It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Landmark Warrant Ruling Stuns Canadian Border Guards

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Landmark Warrant Ruling Stuns Canadian Border Guards


www.theglobeandmail.com

Canadian border guards are stunned by a landmark Provincial Court ruling that they must obtain a warrant before thoroughly searching a suspicious vehicle.

"This is huge. I can't believe it. If this stands, we might just as well go out of business," Ron Moran, national president of the 10,000-member Custom Excise Union and a customs official for 27 years, said yesterday.

"Until this judgment, it would never even have crossed our minds to obtain a search warrant. Snip
(visit the link for the full news article)





[edit on 7/18/2007 by shots]




posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Does this sound right to others? As far as I am concerned the borders guards are right they might as well go out of business, up until now they have used the instinct based on the way occupants acted.

www.theglobeandmail.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Do they have border guards in Canada to keep the Americans out, or the Canadians in?



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Does this sound right to others?


Well, that's what we like to refer to as a 'rectal/cranial inversion'. Just in case you thought we were immune from stupid, eh?



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
No biggie really. They only need to obtain a warrant to "dismantle" a vehicle. How often does that happen? Otherwise it's business as usual.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
No biggie really. They only need to obtain a warrant to "dismantle" a vehicle. How often does that happen? Otherwise it's business as usual.


How do you figure that? I know you are in to the law up there to a point. What this means to me is they could not even open bags in a trunk although I could be wrong. I see this as huge as do the border gurards or do you know something they do not?



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
What this means to me is they could not even open bags in a trunk although I could be wrong. I see this as huge as do the border gurards or do you know something they do not?


No, they can still seach but to take a vehicle apart they'll need a warrant which can be obtained over the phone in a few minutes. It's in the source material.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
The law in Canada is different than it is here. The LAW says that they must have more than a ' hunch ' before detaining someone and dismantling their car. The cop's kept the guy there because he ' looked tense' and because he got ' more nervous ' as time went on. SO WHAT??

Being stopped by armed men and grilled and detained for hours, having your car towed, and later they supposedly fine some contraband. Well, maybe they did and maybe they did'nt, but even if it was a case that called for a search that mandated a DETENTION FOR HOURS, towing the car, basically tearing the car apart..and THAT is the part that called for the exclusion of the evidence.

WHY do judges esclude evidence? To show the cop's that they should not do certain things, and if they do, they will lose the case. It keeps the cop's somewhat in line; otherwise, the border guards could pull over EVERYONE that looked ' nervous '( as if that is not normal when being held by cop's) and tear THEIR cars apart, right? If they find nothing, of well, just buy a new car and try again! No problem, right? If border guards were not restrained from extensive searches based on NOTHING but personal observation, which is TOTALLY subjective then the people would have NO rights at all.

If all a cop has to say is " hey, they seem nervous ", then that becomes the probable cause or reasonable grounds, right? NOT!! People have a RIGHT to seem nervous, or scared or anything else they want to seem like; cop's are NOT behavioral specialists and cannot be trusted to decide who is guilty and who is not, barring EVIDENCE of crime or suspicion GHROUNDED IN FACT. None of that existed in this case and so justice was done. The right decision was made. Better that some guy get away without charges than millions of innocent people being delayed, searched, car's torn apart and kept in custody for as long as the cop decides while taking his merry time.

The good of the many ( the People ) outweighs the good ( if drug laws can be called 'good '.) of the few ( the cop's ). If Judges did not reign the cop's in now and then we would be living in a total police state, with NO rights, and no way to complain. Better to lean toward the safer way, than to give in to total power by the cop's. they cannot be trusted to stay within the bounds and so judges occasionally make them take a step back so that their actions do not spiral into a much worse state of affairs than even they could imagine.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
No, they can still seach but to take a vehicle apart they'll need a warrant which can be obtained over the phone in a few minutes. It's in the source material.


Yes, I read it but allegedly, the court saw more to this then just the dismantling. I.e. detaining him without allowing him to call a lawyer, which is presumably only allowed when an individual has been charged.


The judge concluded that border officials further violated Mr. Sekhon's Charter rights when they prevented him from leaving early on in their search and did not allow him to contact a lawyer until they had discovered traces of coc aine.
(Same Source as original article


My concern here is with those of the border agents,., not the law itself. You say too you it is no big deal. Yet they appear to have taken a completely different outlook on this but then they are the ones that actually work in customs ergo they know more then any of us novices as to its repercussions in the field. How can you be so sure you are right and they are wrong?



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
As long as they can be detained while a warrant is issued, I don't see the big deal. You can't allow agents to rip your car apart on a hunch. It turns abusive. Now, if upon looking in the trunk or back seats or ash try of the vehicle they spot drugs, unregistered weapons, bomb material, etc. they should be able to more thoroughly search the whole vehicle. A warrant would be easy to obtain in that case and shouldnt take too long.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   
At this point any ruling that limits the power of the State and restores the rights of the individual, however minor, ought to be counted as a shocking victory.

The inconvenience to the border guards is a small issue IMHO, the powers of the authorities need to be curtailed, period, we in the "free" West have been sliding towards police states for too long. Any little ray of hope like this ought to be celebrated.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Does anyone here actually believe for minute that if someone really wanted to transport illegal/questionable materials that they would cross a guarded border in the first place. Why ? You have hundreds of miles of unprotected points of access with no guards why make it difficult for yourself.

brill



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite8
As long as they can be detained while a warrant is issued, I don't see the big deal. You can't allow agents to rip your car apart on a hunch.


Yet border agents routinely do just that. Have to ever crossed an AG Inspection Station going from Arizonia into California? They ae not even border agents per se yet they tear cars apart looking for plants that are not allowed into california. What they are doing is protecting Calfornia plants but that is not the point. One time back in 85 we are drving from Vegas to LA and witnessed two girls stopped by Ag Agents who had the girls in tears because they tore the car apart ripping door liners whatever when they found one suspected house plant out in the open in a back seat.

What this ruling has done is taken their instincts out of the picture as I see it and that too me is wrong. What this ruling has done is more or less stated if the owner says you cannot search it means just that. Presumambly Canada does not have probable cause but I am not sure.



[edit on 7/18/2007 by shots]



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
One time back in 85 we are drving from Vegas to LA and witnessed two girls stopped by Ag Agents who had the girls in tears because they tore the car apart ripping door liners whatever when they found one suspected house plant out in the open in a back seat.


In the case where they rip your car apart and find nothing, who foots the bill for fixing it?



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by brill
Does anyone here actually believe for minute that if someone really wanted to transport illegal/questionable materials that they would cross a guarded border in the first place. Why ? You have hundreds of miles of unprotected points of access with no guards why make it difficult for yourself.

brill


I Pretty sure a lot of drugs go across busy armed crossings all the time, it is far less likely to draw attention than traveling through an area where you know if you are seen you will be appoached.

I im not going to pretend to know exactly what this ruleing means, but for those that can...

does this mean that when a dog barks at the car, and the cab and trunk are searched, that is where it ends without a warrent? If the dog continues to bark after nothing is found in the cab or trunk, is that enough for a judge to rip the car apart? does the judge have to hear the barking on the phone?



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
YOU pay for the damage they do. Give a small mind a badge and a little authority and this is what happens; abuses of power and AG guards stripping cars apart because they were bored and wanted to scope the chicks out; probaly gave them a woody to see the girls cry. Pigs.

Anyway, if a dog barks and indicates an alert, the cop's will tear anything they want apart to see if the dog is right. If nothing is found , the cop's say " Gee, aren't you lucky!! You got rid of the dope and only the odor was there". They will NEVER admit a false alert or that dogs are not perfect, it is YOU who are always the guilty one, YOU are the suspect, YOU will pay for the damage.

See why so many people hate the cop's? They have an excuse for EVERYTHING and it is is a lie then too bad, they do not care. We need to have MORE Rights, not less. The Canadian rules are far more on the side on the People than here in the USA. Customs agents here can do anything they want and you will find it hard to get any justice out of them. If they destroy your car you can sue, but good luck. The attorneys fees will cost as much as a new car.

Anyone who crosses a border with contraband is asking for a bust; like said above, there is vast open borders to cross, why take a bigger chance?



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom goose
If the dog continues to bark after nothing is found in the cab or trunk, is that enough for a judge to rip the car apart? does the judge have to hear the barking on the phone?



That was the point I was trying to make about Canada not having probable cause or so it seems. Here in the US a Dogs bark is all that is needed but not sure about Canada now
Although if you stop and think about it they have to have it to a certain point i.e. observing a car swerving = probable cause to stop for suspected dui. I would think an officer smelling Mary Jane would also equal probable cause when it comes to a car. I know they ruled recently when it comes to a home in the U.S., smelling it outside a home is no longer probable cause yet it is when it comes to a car go figure.

Infinite8

you would to reasearch that out. I have no idea who pays fo it.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
crossings are prime for people with large steady shipments, its all about the numbers and odds and the amount of time you use with evasive actions. for many with large operations getting as much as you can as fast as you can across is the only factor, its not like the profiteers are the ones driving the trucks.

an infrared camera on a heli can cover hundreds of kilometers of boader and will have a much higher success rate than a dog nose at a crossing. this isn't a matter of opinion, just a quick observation and a little common sense.

maybe you are refuring to the mexican boarder, that could be why we see it differently, you cannot drive across the forest in canada as easily as you can drive across the desert.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

...and did not allow him to contact a lawyer until they had discovered traces of coc aine.
(Same Source as original article


That might be the relevant point here.


My concern here is with those of the border agents,., not the law itself. You say too you it is no big deal. Yet they appear to have taken a completely different outlook on this but then they are the ones that actually work in customs ergo they know more then any of us novices as to its repercussions in the field. How can you be so sure you are right and they are wrong?


Do you know anything about this union shots? They're damn militant. That's not a bad thing, I'm a union man myself BUT you've got to know where they're coming from. That being said, this is LONG from over. The union will persue this in the courts. To the Supreme Court if they have to. Just note what else was said:


"This is huge. I can't believe it. If this stands, we might just as well go out of business," Ron Moran, national president of the 10,000-member Custom Excise Union and a customs official for 27 years, said yesterday.

"Until this judgment, it would never even have crossed our minds to obtain a search warrant. It's just not part of what we're taught."

Mr. Moran was commenting on a little-noticed decision last week that acquitted a B.C. man of importing 50 kilograms of coc aine into Canada because the contraband was discovered by customs officials without a search warrant.


"Little noticed decision"? This is politics shots. And:


Mr. Williams said the government has already filed an appeal, and, in the meantime, customs officials will not change the way they operate at the border.


They aren't going to change anything so what is the point of all of this? Political manouvering, that's all this is.

BTW, it's possible for both they and I to be right.
You just have to know what you're talking about.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
Do they have border guards in Canada to keep the Americans out, or the Canadians in?



Neither, we have border guards so they can flee from the border when there's whispers of a criminal coming up from America... trust me it has happened before, and led to long delays on the British Columbian Border with Washington State (btw, our border guards aren't armed... does that make sense to anyone?).


I like Brill's point as well. If anyone lives in Northern Washington state, or the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, look on a map and go down to Zero Avenue. There's no wall, no detterence (except if you count a 2 foot ditch. which can be hopped anytime) that will keep people from crossing the border between Canada and the United States, Americans are worried about Mexicans, they should also be worried about Canadians, and vice versa.
- Azure

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Azure_Oak]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join