Judge Ellen Gordon has amassed quite a menu of horrible rulings in her short time as a provincial court judge in British Columbia. She was appointed in 2005. Since then she:
- Acquitted an impaired driver who was stopped by BSO's at Boundary Bay and had his vehicle searched. She ruled the search was illegal because it was simply a pretext to detain the man for impaired.
- Delayed the sentence of another impaired driver ... who killed someone ... so that the accused could spend Christmas with her family (too bad the deceased victim couldn't do the same). Her sentence was only 2 years anyway, and it was overturned on appeal.
- Tossed out a search warrant which resulted in a seizure of 600+ marihuana plants in a B.C. grow up, mainly because the police officers chose to telephone their warrant application, instead of go to the court house across the street.
- Gave out an absolute discharge (essentially the same as an acquittal, but with a finding of guilt) to a woman who poisoned a stand of trees, just so she could get a better view of Stanley Park from her $1-million condo
My question is, once they detained him on suspicion of carrying contraband after the drug dog detected something and after they found the hidden compartment, why couldn't they fill out the paper work and get the search warrant?
In ref to section 99 of the C.A. as long as the traveller is not taken out of the "normal stream" of exams, they do not have to be detained/arrested. It has already been ruled that for the greater good of society some of your Charter rights can be "ignored" when crossing the border. One of these rights is the right against unlawful search and seizure. There is very strong case law from the SCC that states explicitly that Customs does not have to obtain a search warrant to exam a vehicle. Whether it is a cursory exam or an evasive exam
of a conveyance. If the CBSA had to get a search warrant for every vehicle that a dog hit on or a suspected cavity/void or an outright trap was detected, a JP would be needed on a fulltime basis just for that. It is somewhat a regular occurrence.
A person can be held up to 24hrs for a loo exam...that is sitting on a toilet until you generally have 2 clean bowel movements. After the 24hrs the BSO has to go to a JP for a hold. A subject cannot be compelled to have x-rays or a cavity exam. This is a daily event at Pearson, Vancouver or Montreal airports.
Zipperhead, quick question, how long can you guys keep a guy to "cool down" before you have to place him under arrest?
To answer for Zipperhead. As soon as you believe an offense has been committed, the person should be informed they are under arrest at that time.
I have limited Customs knowledge, but if you refuse to let your vehicle be searched you can get arrested for a charge of Hindering. There is a more wordy name for it, I just don't know it. It's like Obstructing a Peace Officer, but CBSA specific.
Zipperhead you are almost right on. The charge is hindering an officer in the performance of their duty. Minimum penalty is a $1000 fine and/or a 6 month sentence. That means if you refuse to allow an officer to exam your vehicle, refuse to produce identification, refuse to take off your sunglasses etc, you can be arrested for Hindering. All of the examples I provided are of convictions for hinderance.
With this ruling, nothing has changed in the day to day operation at the border. I doubt it will make it past the BC court of appeal. The SCC has already on this several times.
Or Portcullis Guy?
