A: They appoint them to the bench
Justice Ellen Gordon ruled Friday that border officers — who routinely question travellers and search their vehicles — violated three sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they interrogated Ajitpal Singh Sekhon and dismantled the truck he was driving without a search warrant.
[…]
According to Gordon’s reasons for judgment, Sekhon, a Canadian citizen, tried to enter Canada via the Aldergrove border crossing on Jan. 25, 2005.
The border guard decided Sekhon was suspiciously tense and sent him to be questioned in the customs office, where he was locked inside while another inspector searched the truck.
With the help of a drug-sniffing dog, the ruling says, guards found a false compartment below the truck bed, at which point Sekhon was informed that he would be detained and that he had the right to legal counsel.
However, Gordon concluded that Sekhon had been detained from the moment he was locked inside the office, violating sections 9 and 10 of the Charter, which prohibit arbitrary detention and guarantee the right to a lawyer.
Gordon’s judgment says inspectors eventually dismantled the vehicle to find 50 bricks of cocaine.
But the most important part of the ruling is Gordon’s conclusion that guards violated section 8 of the Charter — freedom from unreasonable search or seizure — since they never applied for a search warrant.
The Crown lawyer pointed out that the Customs Act routinely allows such searches without a warrant based on reasonable grounds for suspicion.
The two border inspectors involved said they had never applied for — or even conceived of applying for — a search warrant in their careers.
But the judge wrote that officers followed a “lucky hunch,” not reasonable suspicions, in launching their search.
the same judge ruled last October that RCMP drug squad officers violated the Charter by faxing a justice of the peace to get search warrants. She argued that the Criminal Code requires police officers to appear in front of a judge to defend their requests. By this logic, border guards would have to present themselves before the court for every vehicle inspection.
50 bricks of cocaine !!
How many of our kids can be ruined with that amount ??
Lots and lots. Thank you PET.
We have crossed the border many, many times and have never ever been searched. The agents never saw any need to. They were right.
The customs agents are quite good at picking out the suspects, as they should.
They succeeded in this case and saved some Canadians from the horror of drug addiction. Liberals are against that.
The latte-left and bleeding-heart types — why do they like to reward failure ?? I just do not get it. Everyone I know does not either.
Ellen’s obviously a pro-cocaine douchebag. I didn’t say she was a user, yet.
Simple fairness demands they apologize to Mr. Sekhon and return the cocaine.
My Civil Libertarian sensibilities tend me to side with the Judge on this one. Although on this occasion the Border Agents were right in their suspicion, I think methods of operation could have been changed to effect the same result. For example, the dog could have been called on in the beginning with little delay, if for example the driver was innocent of wrong doing. I guess not living very far from the border, we hear some of the horror stories others may not.
What bothers me about these “warrantless” searches is the lack of concern for the rights of the innocent. And no, I don’t buy into the “if innocent you have nothing to fear” BS.
I think generally, the rights of Canadians are too easily shoved aside for the convenience of authorities. The DD Counterattack road blocks are an example. Police roving in the traffic would make my drive much safer by keeping a damper on the nut jobs. The drunks who are the problem are the same drunks, time after time; and generally know the safe routes to take.
The no-fly list is probably the method with greatest respect for civil rights. I would like to see similar lists used for DUI and border crossing. Leopards don’t change their spots and why should law abiding citizens be detained for political correctness?
Incredibly ignorant judges in this country, it’s absolutely astounding.
As far as I know no one has forced a Canadian citizen to leave Canada. I also don’t think that anyone was forced to enter Canada (except for maybe the crims).
I wonder what Wendy is thinking … what’s more important … disarming duck hunters … or protecting gun smugglers.
Gunney99:
I see where you are trying to go, but let me interject some reality into the situation.
How many thousands upon thousands of vehicles will the average border patrol agent see during his career? Said agent will put together a mental database of characteristics of vehicles and occupants that are associated with illegal importation of x, y and z. If we could design a more effective machine, we would, but we can’t.
What we want are border agents like this who do use their professional judgment to pull over people like this. While no statistics are available, put yourself in their shoes. Do you really believe they were “right on this occasion”, as if they are normally wrong?
We WANT our border patrol agents doing stuff exactly like this, because we DON’T WANT criminal gangs bringing in more guns, drugs and bad stuff. We can surely draw the line well before strip search the grannies going down to the casino, but let them exercise their professional judgment. They are professionals, after all.
And while we are at it, we need to expedite the 25 year plan to arm our border patrol :rolleyes:
As far as this moronic judge, she clearly has a lock on extremely short sighted reasoning with an inability to see the big picture. That’s why we’ve got appeals courts, but in the mean time, it is a black eye for the entire profession.
Hey Ellen: go dunk your head in a bucket of cold water, and sit in the corner with a dunce cap on to reflect how stupid that decision was. Furthermore, enjoy serving in the Provincial Court, because with bush league decisions like that, you are committing yourself to remand days and perhaps one day, to replace a justice of the peace in traffic court.
Well, the only obvious thing to do is start to search each and every vehicle and person crossing the border.
Perhaps the slow down in cross border traffic will force the MSM to take notice of these issues and the way our border guards hands are ties to perform thier jobs!
Stupid Judge!
While the Crown’s appeal on this may fail, maybe, though I doubt it. Even if it does all it will do is make Parliament refine the law and voila, this douchebag may get off, but no further douchebags will.
Thank you democracy, legal system, fair and open standards agreed to by the people…
Now… what else can we be outraged about?
One more attempt by the judiciary to grab more power for themselves? After all, who do you go to in order to get that search warrant?
A lucky hunch?
This was a good example of the border officers doing their job very well.
The race card?
…-
Ex-MP charged
WINDSOR – A former Windsor MP is facing criminal charges after a June 23 incident involving a customs officer at the Ambassador Bridge.
Howard McCurdy, a former city councillor, NDP MP and president of the Windsor and District Black Coalition, is charged with obstructing a peace officer and resisting a peace officer. Neither the Canada Border Services Agency nor Mr. McCurdy would discuss the incident yesterday….(Ottawa Citizen via national newswatch)
Of course Ellen “Two Tier” Gordon has a history of soft treatment of women and minorities in her courtroom:
*********************************
In an act of slack-jawed, senseless drunkenness – with a blood alcohol level almost twice the legal limit – Woloshyn drove her SUV into Firenze and killed him.
It was impaired driving causing death and/or dangerous driving causing death: indictable offences so serious that they have a maximum punishment of fourteen years in jail. The Crown sought a jail sentence of six years.
On Jan. 10, provincial court judge Ellen Gordon sentenced Woloshyn to two years in jail, two years probation, and prohibited her from driving for 10 years. Gordon said Woloshyn made a “fundamental error in judgment,” that she was “extremely remorseful and has demonstrated an ability to rehabilitate herself. She is far from being beyond redemption.”
In a most unusual turn of events, Attorney General Wally Oppal directed Crown counsel to appeal and held a press conference to explain his involvement.
Oppal was quoted in the Vancouver Sun: “The facts in our view were egregious, in that she had a blood alcohol level of 0.15, the legal limit being 0.08, and she was proceeding the wrong way on the freeway and caused a death. She has two prior convictions for related offences, and she was convicted of impaired driving offences in the past.” He said the sentence seems “inordinately low,” that the criminal justice system can’t be out of touch with the “public pulse” and that “accountability” is important. He went on to say that the greatest violence in society takes place on highways, that the sentence was not appropriate, and our Court of Appeal will decide whether his assessment is correct.
Our attorneys general rarely step away from partisan politics and the premier’s embrace to become directly involved in the administration of justice. If ever there was a time for hands-on involvement, it is now.
…
Though not an instance of plea-bargaining, the Woloshyn case illustrates the degree to which minimizing punishment of a perpetrator of crime can become a pseudo-ecclesiastical process. Listen again to Gordon’s assessment of Woloshyn: “She is far from being beyond redemption.” In the context of her other remarks, that smacks of a fixation with the well-being of a convicted criminal. Did the soft sentence imposed by Gordon serve as deliverance of Woloshyn from a lifetime of guilt and shame for killing an innocent man? It certainly didn’t square with the horrific circumstances of the crime.
…
Gordon imposed a legal sentence that serves only the well-being of Woloshyn; a sentence that is no deterrent to her or other like-minded drinking drivers; a sentence that is cruel to the Firenze family.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:OW7qgVl-gIwJ:www.nsnews.com/issues06/w030506/032206/opinion/032206op2.html+Justice+Ellen+Gordon&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
Need any more proof the Left is running the Justice System, bringing credence to the adage, “the law is an ass”?
Ummm, Ted Nancy, exactly when was the last time that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms amended to close a loophole? I’ll guess…never. Let the outrage continue on this subject.
IMHO, if you have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you must also have a Charter of Responsibilities and Obligations.
Prior to becoming a very accomodating judge Ellen Gordon used to defend ethnic drug gang members:
64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:3wkrlmntd6wJ:www.nsnews.com/issues98/w020998/02049802.html+Ellen+Gordon+lawyer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
More:
CTV Vancouver’s Renu Bakshi reports Gordon has issued some controversial sentences in the past.
Gordon granted an absolute discharge in the recent case of a Vancouver woman who poisoned trees to improve the view from her beach-front home. Gordon left her with no criminal record, claiming she had been sufficiently punished by the media throughout the ordeal.
In another case, Gordon sentenced a man who had molested his young step-daughter for years to one year in prison. In her ruling she noted “to his credit, there was never any sexual penetration.”
Oppal would not comment on whether his appeal represented criticism directed at Gordon.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060208/appeal_BC_060208/20060208?hub=Canada
Unacceptable ruling and unacceptable that this person still has the right to judge others. Reading the comments on her track record she should be run out of town. Her concern has nothing to do with good order and good government and the welfare of the society she is suppose to serve, rather she makes rulings that are clearly detrimental to the very things she has sworn to uphold. Send her packing.
so now every time a border agent wants to search a vehicle they need a warrant ?
= Border Gridlock Chaos.
The judge is Stuck on Stupid.
Big Time.
Good editorial here that includes some of the judge’s previous questionable decisions:
http://tinyurl.com/yregyv
And reflect on Judge Ellen Gordon the next time you hear somebody sneering at those stoopid Americans who make a lot of judges stand for election.
canada has been on a very dangerous slide for many years, We are reading & seeing more & more of these cases thrown out because of a charter that is based on ideals of socialism. Canadians need to send a strong message that these laws need changed, Unfortantly until canadians stop sending the soft on crime to government this will never happen.
if idiot judges judgement stands do we have to return the 50 bricks of coke? absolutely criminal decision on her part.
i don’t think anyone can possibly think that this idiot judge is right. fire her ass quick.
It appears that the upper bench (or now more precisely the Jurocracy in both the US and Canada) seems to be a dumping ground for Transnational progressivist trash with malignant social engineering agendas…there is less morality from the bench than there is in the devolved political arena…primarily because these kangaroos rubber stamp some of the most democratically degenerative political policy since the German Bundistadt.
…could be she’s suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome?
More of her lunacy….driver credited for not speeding. Unreal!
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060208/appeal_BC_060208/20060208?hub=Canada
Section 1 of the Charter says that Charter rights can be limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society.
This better be overturned on appeal. The Crown better have the nuts to pursue this! Too bad that judges who make a lot of bad judgements don’t get “retired.”
What if that vehicle had been filled with explosives instead of cocaine?
Idiot judge.
Is there some judicial review body that looks at judges’ decisions with a view to evaluate whether a judge is actually competent? This is a case of pure lunacy. This judge needs to retire or be retired real bad. With these kind of judgements from the bench, who needs cops?
It’s time judges were bound to the ensuing results of their overly lenient and irrational judgements (Often driven by the cultural identity of the perpetrator.)
Civil lawsuits, if not criminal convictions should apply.
Reminds me of the US border guard convictions that Lou Dobbs is all over, for good reason.
Whomever is in charge of the courts in BC should have this idiot removed immediately.And then overturn this idiotic ruling.
Friggin’ unbelievable. Do judges even understand the difference between the letter and spirit of the law outside their own subjectivity?
So we get rid of stupid lawyers by making them judges!
Now how do we get rid of STUPID judges??
BIG problems in the justice system and most of them are because of that cozy group known as the Law Society!
There is absolute proof that the lawyers cannot be left to regulate themselves and that the citizens and taxpayers of this country need to have the tools to protect ourselves from the abuses of these self serving groups!
I guess border guards need law degrees to do their job. This judge cannot be trusted with public protection, and, should, her decision be overturned, action should be taken to remove (if possible) her from the bench. I don’t think she has an axe to grind, she is just incompetent.
If this had been an airport, and the item found explosives, and the judge just happened to be onsite to issue an instant ruling, would she have insisted that the explosives be returned and the flight proceed as-planned?
ONLY IF SHE WASN’T ON THE FLIGHT.
This judge is 50 bricks short of a full load.
ron in kelowna, bryanr: a misreading and misapplication of the CRF does not invalidate the CRF itself. You would miss it if it were gone.
The CRF “You would miss it if it were gone.”
No … the BNA act worked just fine and this piece of social activist empowering legal poo does nothing but empower the Courts while undermining the rights of the public to be exercised through their democratically elected governments!
A monument to the massive ego and sick ideology of the commmie SOB Trudeau!
Yes border security, almost absolute power of the border guards is a totally reasonable limit on Freedom.
2 feet past the border where the regular cops would have picked up this person, totally different standards and rule apply.
As far as I am concerned a border guard has the right to do just about any search they feel like, within reason, of posessions, goods or vehicles.
Freedom of movement applies only within the borders…..you have a right to leave and a right of return but subject to terms and conditions that may change.
But guess what. The judge made waves and is now on a legal committee’s list somehwere for promotion.
a’dam – so do we continue to allow a judge to use the charter as she see’s it not as it is written, this would mean that every judge in canada would interpet the charter differently. No the charter is flawed to the fact that a criminal that has committed a crime & has been caught red handed should not have the charter to fall back on, but all to often they do, because of a misinterpetation by the judge. The charter was meant to protect the rights of the innocents, More & more we hear such cases where as the criminal has had more rights then the innocent Victim or has skirted the laws because of a misinterpetation of the charter as you say.
Therefore the Charter is flawed, commit a crime the only rights you should have is the right to legal counsel.
If this was the only ridiculous ruling by a Canadian judge, I would not be as worried as I am. However, there have been so many rulings in the last few years that are so insane. I can’t remember how many times I’ve heard of a criminal given house arrest for abusing children, drugs, etc. It is time to start electing judges. It is time they learn that they are not above questioning.
bryanr: More & more we hear such cases where as the criminal has had more rights then the innocent Victim or has skirted the laws because of a misinterpetation of the charter as you say.
Barbara: there have been so many rulings in the last few years that are so insane. I can’t remember how many times I’ve heard of a criminal given house arrest for abusing children, drugs, etc.
That would be because neither the media nor Kate has any interest in bringing to your attention the vast, vast majority of judgments in which the Charter is invoked reasonably to protect citizen rights and support the administration of justice. Instead, you only hear of exceptional cases in which the judgment is deemed poor, and often egregiously so.
Also, it may be worthwhile to withhold your criticisms until you go and actually read the judgment, which is readily available on the BC Provincial Court website. It’s far more nuanced than you might think, and hinges less on the Charter and more on provisions under the Customs Act.
Therefore the Charter is flawed, commit a crime the only rights you should have is the right to legal counsel.
Among the Chinese, there is a saying, “May you get what you want.” It’s considered a curse rather than a blessing. Are you sure you want to live in a state where accuseds (remember, most cases don’t involve evidence of guilt as obvious as a stash of cocaine hidden in one’s vehicle) are stripped of their fundamental rights?
OMMAG: this piece of social activist empowering legal poo does nothing but empower the Courts while undermining the rights of the public
That’s a rather odd position to take, OMMAG, considering that the ruling (of a voir dire application and not the defendant’s drug charges) prioritizes the rights of the public (read: individual) over the rights of the prosecutorial state.
Seriously, folks, go read the actual judgment. It doesn’t claim that privacy rights should be as stringent at the border as within it (in fact, it states the opposite), nor does it insist (as some here appear to believe it does) that border officers must apply for a search warrant every time they inspect a vehicle. You can critique the legal arguments of judgment all you like, but at the least, you should first familiarize yourself with them. Seems all your skepticism and criticism of the quality and accuracy of MSM reporting go right out the window when the story is something you believe in.
adam – I read the judgment; it’s ridiculous. No charter rights were violated.
Section 8 says that the individual has the right against ‘unreasonable search or seizure’. This is a border crossing; search of one’s vehicle is not unreasonable. Seizure of 50 bricks of cocaine is not an arbitrary act.
Section 9 says that everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained; the defendant wasn’t ‘arbitraryily detained’. Does the esteemed judge not know the definition of ‘arbitrary’? He was detained for good reason – a suspicion, a search, a conclusion.
Section 10- everyone has the right to counsel; he was advised of that.
Then, the idiot judge makes a great fuss about the need for a search warrant; that’s ridiculous. This means that any and all searches of cars and trucks at border crossings are illegal, unless the guard FIRST goes and finds a judge and then, obtains a search warrant. That would end all border searches.
The judgment is idiotic, is a blatant misuse of the charter – and the judge is an idiot.
As for the charter – it is, in my view, one of the most disastrous documents ever put into law in this country. We certainly had rights before, in our BNA act and in common law. It is nonsense to suggest that we had no ‘freedom’ before the Charter. That Charter has taken away our individual freedom. It demolishes the rights of the individual, privileging group rights over individual rights – and was set up primarily to install bilingualism and multiculturalism in this country. Both policies are disastrous.
ET; The accused was arbitrarily detained, and suffered an “‘unreasonable search or seizure”. It was NOT known that he was transporting drugs until hours had passed; hours of detainment. The news report is likely wrong, but no reasonable grounds for suspicion were mentioned.
This is 2007. The suspects demeanor can be captured on camera and presented to a judge. Drug and bomb sniffing dogs or computerised instrumentation can be on the scene 24/7.
From the viewpoint of a conservative who has reasonable civil libertarian values, the Judge was right.
The Border guards were lucky. In the typical case they would have caught someone smuggling in a 6 pack.
Making Canada an authoritarian regime is the objective of the leftards. Freedom to go about your lawful business goes above capturing $2.00 in customs fees and taxes.
no, gunny, this is a border crossing not a private home.
Kindly define why the individual was ‘arbitrarily’ detained. Did the border guards randomly select every fifth person? No. The individual’s behaviour aroused suspicion, based on long experience of behaviour at border crossings. That’s not an arbitrary act. Read the judgment; the border guards have a long experience and this makes their conclusions about which individual to search more thoroughly, based on knowledge, not randomness.
Searching the car was not ‘unreasonable’. What’s unreasonable about it?
Surely you are joking. Do you seriously suggest detaining the individual for hours, while you take photos of him to a judge – and ask the judge for a search warrant? What do you do with the individual and his truck in the meantime? Hmmm?
No, drugs and dogs aren’t necessarily on the scene 24/7 but this is irrelevant to the judge’s ridiculous opinion.
No, the border guards were not lucky, but knowledgeable and doing their job. The judge has not ensured our protection from drug runners, with her insistence that before any search, they must obtain a search warrant. Oh – are judges available 24/7 for these warrants? Hmmm? And what do they do with the individual while they run around and get a judge?
Most certainly, this case has zilch, nothing, nada, to do with the Charter – and everything to do with a violation of our rights as citizens to be protected from drug runners.
$2.00 in custom duties? Hey – we are talking about 50 bricks of cocaine. Kindly don’t introduce a trivial red herring about a ‘six pack of beer’. The issue is someone bringing in cocaine into the country – and a judge rejecting the cocaine action – and instead, declaring that the border guards ‘violated his charter rights’ by not getting a search warrant before they searched his car.
And they searched ‘arbitrarily’ – how the heck does one search ‘not arbitrarily’? Only when the individual declares cocaine?
Freedom to go about his lawful business? 50 bricks of cocaine is lawful? Oh- and how would you suggest that the border guards ‘lawfully’ find this cocaine stashed in a special hole in his car – if they aren’t allowed to search his car, aren’t allowed to detain him while they search, aren’t allowed to stop his car for the search -because that’s an arbitrary act. How the heck are they going to find the cocaine if they aren’t allowed to do anything other than bow and wave him through the border? Well?
ET is correct in stating “everthing to do a violation of our rights as citizens to be protected from drug runners”
What if this was not drugs but a cache of weapons destined for the streets of vancouver or even worse Explosives destined for a major building or bridge in vancouver, would this judge make the same decision. As i said before we are all too often seeing Judges interpeting the Charter in their eyes.
ET also makes valid points in stating what the sections say, this has nothing to do with the charter.Also We cannot be running for a search order every time as ET stated this not the streets or private homes we are talking Customs agents working our enormous borders without the proper tools, Only to see a fool for a judge throw another monkey wrench into the system, good gawd no wonder these people(Customs) are so frustrated in their jobs.
ET: Section 8 says that the individual has the right against ‘unreasonable search or seizure’. This is a border crossing; search of one’s vehicle is not unreasonable.
And Justice Gordon agrees with you. Searching a car at a border crossing is indeed not unreasonable–but only at the border, as a consequence of its exigent nature. If an offense is detected, then due process demands that the suspect be detained while a search warrant is obtained to authorize any subsequent breach of privacy (so as to protect individual rights, by the way). It’s this latter constitutional protection that was violated, not the initial search. I quote from the judgment…
Para 132: “In the border context, a search warrant is not required if the Canada Border Services Agency inspector has a reasonable suspicion that a vehicle that is entering Canada contains contraband.”
Para 150: “I am of the view that prior knowledge of vehicles pre-fitted for smuggling, an ill-fitting truck bed liner and a hollow sound after a tap-test fall more on the side of the line toward lucky hunch than on the reasonable suspicion side. However, it is very close and for the purpose of this analysis, I will assume a reasonable suspicion on the part of Inspectors Grewal and Ingalls.”
Paras 151-158: “The difficulty for the Crown, however, is what occurred after the truck was twice drilled into. The port of entry did not contain a secure search bay. The vehicle therefore had to be taken to another port of entry in order for it to be dismantled and searched…Section 111 is not superfluous…Here, once the vehicle was drilled into and white powder was located, there were no longer any exigent circumstances…Once the exigent circumstances ceased to exist, and Mr. Sekhon was detained, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police called, and the search had to be delayed to effect transport of the truck, Section 99(1)(f) was no longer the applicable section of the Customs Act: Section 111 was. In such circumstances it was incumbent upon the investigators to seek the judicial authorization of a search warrant. They did not.
Section 10- everyone has the right to counsel; he was advised of that.
Yes, but only after 31 minutes of being detained. The s.10 violation is a minor finding in the ruling.
This means that any and all searches of cars and trucks at border crossings are illegal, unless the guard FIRST goes and finds a judge and then, obtains a search warrant. That would end all border searches.
Wrong again, ET. Justice Gordon suggests no such thing. Like the Vancouver Sun, you seem to have glossed over the specifics of her judgment. In addition to para 132, quoted above, there is also…
Para 133-134: “The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Jacques & Mitchell (supra), that reasonable suspicion is what is required to conduct a search in the border context and that prior authorization in the form of a search warrant in such circumstances is not necessary…The reasons are obvious: the border context is, by its very nature, an exigent circumstance for all concerned…In such obvious exigent circumstances, the need for a reduced expectation of privacy and the concomitant lowered standard for search are apparent.”
The judgment is idiotic, is a blatant misuse of the charter – and the judge is an idiot. As for the charter…That Charter has taken away our individual freedom.
Think about the contradictory positions you’re taking here. Justice Gordon’s ruling upholds the legal rights of the defendant (an individual) at the expense of the prosecution’s (i.e., the state’s) case. Yet, in one breathe, you condemn her use of the Charter, and in the very next, claim that the Charter has taken freedoms away from individuals. How can you say that the Charter robs Canadians of their rights and freedoms if, in this very ruling, it was used to protect an individual Canadian’s rights and freedoms?
Trudeau’s Charter;
To gurantee the ‘rights’ of the druggies, the child molestors, the slackies, the hyppys and the law breakers. The chater-right for them to “earn” a living. Screw-up in Canada and you will be saved. Canada rewards failure, not success.
bryanr: Also We cannot be running for a search order every time as ET stated this not the streets or private homes we are talking Customs agents working our enormous borders without the proper tools,
No, this is not what Justice Gordon implies is required. Refer to my above comment, and better yet, to the original judgment.
Gordon J. in fact acknowledges that border crossings constitute an exigent circumstance, which allows customs officers to perform certain searches without warrants. So relax, despite what the Vancouver Sun would have you believe, there’s still no need for a court order to first be obtained.
However, in this case, once cocaine was detected (via a power drill search method), exigent circumstances no longer applied. It became incumbent on the officers to detain the suspect, impound the vehicle and transport it away from the border zone, and obtain a judicial order prior to commencing a fuller search (dismantling the vehicle). The defense’s voir dire challenge focused on the fact that (i) exigent circumstances no longer applied, and (ii) that the required warrant for this latter search was not obtained. As you can see, the matter is not as simple as “The officers didn’t get a warrant before searching Mr. Sekhon’s car.”
no, adam –
you say that ‘if an offense is detected, then you must get a search warrant’. That doesn’t make any sense. How would you know an offense, eg smuggling in cocaine, exists, without a search? How do you ‘detect’ that cocaine without a search?
A knowledge of how a car can be altered to contain contraband goods is not a ‘lucky hunch’ but a conclusions derived from experience. So what if the truck had to be moved from one place to another, so that they could do a more thorough search? Are you seriously saying that any time a thorough search is required, a search warrant is required? Who says so? This is a border, not a private home.
Right – there’s no need for a search warrant, so why then does she blather on and on, about the requirement for one? her tactic is to briefly acknowledge the normative rules at the border, ie, search, no search warrant, and then, continue on to show how those normative rules are invalid.
Yeah, I’m thinking about the legal rights of the individual. The right and freedom to import cocaine. That’s what you support.
I think differently. As soon as he made that choice, to import cocaine, he lost his legal rights to anything other than a trial. You know, we have rights too- to be protected from cocaine dealers. But you, adam, ignore our rights.
That is ridiculous – to state that once the officers detected cocaine, then, they should have obtained a search warrant. Nonsense. What is the fine line of differentiation between searching for and finding a ‘fine white powder’ and dismantling and finding 50 bricks of cocaine? When does a search move out of your cursory ‘border search’ and into your ‘violation of my rights as a drug smuggler search’?
So, if a border guard detects a false trunk of a car, and opens it, tears back the cover and finds guns and materials for bombs – is that a violation of the individual rights of the terrorist?
What you ignore, adam, is our rights to be protected against criminal activity. The Charter doesn’t apply in these border cases. The search was not arbitrary, was not ‘unreasonable’ etc.
My god – protecting the criminal because he’s an individual. Isn’t he something more than an individual? Namely, someone with the intent to harm?
Actually if you check the background and connections of the Supreme Court judges and many of the others in the Canadian Justice system, it lead you to Canada’s hotbed of social stupidity, McGill University in Montreal Quebec.
Do the names Zacardelli or Cottler ring a bell?
And to the narrow little band of the Ottawa River Valley (strike up the Deliverance music please), which was/is considered by the Liberal party to be the epitomy of Canadian culture, ie bilingual and bicultural, French-English only, of course.
Again I point out that the past and present justice system was appointed/picked to impose the Official Bilingualism and Biculturalism and Quebec socialism (many would call it fascism) to all aspects of social order upon unsuspecting Canadians, who mistakenly thought the Justice system was there to administer JUSTICE.
Sorry folks, not in this country.
That’s why we have had farmers thrown in jail for selling a bucket of their own grain, at exactly the same time a native woman in BC was sentenced to 2 yrs probation after stabbing her commonlaw husband to death.
Clearly to the Liberal justice system, the grain farmers represented a bigger threat to Canadian society than the woman who stabbed her husband to death.
Like I’ve always said, if Western Canada is going to have morons running our part of the country, then we might as well be electing our own morons.
Dion and Layton better keep that in mind.