam takes a look at the concerns and goes from there.

Originally Posted by fredr123

[145] She did not question or inspect Mr. Sekhon with respect to a currency concern prior to embarking upon a search of the vehicle.

She did question him at the primary inspection if he was in possession of any currency greater than $10,000

12] Notwithstanding the determination, Inspector Couse continued to question Mr. Sekhon. Mr. Sekhon advised that he had given the pay stubs to the accountant, that he was not carrying currency in excess of $10,000.00 (Canadian), that he did not possess any weapons, that he had not attended at any duty free stores, and that no one had asked him to bring anything back into Canada.

If the judge is talking about questioning the person after he has been sent for an examination...then....the judge is wrong. Once the primary officer has asked the primary questions and gave the person the oppertunity to answer all the questions truthfully.....the examining officer cannot reask questions that the primary officer originally asked. If they do ask those questions then any thing that that person says wold constitute them answering primary questions....therefor they then could tell the truth and anything they admit to would not be subject to seizure.

Originally Posted by fredr123

[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; .

Fair enough...the officer didn't articulate her position very well. I am assuming she hasn't taken law school and it could also be atributed to poor intruction on behalf of the prosecutor.

Originally Posted by fredr123

[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.

Yes and no. This is the only part of the case where I think that the officers screwed up. A detention does not occure if the person is under normal examination even though they are not allowed to leave. The problem here is that the person did try to leave and as such was put into a seperate room to prevent him from leaving. At this point he should have been cautioned and detained and also charged with obstruction or hindering. Had he not tried to leave he would not be considered detained.

Originally Posted by fredr123

[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.

There may be some ignorance displayed by the officers but I would have to say that there appears to be some ignorance by the judge as to previous case law, the customs act and the role of CBSA.




Regardless if there was or wasn't exigency, they do not require a warrant...ever...when...they are examining a conveyance during the time of seeking entry into Canada.

S.99(1)(a) An officer may at any time up to the time of release, examine any goods that have ben imported and open or cause to be opened any package or container of imported goods and take samples of imported goods in reasonable amounts.

CUSTOMS ACT

Originally Posted by fredr123

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.

I think that most travellers who have nothing to hide would not be irritated if they were selected for an examination if the officer treated that person with repect and dignity. they do not get paid to "irritate" people. they get paid to protect the borders and keep the country safe.

Originally Posted by fredr123

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.

Again...I think this is completely absurd. Lets base our border decection on a Random system. You also keep coming back to dogs....they have their limitations aswell. They make mistakes.....they are only trained to pick up certain items. CBSA governs more than 70 different federal acts and regulations and most items that are restricted and prohibited a dog cannot detect. A dog cannot determine that someone is here for different purposes as to what he declared he was coming for. A dog cannot detect a child abductor or someone importing child porn. It is not as simple as you would have people to believe.

[jolinar of malkshor]

I also wanted to mention that the judge had quoted S111 of the Customs act...regarding search warrants. What many people dont realize is that CBSA works at the border, inland and overseas. Warrants are needed if they wish to exam property that is not being imported into Canada. That is when they need warrants.

Also, I find the tone of the Judge very biased. It appears that she is very one sided in her response and talks many times about how unfortunate the subject was.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

No they don't need search warrants to go through your vehicle. Jolinar of Malkishor can fill you in on the details.

Part of the reason for not requiring search warrants is because of the exigency of the circumstances. The timing and situtaion is such that getting a warrant would be impractical. Where this case is a bit different, though, is that the CBSA agents made up their mind that they were going to seize the vehicle and slowly take it apart anyway. The exigency no longer existed. Ergo, warrant may be required.

There were also violations of the accused's rights that occurred, again in part, because the exigency no longer existed.

As I said earlier, the officers (and probably CBSA in general) deserves to get smacked in the nose with a rolled up newspaper for stuff like this. In the end, however, I think the decision will be overturned on appeal and the evidence found to be admissible under 24(2). Guy makes a deal and we never hear about this again.

I am sure you could fill him in just as much as I can.

[The Unabomber]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The article doesn't tell much of what indicators the officers had.....but let me asure you it was much more than just him being nervous. They have access to many tools that would help determine if someone is smuggling including ion scanners, detector dogs and x-ray equipment. You mention that they drilled into the truck and found nothing and then proceeded to do a more destructive exam. The article does not say that at all. It says that they drilled into the truck to find drugs and then towed it to another location. I have read several articles on this and a few of them mentioned that they found drugs after drilling into the truck....at which point they need to take the truck to a facility to remove the concealment area. I have tried to find those articles again but it appears that you now have to login to the news providers. Even tho....that makes much more sense.....It's not as if they just tore the guys vehcile tobits because of mere suspicion. If customs damages your vehicle in the process of a search and finds nothing....they have to pay for the damages. And contrary to popular belief....it is customs policy to pack the vehcile and or personal belongings back into the car if they do not find anything after a search.

That's interesting, i have had my car emptied and searched and nobody offered to put anything back. It might be the policy of customs, but i highly doubt that it's a practice that they employ very often.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

That's interesting, i have had my car emptied and searched and nobody offered to put anything back. It might be the policy of customs, but i highly doubt that it's a practice that they employ very often.

That is part of my point. Perhaps it's just because I'm not being bery clear.

There are good employees and bad employees in any industry or profession. There are those in law enforcement that go by the book and respect the law and there are those that, for lack of a better term, are cowboys set about doing things there own way law and policy be damned.

CBSA officers fit into this rant because they have some of the broadest powers of any law enforcement agency in Canada and, unfortunately in some cases, suffer too much from the cowboy mentality. I'm confident that the majority of CBSA officers do their job admirably and go about their thankless task with the utmost respect for the law and for people.

But the dumbasses are still there and they are incredibly dangerous. The officers that search a vehicle without reasonable suspicion. The officers that hold someone in that limbo between detention and examination a little longer than necessary for spite or for something else. The officers that search your belongings roughly and don't repack your bags or vehicle. The officers that engage in inappropriate strip searches (see one of Jolinar's previous threads).

These are the people that decisions like this are aimed at. The majority of CBSA officers probably have nothing to worry about. The dumbasses need reminding.

All that being said, I still think the evidence will be allowed on appeal but this is all one anonymous internet nerd's opinion.

[mykalberta]

Is anyone else perplexed why this has taken 3 pages.

A drug dealer got caught trying to import drugs. I would first like to congrratulate Customs for doing their job. The only part that seems where they violated anything was not offering a lawyer after detention.

The brat should be put in the most sexually liberal prison in the country and taught that if they dont want to behave in a civilized society, then you get to meet Bubba and his life partner Dwayne.

MYK

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

That's interesting, i have had my car emptied and searched and nobody offered to put anything back. It might be the policy of customs, but i highly doubt that it's a practice that they employ very often.

that maybe the case...but just as many police agencies have mission statements that says they are to treat people with respect and fairness, how may times have people dealt with a real dickhead cop? The fact is you are going to get people that are jerks and don't follow the rules in every profession.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Is anyone else perplexed why this has taken 3 pages.

A drug dealer got caught trying to import drugs.

So in your mind the ends always justify the means? Myself as somebody who has never done anything illegal at the border; it does scare me the power that some customs officials have.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Is anyone else perplexed why this has taken 3 pages.

A drug dealer got caught trying to import drugs. I would first like to congrratulate Customs for doing their job. The only part that seems where they violated anything was not offering a lawyer after detention.

The brat should be put in the most sexually liberal prison in the country and taught that if they dont want to behave in a civilized society, then you get to meet Bubba and his life partner Dwayne.

MYK

I agree that customs made a mistake with regards to the detention....but I think that is very minor in this case and I dont think it wil bring justice into disrepute if they allow the evidence.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

that maybe the case...but just as many police agencies have mission statements that says they are to treat people with respect and fairness, how may times have people dealt with a real dickhead cop? The fact is you are going to get people that are jerks and don't follow the rules in every profession.

Because it's the case in other professions doesn't excuse it in this case. Despite the pleas I made to my parents, just because one of my friends did something doesn't make it alright for me to do the same thing.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by ken0042

So in your mind the ends always justify the means? Myself as somebody who has never done anything illegal at the border; it does scare me the power that some customs officials have.

What means. They went through their normal procedures. Got the dog to snifff the vehicle, that likely gave them reason to check the vehicle further which is when they drilled holes - their only wrongdoing was not offering a lawyer.

When you come across the border, no matter what you are subject to searches. When you travel to the US from Canada about 30% of the time your luggage is sniffed and possibly opened - I have seen it happen. If they find something the luggage isnt loaded and then I dont know what happens. If something isnt found then its taped back up and closed and a little sticker that says this item was checked by customs is applied.

The suspicious activity combined with the dog and probably combined wither other methos are the reason the vehicle was towed. As said earlier, if they had found nothing then they would be responsible for the costs (I never knew that) and then the person could have sued for whatever.

Their only rights violations seems to be the lack of offering a lawyer.

MYK

[flylock shox]

In the circumstances, I'm not the least bit surprised the Judge found a breach, even with a diminished expectation of privacy.

The only really questionable aspect of the judgment, in my mind, was the failure to admit the evidence under 24(2). Excluding real evidence of that magnitude, where such a serious offence is involved, brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Of course, that's my opinion. The judge found that essentially upholding the violation of the accused's Charter rights would do the same, presumably to a greater degree. Canadian courts (especially BC courts) treat drugs pretty leniently, and Charter violations pretty seriously. Disappointing result in this case, but not outrageously out of line with previous decisions I've seen.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Because it's the case in other professions doesn't excuse it in this case. Despite the pleas I made to my parents, just because one of my friends did something doesn't make it alright for me to do the same thing.

Well your comments about the integrity of the customs process was more general than specific toward this case and as such if you want to make statements such as you don't trust them, they aren't trained properly and they would get better results using random sampling instead of their ability to detect sugglers, then you must apply that to every other police agency.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Well your comments about the integrity of the customs process was more general than specific toward this case and as such if you want to make statements such as you don't trust them, they aren't trained properly and they would get better results using random sampling instead of their ability to detect sugglers, then you must apply that to every other police agency.

A. The comments about not trusting some customs officers and my criticism of the system in general was in fact aimed at the customs system and was intended to have a measure of particularity.

B. My comment that you quoted directly above was aimed at your defence of customs' issues that I highlighted earlier; namely that there are problems in every profession and in every law enforcement agency generally. In my mind, to justify problems in one area by saying "things are tough all over" doesn't advance this conversation and, generally, doesn't help out in other arguments either.

C. You are tiring me out. If you want to argue further, let's meet out back by the apple tree tonight and settle this like grown ups (i.e., argue and drink until we're both incoherent).

[ZDogg]

I would just like to jump in here and report my first hand experience with the drug dogs.

My border incident occured at the Calgary Airport and began due to my nervous behaviour (first time travelling alone) and embarassment of incorrectly filling out the Custom card. After they took me aside the so called "accurate" search dog proceeded to poke me. Well that began the interrogation and threats regarding the "drugs" inside me. After a good long question period they proceeded to Strip search me. All the while the friendly US Customs guy was snapping his rubber gloves to induce some serious fear. During this ordeal I eventually admitted to trying Marijuana and that was all they needed. Zero tolerance = BANNED in the USA.

I had absolutely no drugs on me. I will never again trust a Customs official again or those stupid dogs.

I am now allowed back in the USA follwing 2 appeals, 2 years and lots of $$$$ for the US Government. At least they gave me a peice of paper indicating I am a threat to US Society...

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by ZDogg

I would just like to jump in here and report my first hand experience with the drug dogs.

My border incident occured at the Calgary Airport and began due to my nervous behaviour (first time travelling alone) and embarassment of incorrectly filling out the Custom card. After they took me aside the so called "accurate" search dog proceeded to poke me. Well that began the interrogation and threats regarding the "drugs" inside me. After a good long question period they proceeded to Strip search me. All the while the friendly US Customs guy was snapping his rubber gloves to induce some serious fear. During this ordeal I eventually admitted to trying Marijuana and that was all they needed. Zero tolerance = BANNED in the USA.

I had absolutely no drugs on me. I will never again trust a Customs official again or those stupid dogs.

I am now allowed back in the USA follwing 2 appeals, 2 years and lots of $$$$ for the US Government. At least they gave me a peice of paper indicating I am a threat to US Society...

US Customs is very different from Canada Customs (CBSA). Their laws and policies are vastly different. For example, they have zero tolerance towards drugs while we are a bit more lenient in that department. We draw the line with impaired driving whereas the Americans, for the most part, won't bar you admission if you drink and drive.