Sting operation

[twinwinds]

Did anyone else get stopped by the RCMP or American Coast guard/Police over the weekend? A friend of mine got stopped and searched 3 times by 3 different officers from the U.S. and Canada in 1 day! They cruised by me a couple times but never stopped. I was just off Coal island in Sidney and my buddy was out near Pender fishing. The American boat that cruised by me was a zodiac type vessel with 3 300hp Verados on the back...it skipped along pretty good.

Something must be going on?

[twinwinds]

Oh and I found it odd for American authorities to do searches on Canadian vessels in Canadian waters? Didn't know they could do that?

[pescador]

This was in the newspaper last week. They said during the Olympics that special operations would be conducted where US and Canadian authorities would be working together on a joint effort to ensure security was maintained for the Olympics. It said that US Coast Guard boats would have Canadian officers on board and that Candian Coast Guard and Police would have US authorities on board. Sounds like good cooperation focussed at maintaining our mutual security.

Matador

[twinwinds]

Yeh for sure.....better shake down those hali fisherman!.....Might mis-use a hali harpoon or something...[xx(] Just a little Pi**ed about the amount of money spent on Olympic security! they should throw a little towards salmon enhancement instead...........

[adrianna3]

Yeah, I saw them out by Porlier Pass on Saturday cruising around. They didn't come to search me, though.

[vetteman]

quote:Originally posted by adrianna3

Yeah, I saw them out by Porlier Pass on Saturday cruising around. They didn't come to search me, though.




Any fish down by Porlier?
Dave

[Humpy]

We were boarded on anchor outside Victoria....US coast guard on a canadian "police boat" we were just pulling the anchor for the night , and they said they were just starting their all night shift[8)]

[beemer]

If the RCMP continue this type of boarding we should get together and put in a official complaint. Boats cannot be boarded without just cause in Canadian waters. Officials can ask you to produce papers and show gear ,but they cannot come on your boat OR tie off on your boat unless they have just cause that an offence has been committed.

This crap of using American Coast Guard boats with a single RCMP officer in Canadian waters is a direct attack on the sovereignty of our waters and can't be tolerated.

If anyone carries a video camera and has this happen to them , get some tape and I will make sure it gets to the right people.

beemer

[twinwinds]

Have to agree with you on that one

cheers

[Tofinoguy]

If you're not doing anything wrong then what's the problem?

[Whole in the Water]

Just another example of how our cherished rights and freedoms get trampled in the unquestioned name of security.[xx(]

Long live wild salmon!!!
><))))>

[twinwinds]

The inconvenience of being boarded......I think there alot more pressing issues in Canada than to go out and bother someone trying to catch a few fish? A friend of mine was told to kill the power on his engine and in the mean time got snagged and lost all his gear along with new spool of power pro.
fisherman that much of a threat to security? give me a break

[pescador]

I am willing at anytime allow authorities to board my boat. The world has changed and the protection of my family and country is more important to me than a few minutes of minor inconvenience while I'm on the water. Although we live in a country that hasn't been effected by terrorist activity, that doesn't preclude it happening. You might take a different view on this if you were in New York 9/11. I guess you forgot we have an international event being watched by millions of people around the world every day right now that could be a podium for for someone trying to get global attention.

Matador

[Charlie]

It is called the “Integrated Border Enforcement Teams” (IBET). “It is a multi-agency law enforcement teams that target cross-border criminal activity. There are IBETs operating in all regions, on land and sea, along the border. The importance of IBETs has been heightened by the new reality of terrorism and the need to enhance border integrity. The operational model is a partnership where information-sharing is used to stay one step ahead of criminals and terrorists.” It’s actually been going on since 1996 and has just been “beefed up” (by agreement) due to the Olympics. It consists of the:
Canada Border Services Agency
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/le/bs/ibet-eng.aspx

As far as being boarded? If “any” of the above “in either waters” request information, or asks to board - I would highly suggest you give them the information and let them board, especially if you are fishing! If you don’t, you may not like the results! I also don’t think I would suggest just getting the camera out and start filming, that might not go over to well? There are many agreements in place that apply like the following:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div6&view=text&node=50:7.0.2.11.1.9&idno=50

[beemer]

Pretty slippery slope. Would you allow a American Police Officer into your home and search it without any cause?? That is what is happening on the water.

Canada is truly the land of the free and needs to remain free. I get we all need to be protected from terrorists , drugrunners etc. that is why we have probable cause regarding searches. Just because it happens on the water does not change those rights.

Since 911 the fearmongers have whipped up hysteria to a ridiculous proportion and it has taken away many of our basic rights and freedoms , I do not want to be subjected to a search at random nor should I have to.

Charlie , Enforcement agencies have always created "agreements" amongst themselves to create work for their own .Many of these agreements are actually illegal under law and have yet to be tested in court. The Enforcement agencies are controlled by politicians , don't like what happening , put pressure on your politicians and voila the "agreements" change.

Our Countries are not any safer because of random checks , they are a tool to incite fear plain and simple.

In the words of my favourite band the Clash :

WHEN THEY KICK AT YOUR FRONT DOOR , HOW YOU GONNA COME?? WITH YOUR HANDS ON YOUR HEAD OR ON THE TRIGGER OF YOUR GUN???

[lazoman]

Touchy subject, but there will always be neighsayers, whether it's; Look how much they spent on security for the Olympics, (Go Canada), Someone want's to check out my boat/contents while I am within the designated security zone, Some businesses having hardships due to closures, take your pick. None of these however would equal the rash of public wrath during the aftermath of Heaven forbid something should happen. Why didn't THEY do something to protect us ????? My boat's got nothing to hide.

[Charlie]

Hmmm… I am not so sure who has read Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I don’t think it is very slippery? There is a difference between a boat and home, unless your boat is your home? Sorry, but if that is the case, you have given up some of those rights, as soon as you start those engines and begin moving.

Probable cause is actually a U.S. term. I believe "Unreasonable search and seizure" is the Canadian term. :)

Section 8: the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure gives everyone the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. Section 8 affects the laws that permit the police to search your home or place of business, your car, or even you, in certain circumstances. It also affects the actions of individual police officers. Section 8 protects property if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. So before police can search or seize, they must have a good reason to do so. The search without a warrant could be unreasonable, and therefore, violate section 8. But section 8 does not protect your privacy in all cases where you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy, those places aren’t included. (e.g. front seat of your car or the deck of your boat).

Regarding, "Enforcement agencies” "agreements", it happens to be a little higher… as in “International Agreement between Countries”! Well above your local enforement agency!

Now this one really gets me!
quote: Our Countries are not any safer because of random checks , they are a tool to incite fear plain and simple I cannot believe that statement! Should I start with why we now have to take our shoes off at the airport - or just go to “how soon we forget” about the al-Qaida-trained terrorist Ahmed Ressam, who was captured in Port Angeles coming off the ferry from Victoria, with a carload of explosives in 1999, which was two years before 9/11! You now have the Olympics going on and your government, with the cooperation of the U.S. government have established a “protection zone” in which they are doing “random” checks… for your benefit and safety. I personally have “NO PROBLEM” with either Canadians or U.S. military or police boarding my boat inside that zone and doing a random check! The right to your privacy may be considered secondary by your government - in lieu of any type of bomb (nuclear or otherwise), anthrax, or a even a 747 crashing into Whistler? Especially since there is already a terrorist threat history? What are you thinking?

As far as right to privacy, that is a very valued thing and guaranteed in both countries! However, if referring to the our Fourth Amendment or your Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they would apply to criminal law, not civil law. So, I guess whatever illegal substances found while doing an illegal search – can’t be used against you. However, keep in mind while performing a”routine” stop and search – it can!

Speaking of right to privacy, all have heard and know of, “Every man’s home is his castle” that was a highly respected principle that was enshrined in Semayne’s Case in 1603. It was one of the consequences of these arbitrary powers that led to the American Revolution, which ended with the American colonies declaring independence from England - forming basis of the United States of America. Also, resulted in the American Constitution and Bill of Rights Fourth Amendment.

The Canadian history was one of a gradual evolution - rather than a revolution. Section 8 of the Canadian Charter was proclaimed in 1982. Canada’s “search and seizure” is one area where Canada has been clearly influenced by American constitutional principles. Canada Supreme Court regularly turns 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 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, the Canadian Supreme Court has interpreted Section 8 in a manner consistent with the American approach, which was set out in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment covered a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy", rather than solely on whether that person's property had been intruded upon: A warrantless search is presumed to be an unreasonable search. A rreasonable expectation of a person’s privacy was established. The Canadian Court agreed that the protection provided by Section 8 was to people and not to places. In addition, the Court held that what is protected is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Canada Court laid down guidelines which have become the cornerstone of search law in Canada.

I guess if it is an issue, if stopped you might try to claim unlawful seizure? Without a warrant - A seizure of property occurs when there is meaningful interference by the government with an individual's possessory interests. It also protects against unreasonable seizure of their persons, including a brief detention. But then again, a seizure does not occur just because the government questions an individual in a public place. The person is not being seized if his freedom of movement is not restrained. The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds, with few exceptions. A refusal to listen or answer does not by itself furnish such grounds. A person is seized only when by means of physical force or show of authority his freedom of movement is restrained, and in the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to leave. As long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required, the courts will usually consider the police contact to be a "citizen encounter" which will probably fall outside the protections of Section 8. If a person remains free to disregard questioning by the government, there has been no intrusion upon the person's liberty or privacy.

But then again, you do have to worry about all the “Exceptions” both countries will claim, especially during the Olympics? The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable and articulable suspicion, with few exceptions. One is where society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, such as vehicle and boat checkpoints that may briefly detain may be used to look for a fleeing criminal or locate a bomb.

You will also have to contend with the border search exceptions. That doctrine is a process in both the United States and Canada. It exempts searches of travelers and their property permitting the search of travelers and their belongings at the borders without probable cause or a warrant. Pursuant to their authority, they may generally stop and search the property of any traveler entering or exiting either of the countries at random, or even based largely on ethnic profiles. Although border-searches are exempted from warrant requirements, you will be glad to know they are still subject to the reasonableness requirement. In reviewing the reasonableness of border-searches, many courts have distinguished between "routine" and "non-routine" searches. U.S. and Canada may conduct "routine" searches without any level of suspicion, while "non-routine" searches must be supported by "reasonable suspicion". Under this analysis, searches of a traveler's property, including luggage, briefcases, wallets, and other containers are "routine," while searches of a traveler's body, including strip, body cavity and involuntary x-ray searches, are considered "non-routine."

Me... I would not rather go through all that – and really don't recommend geting any cameras out! I’ll just smile, let them board my boat and look around!

I guess in the end… “Every man’s home is his castle” but when you leave your home and get into a vehicle or boat and head towards British Columbia - during the Olympics, you need to be aware of the legal lowered expectation of your right privacy laws inside a government established “Protective Zone”!

Good luck!

[Pippen]

Amen Charlie. ;)

[beemer]

Well Charlie , I think you proved my point.In regards to random checks , I am speaking of the post 911 world and the billions of dollars spent to "protect us" . The security structure that has been created is another boondoggle that takes away freedoms and our money , yet allows a person on the international no fly list to pass through customs without a passport , luggage or a boarding pass and carry explosives aboard a plane as what happened recently.

I agree that security and international borders are serious things and I am glad that the americans take it seriously and wish that Canadians would too.However I am not comfortable with a foreign enforcement agency enforcing laws that may or may not be applicable in the waters they are in. Coincidentally a local columnist wrote about it in todays paper http://www.timescolonist.com/columnists/Rivals+sport+colleagues+security/2616300/story.html


Thanks for taking the time to look at this issue seriously Charlie. I always find your posts refreshing and insightful.:D

[playnow2]

I also thank you for your post Charlie. There is not much chance of driving a house into a fuel barge in Vancouver Harbour, but there is lots of damage to be done from a boat. (I will not list any more in case AL Qaeda reads these forums). I have been out and about the Van harbour a couple of time's during the games. No problems with the security. I have not been boarded, but if I was, well, look away. Being a good Canadian I would probably thank them for their time.

[Charlie]

I guess you need to define your definition of “Random Checks”? There is a fine line between random checks and invasion of privacy; however look at the alternatives. I may not like it – but there is a “valid” concern!

If you read the article referenced, you will note – while in Canadian water, the Canadians are in charge! I personally would be “comfortable” as the “Canadians” are the ones enforcing laws that may or may not be applicable in their waters. Honestly… there isn’t that much difference!

Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Omar Farooq al-Nigeri, or whatever his name actually is or what he wants to be called - might not be a good example?

He would be the fourth president of a London student Islamic society to face terrorist charges in the past three years. His name was “not” on the U.S.’s 4,000-name “No Fly List”. His name was added in November 2009 to the U.S.'s 550,000-name Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, database of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center. It was not added, however, to the FBI's 400,000-name Terrorist Screening Database, the terror watch list that feeds both the 14,000-name Secondary Screening Selectee list and the U.S.'s 4,000-name “No Fly List”, nor was his U.S. visa revoked. The State Department had wanted to revoke his visa, but U.S. intelligence officials requested his visa not be revoked as it could have foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaida. The British had revoked his visa, but did not inform the Americans as the visa application was denied to prevent immigration fraud and not for a national security purpose. Could have been a "fatal" mistake, but hindsight is always 20/20.

If you really want something to relate to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2009
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
Concerning the marine environment, read the history of the USS Cole bombing, August 8, 2000

If there is any thoughts this is only a U.S. issue? Might want to check this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Toronto_terrorism_case
And this really puts it into perspective, note British Columbia is there: http://www.globalincidentmap.com/
Scroll down and go to Terrorism Event Predictions, check the box for Canada. "Canada - Bomb Incidents/Explosives/Hoax devices. A 100% chance of an incident in the Next Month"

BTW… there were two dozen (that would be – 24) Canadians that died in the 9/11 attack, which is why Canada responded dispatching troops to Afghanistan and the Arabian Gulf.

IMHO - I believe you have a “very” valid threat at this time!

[beemer]

As predicted

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/canada-us-may-extend-security-measures-past-games/article1482766/


There is a big difference in willfully crossing the border and not. I expect to be searched and questioned when I enter any foreign country. I do not expect to be searched and questioned while at anchor fishing for Halibut in Canadian waters.

In regards to the Canadians being in charge in Canada , that is a joke. Boarding vessels without cause has never been a practice of our enforcement agencies in Canada , yet since the US Coast Guard have been inolved in this "joint program" it has become commonplace in our waters. It is one more hassle that is being passed off as a nessesity , so we can be free from the evil terrorists.

This is a job creation program plain and simple.

[Steelhead S2]

Terrorism is aimed at creating widespread fear in order to further an ideological goal. The definition seems to fit this type of governmental and cross-border surveillance quite well. I doubt it is directly intended to let us all know we are being watched. But it does have the predictable effect of making us all fear that terrorists are lurking everywhere, including our favorite fishing holes. Perhaps this type of state action creates fear (of terrorism itself) in order to further its own ideological goals. Fight fire with fire, fight terror with terror I guess. One thing is for certain, I don't feel any safer. But then, I was never scared in the first place.

[beemer]

thanks holmes , I will be sure to get the feds to search your boat for the good stuff!;)

[quicksilver11]

Canada Shipping Act:
Powers

(4) Enforcement officers acting under subsection (2) and inspectors acting under subsection (3) may

(a) stop or board the craft at any reasonable time;
(b) direct any person to put into operation or cease operating any machinery or equipment on the craft;
(c) direct that the craft not be moved until the inspection is completed;
(d) direct any person to move the craft to a safe place if the officer or inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that it does not meet the requirements of this Part or the regulations made under this Part or exposes any person to serious danger, and direct that it not be operated until it meets those requirements or no longer exposes any person to serious danger; and
(e) direct any person to move the craft to a safe place if the officer or inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that the operator does not meet the requirements of the regulations made under this Part, and direct that the operator not operate it until the operator meets those requirements.

[beemer]

Hey Quicksilver , I think you are taking the act out of context. Your quote of the act is referring to a "Enforcement Officer" boarding a vessel to inspect for structural integrity and vessel structure compliance.

(2) An enforcement officer may inspect a pleasure craft or any of its machinery or equipment for the purpose of ensuring compliance with any provision of this Part, other than section 197, or the regulations made under this Part, other than the regulations made under paragraph 207(1)(f), (g), (i) or (j).

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-10.15/page-6.html#anchorbo-ga:l_10-gb:s_195

[beemer]

that makes two of us !![}:)]

quote:Originally posted by holmes

quote"This is a job creation program plain and simple."

Who created the need for the jobs?....holmes*

i wish i could find this many worms for fishing...lol

[Charlie]

quote:Originally posted by beemer

Hey Quicksilver , I think you are taking the act out of context. Your quote of the act is referring to a "Enforcement Officer" boarding a vessel to inspect for structural integrity and vessel structure compliance.

(2) An enforcement officer may inspect a pleasure craft or any of its machinery or equipment for the purpose of ensuring compliance with any provision of this Part, other than section 197, or the regulations made under this Part, other than the regulations made under paragraph 207(1)(f), (g), (i) or (j).

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-10.15/page-6.html#anchorbo-ga:l_10-gb:s_195
I believe Quicksilver would be correct there! [:0]:D

If you go down to "Powers" which is what Quicksilver quoted. Under Enforcement officers, it refers you back to subsection (2) and inspectors back to subsection (3). What you are missing is under Section 196, you have two separate headings. The first is "Inspections - general". Where subparagraph (2)falls under. Then comes your "Inspections - structural", which applies to your structural inspector subparagraph (3).

BTW… if you were to read Bill-C-60 ‘Keeping Canadians Safe (Protecting Borders) Act.’ Which does "not" have an expiration date! You might be surprised – just what those U.S./Canada "Siderider" guys can legally do!

Yep, they all have "full authority" on both sides - same same RCMP! [:0][:0]

[beemer]

Hey holmes , sorry no slag intended. I like your humour , you are right this is a big can of worms.

Charlie , The Canada Shipping Act 2001 does not have enforcement acts over and above vessel crewing , construction and structural issues and equipment standards. The term inspector refers to CSI inspectors (Canada Steamship Inspector) it is not referring to law enforcement.

Both of our countries already spend significant dollars on policing in Haro, Georgia and Juan de Fuca straits.

1.We have undersea sensors monitored by a joint task force Whidby Island.
2.Coast Guard Stations in Bellingham,Port Angeles , Richmond, Saltspring island and Neah Bay
3. Full radar coverage monitoring all vessel movement monitored in Canada in Patricia Bay.
4. Canadian Navy drug interdiction helicopters. Daily Flights
5. Full US air coverage from Whidby Island with a dedicated Blackhawk helicopter fully armed for Juan de Fuca.
6.Daily RCMP and Canada Border Service boats on Patrol out of Canada
7. daily American Coast Guard Patrols
8. Special Service and High Speed interdiction , Scarab etc in Bellingham.
9. JTF Canadian special service boats "covert" RCMP operation high speed interdiction vessels.
10. Washington Fish and Game.
11. Canadian department of Fisheries , boat and aircraft.
12. Municipal Police forces and Sheriffs boats.

Enough is enough , we are covered we are protected.We don"t need another layer of policing trampling on our right to privacy and to live a life free from harassment.

[Charlie]

And... Now we have:

quote: BTW… if you were to read Bill-C-60 ‘Keeping Canadians Safe (Protecting Borders) Act.’ Which does "not" have an expiration date! You might be surprised – just what those U.S./Canada "Siderider" guys can legally do!

Yep, they all have "full authority" on both sides - same same RCMP![:0][:0]

[quicksilver11]

Beemer not taking it out of context they can board for Structual Copliance or inspection. There are numerous laws, both federal and provincial, that provide enforcement officers with authority to board and inspect vessels without a warrant. Most notably are the provincial liquor control laws, and the federal Criminal Code, Fisheries Act, Environmental Protection Act, and the recently passed amendments to the Migratory Birds Convention Act that prohibit “deposits” of oily bilge water.
I Don't like it anymore than anyone else it is getting to be to much all this security crap.

[beemer]

Hey quicksilver 11 , I would highly doubt that any RCMP or American Coastguard officers are certified Canadian Steamship Inspectors, which is what that clause is referring to.

A good letter to the editor on the subject in todays Times/Colonist.


Shiprider violates Canada's sovereignty
By Michael Symons, Times ColonistMarch 3, 2010 I have to disagree with Jack Knox's recent warm and fuzzy column on Operation Shiprider (Feb, 26).

Cross-border communication and co-operation is fine. But no Canadian should feel comfortable with armed U.S. police and military personnel operating within our borders. It is a feeble excuse to compromise national sovereignty for the purpose of soothing U.S. paranoia (backed by an implicit threat to tie up the border).

Just ask the pleasure boater who was stopped three times by joint boat patrols between the U.S. border and the Gulf Islands on his way to Vancouver, or the dozens of other citizens out minding their own business on the water who were accosted over the past couple of weeks by these armed sorties.

If either country should be complaining about border security it should be Canada, seeing as, according to the column, what is flowing south are relatively soft recreational drugs and what is flowing north is "guns, money and cocaine." It seems to me that the U.S. has some explaining to do regarding border security.

Michael Symons

Pender Island