https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...outside-search-powers-in-child-porn-case.html
says CSBA can only search for border and customs evidence.
says CSBA can only search for border and customs evidence.
Fully agree with you, Crown will argue section 1 of charter.I think there is a fairly decent chance that this will get overturned on appeal.
Until convicted of some crime, or at least arrested and charged, this person has every right you or I have. That's what our laws and Charter say.Really is there anyone who can argue for the rights of a pedophile?
If you have nothing to hide you should not worry about a search like this, dude had videos on his cell and probably more in his home
Plus he had issues with his border crossing anyways (claimed student but not in school, was working full time)
Glad there are still people who think like you oldjones. I don't think the general public understands the importance of defending our rights. Especially our right to privacy (Sections 7 and 8 of the Charter) in this increasingly invasive era.Until convicted of some crime, or at least arrested and charged, this person has every right you or I have. That's what our laws and Charter say.
Seeing as you posted on Canada Day I hope you and all Canadians would argue for those rights.
I'm not denying that this guy deserved to get caught. He did. But I am vehemently against any unwarranted search.If you have nothing to hide you should not worry about a search like this
The difficulty with your argument is that the judge did declare the search unwarranted, so the guy you say deserved to get caught walked free. In spite of the evidence.Glad there are still people who think like you oldjones. I don't think the general public understands the importance of defending our rights. Especially our right to privacy (Sections 7 and 8 of the Charter) in this increasingly invasive era.
I can't stand it when someone says this:
I'm not denying that this guy deserved to get caught. He did. But I am vehemently against any unwarranted search.
The reasons are numerous. You could have items in your position that, while not illegal, are highly embarrassing. Or they could be confidential in nature. Also, such a search could be highly disruptive or even damage your property. Border officials may also deny you entry if they even suspect you have committed a criminal offense, even if there's no hard evidence to support that suspicion.
I'm also highly surprised that anyone on this forum would be okay with this. If US border officials suspect you are visiting escorts, you can be banned indefinitely from entering their country. Without even being convicted of an offense!
Well said my fellow terb member :applouse:Glad there are still people who think like you oldjones. I don't think the general public understands the importance of defending our rights. Especially our right to privacy (Sections 7 and 8 of the Charter) in this increasingly invasive era.
I can't stand it when someone says this:
I'm not denying that this guy deserved to get caught. He did. But I am vehemently against any unwarranted search.
The reasons are numerous. You could have items in your position that, while not illegal, are highly embarrassing. Or they could be confidential in nature. Also, such a search could be highly disruptive or even damage your property. Border officials may also deny you entry if they even suspect you have committed a criminal offense, even if there's no hard evidence to support that suspicion.
I'm also highly surprised that anyone on this forum would be okay with this. If US border officials suspect you are visiting escorts, you can be banned indefinitely from entering their country. Without even being convicted of an offense!
I legitimately think far too many "rights" are being abusedSeeing as you posted on Canada Day I hope you and all Canadians would argue for those rights.
But they HAD a legitmate right to search as I posted aboveThe difficulty with your argument is that the judge did declare the search unwarranted, so the guy you say deserved to get caught walked free. In spite of the evidence.
As for the suspicion part, that's how border agents work. Thyey've seen you for all of the three seconds it took you to approach their station. All they know is what they see on a 'puter screen and what's gtoing on with the person in front of them. If they're ever going to stop anyone in their effort to keep the True North strong and free they must go on suspicion.
And for all that I too get riled when people toss off our rights with offhand cliche's like TeeJay's, the only smart way to cross any border is with nothing to hide.
This phone search case is analogous to the classic traffic-stop car search that turns up drugs or guns, but gets thrown out at trial. Law enforcement properly engaged in their lawful duties — legitimately checking the cell-phone to verify the owner's statement — may stumble across incriminating material unrelated to their proper enquiry — noticing the rolling papers and the smell of weed when the driver rolls down the window.But they HAD a legitmate right to search as I posted above
The ISSUE that CBSA was looking into was a non citizen possibly working illegally (he was)
The PROBLEM is that during a legitimate search they overstepped their bounds and instead found evidence of a worse crime (possession of child porn)
Either way we both know the cops are going to watch him now and first chance they get a legit warrant
But the fact they found this evidence should be admissible imo regardless of the fact the CBSA overstepped their limits (and as you mentioned above re US border, they frequently do overstep limits as they really have no oversight)
But as my phone does not contain child porn or hobby info I could care less if someone looks at it
I'd rather a guilty person walk free than have our rights thrown in the trash bin and set on fire. Governments will only gain more power over the population as tech improves, as too will their ability to manipulate us into giving away our rights in the interest of "security". There's a reason we have the presumption of innocence in court, and it certainly isn't to protect the bad guys.The difficulty with your argument is that the judge did declare the search unwarranted, so the guy you say deserved to get caught walked free. In spite of the evidence.
I disagree with nothing you have said; indeed I've said the same, before and expect to again. I share your preference, but I'm trying to point out that, as a society we don't want mere customs guys puzzling over tough philosophical balances between privacy and the public good. We want them to stop the bomb-plotters and the pornmongers and the pimps with their trafficked sex-slaves. Here, right here. Right now.I'd rather a guilty person walk free than have our rights thrown in the trash bin and set on fire. Governments will only gain more power over the population as tech improves, as too will their ability to manipulate us into giving away our rights in the interest of "security". There's a reason we have the presumption of innocence in court, and it certainly isn't to protect the bad guys.