Another escort detained at the border

[Nue2thegame]

21 minutes ago, DrownedBoy said:

Worse sometimes. I know of one Russian woman who was caught in America trying to marry a 70 year old man. After getting removed, although technically it's only 10 years, in reality there's no chance of then getting naturalized.

Ah, the difference between a sex worker and a gold digger but forgive me if I’m being presumptuous. 

[jayjaycali]

It is noble to want to empower the authorities.  

However I feel there's a different possible viewpoint on giving border officers broad discretion .  

Giving the government 'broad discretion' is like giving every cop a Skeleton Key to your front door. They say it’s so they can 'check if the stove is on' or 'make sure you're safe,' but at the end of the day, it’s still your door. I don't care how 'nice' the cop is; I don’t want a stranger walking through my living room whenever he has a 'hunch.'

I’m not trying to put the cops in a "straitjacket." If they see smoke coming out of the window, they should absolutely kick the door down. That’s Evidence. But they shouldn't be allowed to use that Skeleton Key just because I seem like the type of person prone to house fires.

And here's the thing: Having a lock on the door doesn't stop the cop from being a "good guy." If he comes in because the house is on fire and sees an expired tag on your car, he can still choose to ignore it. Restraining his power to enter doesn't take away his power to be merciful.

An alternative to broad discretion does not have to be rigid application, it can be restrained discretion according to precise laws not vague hunches.  

 

Ironically in a Canadian Prescreen area travellers like Milo are protected by Canadian Charter Rights against unreasonable search and R v Canfield, whereas these protections don't exist to prevent similar phone searches in the USA. 

 

 

Edited 13 hours ago by jayjaycali

[+ SirBillybob]

R vs Canfield distinguished electronic devices from routine ‘goods’ searches at the border. Prior to that, phones were effectively fair game with no device-specific threshold. The Court introduced a requirement often framed as ‘reasonable general concern.’ That doesn’t gut border search powers; it moves the threshold off zero. In practical terms, it’s more a speed bump than a barrier. Which is why the Canada/U.S. rights asymmetry here is easy to overstate; the two systems are closer in effect than the rhetoric suggests.

I have been flagged a few times for secondary inspection when returning home to Canada, based on simple math probability metrics if not travel patterns as well. If my phone were to be confiscated for search … and the distinction here between forensic concern and visitor visa violation concern is also relevant … I would not have the option to ‘opt out’ in the same way a Canadian in US preclearance has that prerogative (not to romanticize it, because walking away doesn’t nullify refusal dispositions) but I would certainly reference my Charter rights, the Alberta and Ontario cases, ask for CBSA’s interpretation of general concern in the inspection context, and document it. Only for formality, as they could have at it with no objection on my part pre- or post- Charter rights-based ruling. How I am kitted out for sex tourism abroad, as reflected in residual unused items in my luggage, is far more private and revealing.

Finally, for visitors plying specialized consulting services up here involving payment in kind for time delivered, occupation on its own won’t justify a device search by CBSA but won’t insulate you from one either. 

Edited 6 hours ago by SirBillybob

[jayjaycali]

'zero' threshold means unchallenged power, while 'non-zero' means Accountability. Well, my perspective at least. 

For Milo though as he was unprepared, I can certainly believe this threshold was a minor speed bump for the officers.  They were professionals who know how to use the interview to establish suspicion for the search after which the search would be conducted regardless 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by jayjaycali

[+ SirBillybob]

Even if suspicion crystallized during the interview that time, Milo’s prior uneventful US entries don’t rule out that officers came in this time with information. He himself - and the various media commentary - floated ads, facial recognition, or a tip-off. Omitting that makes it look like officers had to manufacture suspicion, which isn’t the only plausible read. And cross-border activity in that “space” clearly isn’t uniformly enforced (AFAIK wrt other performers), which further complicates any single-cause explanation. 

Edited 1 hour ago by SirBillybob

[mike carey]

For anyone wondering (those in certain jurisdictions, including the province of Alberta, the relevant jurisdiction in this case, would probably know), the 'R v' part is the abbreviation for (in this case) 'Regina versus', as criminal prosecutions in Canada and the other Commonwealth Realms are conducted in the name of the Crown, the Queen at that time. (A prosection today would be 'Rex v'.)