US continues to export freedom: Pressures Canada in piracy (We're #1!)

[Fake Boris]

I am really looking forward to police officers stopping me in a park and browsing the pictures on my camera because I "look like" I might be into kiddie porn.

[Ecofarm]

Once again...

The statement does not request the removal of all search and seizure laws. It only asks for the removal of a court order being required for border guards to seize materials obtained in a legal manner.

And, in case you didn't know... cops seize things in Canada without court orders a thousand times per day.

[giblets]

Once again.

The statement does not request the removal of all search and seizure laws. It only asks for the removal of a court order being required for border guards.

That is your interpretation. How the hell would a border guard be able to establish probable cause that someone has engaged in piracy? Your interpretation doesn't make sense unless a border guard can do that.

[Fake Boris]

Right, because border agents have nothing better to do than to look at my binders to see if my books have been illegally photocopied.

[Ecofarm]

I, for one, support the total elimination of Canada's justice system... as per the statement.


Further, I move that we eliminate probable cause and reasonable suspicion from our own laws... as per gribbler cannot imagine how such a thing could exist in the first place.



Let's face it people!

Canada's justice system (beyond court orders) and PC/RS are merely figments of our imagination. They don't exist in reality. Deal with it.

[Fake Boris]

Border agents can search for pretty well any reason or none at all, IIRC.

The point is that they can't do anything about it when they find counterfeit/pirated goods.

True, their right to search goes far beyond that of the police, understandably so.

Why not limit their powers to things that make sense at the border level?

[giblets]

I, for one, support the total elimination of Canada's justice system... as per the statement.


Further, I move that we eliminate probable cause and reasonable suspicion from our own laws... as per gribbler cannot imagine how such a thing could exist in the first place.

speaking of strawmen...

Look, the statement is either advocating that border guards seize things when probable cause of piracy exists, or advocating that the seize things because of their personal suspicions of piracy. Why should we accept your claim that the second interpretation isn't valid if you can't offer any examples of probable cause?

if a border guard can't establish probable cause that someone engaged in piracy, the US would not care whether Canadian border guards are able to seize things on the basis of probable cause of piracy because it wouldn't make a difference

[Ecofarm]

if you can't offer any examples of probable cause?

I already admitted it.








Actually, there might not be at the border

[giblets]

So I guess Asher's interpretation is just as valid as yours. In other words not a strawman

[Ecofarm]

His interpretation is total BS.

Noone has ever had their laptop seized at the border for a couple regular movies, and noone ever will.

[Asher]

I never said they did.

Interesting how you keep breaking out the strawmen.

[Ecofarm]

You claimed it was the purpose of the statement.

how dare Canada not seize laptops if the border guard may think your movie is pirated sans court order.

Fact is, nobody gives a crap about someone's laptop with a couple movies and noone ever will.

[Asher]

That's still a strawman of yours no matter how much you try to pretend it wasn't.

[Flubber]

Cops, yes - even in Canada - do not normally need a court order to execute a search and seizure. They usually just need reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

.

AHEM-- THey usually need a warrant. many exceptions but see the two links if you actually care about reality

See here http://www.criminaljustice.org/publi...1?opendocument

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/917-e.htm

[Ecofarm]

Your first article says nothing of the sort. But it does say this:

Search and seizure is one area where Canada has been clearly influenced by American constitutional principles. Our Charter,1 proclaimed in 1982, is in its infancy compared to the Bill of Rights. Thus, we regularly turn to American cases to assess how U.S. courts approach searches at the border, searches of people in cars, body cavity searches, and any number of the many and varied fact situations which give rise to intrusion into privacy interests.

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter says everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. Although it is worded quite differently and lacks the express warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, our Supreme Court has interpreted Section 8 in a manner consistent with the American approach set out in Katz v. United States:2 A warrantless search is presumed to be an unreasonable search.

The second article also does not say "seizures usually require a warrant". But it does say this:

In Collins v. The Queen, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the Crown has the burden of establishing that a warrantless search is reasonable; a search will be reasonable if it is authorized by a law that is reasonable and is carried out in a reasonable manner.

Neither article says anything about court orders and seizures. They are about warrants and searches. The US statement in question is specifically about seizure, not searches.