Warrant ruling shock for border guards

Opinion
Barry Artiste, Now Public Contributor

In Summary, Well don't this beat all, a Cocaine Smuggler crosses the  US/Canada Border at Aldergrove, BC. Canadian  Customs Officers  Drug Sniffing Dogs detect  traces of drugs, Customs officers dismantle the truck and discover  50 kilos of cocaine, criminal arrested, Provincial Judge Ms. Ellen Gordon promptly rules out the drug seizure as Officers violated the Criminal Mr Sekhon's Charter of Rights and Freedom, acquits Mr. Sekhon.

In ending
In 1995, I was involved in he implementation of the US/Canada Shared Border Accord travelling across Canada and in particular the Western Region on the Taxpayers Dime spending countless long hours away from family. I now realise I and many of us in the US/Canada Law Enforcement community pretty much wasted out time. Furthermore, Our CCRA Department was always asked by our Federal Justice Department to provide additional taxpayer money for ongoing advice, when I and my colleagues drafted countless MOU's and Laws on how to prevent such idiocy and provide additonal Officer Powers at Border Facilities, somehow the Canadian Federal Justice Department took the taxpayer's money and ran on this issue.

The Canadian and US Customs Officers I am sure must be stunned by this ruling looking at each other and state WTF?

So much for the Shared Border Accord meant to create a border that is flexible enough to accommodate the economic interests and permit the protection of the health and safety of the citizens of both countries. It looks like it protects only the criminal.

My Final Thought
Provincial Judges should have no say in Federal Border Issues, it happened on Federal Land, so Federal Laws should apply, otherwise Taxpayers should demand the Federal Justice Department give back Millions in Taxpayer Dollars for failing to warn us.

As for our Non Existent Nancy Laws in this province, I am currently involved in two Large scale Methamphetamine I&R's (Surrey and Richmond), to my surprise after my investigation, I was surprised when my partner and I arrive at the scene and my partner states "I have been here before" last year this used to be a Grow Op. I check back on my computer and "Bingo" sure enough it is the same residence, still owned by the same person from the year before when it was a Large Scale Grow Op. I say to my partner WTF are we doing here again? So my partner and I suit up wondering if it is worth our health or worse getting blown up for.
Things we do for a paycheque to protect the public.

What frustrates me is these criminals on each of these large scale Meth Labs are walking around the Lower Mainland Free on Bail, not to mention they are not Canadian Citizens, but visitors to this country, who most likely will get a small fine and be allowed to enjoy Canada and it's Nancy Laws for many years to come without jail or deportation. "Something is Rotten In Denmark" and it's our Nancy Judges and Laws meant to protect us.

So Now Public Readers who have read my Opinion pieces and feel I am a little to opinionated and non PC with a dash of Diatribe, now know where I am coming from. Welcome to my World.

[q url="http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=af369b83-3e47-4f23-b074-ff5cd5448174&k=68097"]VANCOUVER - Canada's border guards fear they will have to significantly change procedures after a B.C. provincial court judge threw out a drug-smuggling case because there had been no search warrant.

The Canada Border Service Agency is appealing the ruling by B.C. Provincial Court Judge Ellen Gordon last week that acquitted Ajitpal Singh Sekhon of importing 50 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The ruling by Ms. Gordon is believed to be the first of its kind in Canada. She ruled 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 and dismantled the truck Mr. Sekhon was driving.
The guards lacked a search warrant. The ruling meant the drugs seized were excluded from the evidence against Mr. Sekhon./q]