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!
