are you really trying to claim that (assuming all items are legal to own), mere possession of certain legal items = justification/probable cause for arrest?
I’m carrying a scale, a big box of baggies, a pair of tweezers. So the border guards can arrest me ?
you’re mistaking (I suspect) probable cause for arrest w/probable cause to obtain a search warrent. The items he had would certainly spark interest (hence their decision to detain him and check for warrents), sufficient cause local authorities to go to a judge to get authorization to search his house but not probable cause (IMHO) for an arrest
possessing legal items should on the face of it be permissable, wouldn’t you think? I’m not a gun fan and even I would be outraged at having to prove why you had possession of legal weapons.
I’ll bet even Lucy and Ethel would have figured out he was a murderer once the hatchet came out.
(cf. I Love Lucy episode where they’re hitchhiking from New York to Florida ('cause hair-brained Lucy lost their train tickets) and over the radio they hear a bulletin about a hatchet-murderess on the loose which fits the description of the woman they’ve hitched a ride with, etc.)
“You look strange. Welcome to the Guantanamo of the North where you will be held until we can find out what you did. And from the looks of you we know you did something.”
While normally I would be against such a statement, did you see this guys picture? Even appropriately attired, he would have looked like he did something.
Of course, the day that becomes the standard, I’m going to prison, too. Damn Sicilian half of my family, you know. Hopefulloy, the lack of wingtips will exonerate me.
I believe that this is bordering (heh) on a false dilemma.
He couldn’t have been immediately arrested – but that doesn’t mean that the only other option was letting him through after a (relatively brief) interview and confiscation of the weapons.
At a glance, checking for outstanding warrants seems a little short of due diligence, under the circumstances. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and all that, and we don’t know exactly what his interview amounted to, or how far it went to allay suspicion.
I’ve been held up at the border returning to Canada on business for hours – subjected to lengthy questioning and then made to wait while our vehicle and its contents were combed over for what seemed like ages. My mother’s had a cross-border shopping trip to Blaine go awry because the car she was driving was apparently similar to one used in a crime in the area. Again, hours.
Being made to wait a long time to enter the country while authorities ascertain that you’re kosher is not the same thing as being arrested.
If they had talked to the RCMP, (“Say, we have this guy Despres here. His clothes are bloody and he’s carrying a small arsenal of crude weapons and wearing a flak jacket. Oh yeah, and it looks like he’s got blood all over his chainsaw. Something doesn’t seem quite right about him – do you have any interest in him?”) they could have easily determined that he had outstanding charges – and that he was currently attempting to evade prosecution.
I’m no lawyer, but this seems commonsensical to me. Is there any practical reason that it didn’t happen?
If those items contain residue of something that appears to be marijuana — yes. No, they don’t have a crime lab on the spot. They can’t tell if it’s marijuana or something that merely looks similar. You’ll probably be arrested, because there’s probable cause there. (This isn’t the argument, anyway.) If you seriously think that customs officials are going to shrug off someone carrying a bunch of (legal) gear that’s closely associated with trafficking controlled subtances, you’re pretty naive. Shit, the customs officers that processed Despres spent more time scrutinizing the next guy in line – because he had a marijuana conviction on his record from the mid-eighties.
The expectation isn’t that the guy should have been thrown in the jug for looking like a freak – just that his extremely suspicious behaviour should have prompted more scrutiny and communication with local authorities.
They didn’t have probable cause to arrest him because they didn’t look very closely into it. If I appear in public with bloody clothes, carrying a bloody weapon, I expect to be looked at pretty hard by the authorities. I would never dream that I could make a successful border crossing in that situation, if I had just murdered two people and was due in court that day for an assault/menacing-with-a-deadly-weapon charge. It beggars belief.
Maybe it’s just because I’m a pussy Canuck and don’t place such a high value on the right to bear arms that I expect people not to blink if I’m bearing them in a way that looks extremely suspicious – like if I have a rucksack full of them, have donned bullet-proof gear, have blood all over my clothes, and everybody who’s ever met me agrees that I’m mentally unbalanced and dangerous.
Oh, wait, this is all just part of “looking strange.” It’s totally the same thing as being singled out for closer examination because you have pink hair or are wearing a hijab.
If they’d talked to the RCMP, they probably would have had a provisional warrant for his arrest long before the length of his wait at customs became problematic. They didn’t have to place him under arrest before then. He could have remained free to return to Canada.
How freaking liberal-minded do you have to be for bloody clothes, a bloody chainsaw, swords, brass knuckles, pepper spray, a hunting knife, and freaking combat armour not add up to a reason to do everything within the law to determine what the fuck the guy has been up to? The guy is armed with several weapons that are strictly for use against people and his armoured with gear that is strictly for protection from people. His chainsaw appears to be bloody, and his clothes appear to be bloody. Holy crap, Occam’s razor has even got blood all over it. Look at that.
assuming all of the items described, while suspicious, are legal to own, care to explain to me under what law some one can be arrested for possessing legal items?
I agree that the stuff is suspicious. agree it should be confiscated, tested, used to secure search warrents and the like. But I fail to see what legal means some one can be arrested for possessing legal items.
Again – not suggesting that he could or should have been arrested because he was spattered with blood and carrying weapons – just that the circumstances themselves warranted further investigation. A phone call would have done the trick. More intense questioning might have done the trick. This wouldn’t have been an abridgement of his rights.
He didn’t have to be immediately placed under arrest. He didn’t have to be held in custody.
Driving a car that’s similar to one reportedly used in the commission of a crime isn’t sufficient means to place someone under arrest – but it’s enough to warrant a much closer look before letting you carry on with your day.
If the border guards had been sufficiently interested in an armoured, weapon-laden person with blood spattered clothes to do more than a cursory database check for outstanding warrants, they could probably have easily determined that he was evading justice in Canada.
I think it’s reasonable to look at person with bloody clothes and a bloody weapon and think that he may have very recently been involved in something untoward. If the blood appears to be fresh, it’s reasonable to assume that the suspect may not already have an arrest warrant for the hypothetical crime. Contacting the local authorities where the fellow came from to find out if they have any information that might be helpful seems like a common sense step to take. Of course, the actual crime hadn’t come to light yet, but additional information was available. “Oh yeah, this guy has been charged with assault with a deadly weapon and threatening to murder someone. He’s supposed to appear in court today to face those charges.” “Well, he’s right here.” “Thanks, eh?”
Nobody’s legal rights are abridged, and a dangerous person is dealt with appropriately.
No we don’t. What we do have, is you still maintaining that the border guards should have held this guy on the basis of THEARTICLE THAT YOU POSTED THIS RANT ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE i.e.; he had a bunch of knives and a chainsaw with what COULD have been blood on it.
There’s no backpedaling you can do, no reason you can come up with, NO WAY you can get out of the fact that you started a rant about something that, by the article you posted, where the guy could have been held for a crime or an “assumed” crime.
You’re arguing facts not in evidence Larry. He was questioned for 2 hours. Presumably in that time they did all that you are suggesting and still found no reason to detain him. The murders weren’t discovered until the next day, and there is no police database that I am aware of that lists who is due in court on what day. The RCMP wouldn’t have had that information available to them. I would be very surprised if the US Border Agents didn’t phone the RCMP and ask about the suspect, I bet he came up clean in the computer. What else do you want them to do? Hold every suspicious looking person indefinitely to see if a crime pops up that they can be tied to?
How long could they hold him while searching local presincts for warants, chain saw crimes, etc. before you would consider it an abridgement of rights? (And yes, I consider not letting him enter a country he is a citizen of “holding” him.)
How long would it have taken them to do this search? (I doubt it would be a “simple phone call”, unless Canada has some real-time centralized database that has all the data from all the courts in all the jurisdictions. Even a top-notch Mountie won’t know a fraction of the people who are supposed to show up at court on a given day.)
And how do you know that he is a “dangerous person” without a court proceeding in which the defendant can present evidence?
How dare you want to hold people without charges, without a court proceeding in which they can defend themselves. Why, some people illegally held like this will turn out to be completely innocent who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time on the battlefield … er, border. You and ElvisL1ves are bad, bad men.
Do you really expect a rational answer from Elvis? I mean, besides some half-baked rationalization of what posters have said after he asserted what he did?
Nitpick: I don’t believe he had blood-spattered clothing at the border crossing. He did when he was picked up later in the States, but at the border, the only blood was on his chainsaw.
Well if we are going to start detaining people based on looks, here are a couple I think we ought to keep out of this country.
The guy on the left has wierd teeth, sometimes describes as being made of wood, sometimes ivory. If they are ivory then he is smuggling, if they are wood then he is just too wierd for the US.
The guy on the right is another matter. Anybody with two brain cells to rub toghether can tell by his gaunt and haggard looks that this guy is a tweeker. He is probably crossing the border to start a meth lab in Arizona or the California desert.
Or Look at this guy smoking some kind of whacky tobaccy. Better keep him out also.
Last time I checked there are no laws in this country requiring you to be photogenic.
Let me play devil’s advocate here. Let’s say just for the sake of conversation that the border guards did in fact keep him detained becasue he look strange. Let’s further suppose that after several days of detention it turned out that he had done nothing wrong in either country. He then sues for false arrest. You are the lawyer for the United States, and you have to defend the guards actions. Just what are you going to say that will keep a jury from ripping you (meaning the guards and the government) a new asshole?
There is not one sliver of doubt in my mind (and I doubt there is much in the minds of anyone who has a: read these boards with more than a cursory glance and b: has a little bit of intelligence) that were that scenario to play out, Elvis would be leading the charge in the pit to condemn the abuse of power by said border guards. No doubt at all.
Uh, if the murder was committed in Canada and he was picked up in the States after passing through customs, assuming he was rigourously searched by customs*, then where did he aquire the bloody clothes in the meantime? :eek:
*I get searched coming into Canada just by declaring having some food with me, this kook would have had the rubber glove treatment if I was a border guard. While I tentatively agree that there was no legal reason to hold him, there is nothing stopping someone crossing the border from being searched at the whim of the customs people and I assume this guy would have warranted it.
A CPIC (Canadian Police Information Centre) search turns up a full arrest record and any scheduled court appearances. The same search would also have have revealed that he was forbidden to possess weapons as a condition of probation.
Regrettably, I know this one first-hand, since (years ago) I was questioned after stopping to videotape a grow-op bust that I happened to cycle past. The VPD considered this suspicious enough to run a check on me, which led to them questioning about an upcoming appearance for marijuana possession w/ intent to distribute. (The intent charges were later dropped.) They asked enough questions to determine if I had any personal interest in the house that they were taking down, and asked me to consent to a search of my person and possessions. Then I went on my merry way. I don’t consider that I was “illegally detained” or that my rights were infringed in any way.
I’m not assuming facts not in evidence – it’s evident that that this simple look-up was never made. It’s possible that they requested it and it didn’t take place, but it seems more likely that they didn’t (or couldn’t) ask for that information.
Long enough for a CPIC search to determine that he was evading justice in Canada. So… you know… not necessarily any longer than it took.
Miller – that may be a valid nitpick. I’m assuming that his bloodstained clothes were brought with him, since all of his pointy things were taken away from him and we haven’t heard of any other decapitations or eviscerations he’d been close to. I suppose he could have gotten all bloodied up somewhere Stateside, though. Maybe.
A small arsenal, bullet-proof vest, bloody chainsaw, and pending court dates for assault with a deadly weapon and threats of murder are a little more than mere “looks.” These are the things that write “violent offender” all over him, not his wall-eyes, racist tattoos, or bad haircut. If FDR showed up at the border with gore-spattered hardware and pending charges, then yes, I would recommend a closer look, too. Note that “a closer look” does not equate arrest or illegal detention.
These suppositions have nothing to do with the situation. Several days of detention were not required. Better communication is all that was needed to determine that his “legal” possession of weapons (are brass knuckles really legal in Maine?) was in fact a criminal act in-and-of-itself, and that he was someone who needed to remain in Canada to face pending charges, quite apart from the as-yet-undiscovered double homicide. Someone screwed a pooch here – the only question is who.
Again – to be clear – not suggesting he should have been arrested for looking strange. Just that what was under their nose should have prompted them to look close enough to determine that he shouldn’t have been walked through. There was plenty of information that was (or should have been) available to them, that was trivially easy for the RCMP or the CBSA to supply. If they didn’t ask, they didn’t perform their due diligence. If they couldn’t ask, or the Canadian authorities weren’t forthcoming with the information, then they should be pilloried.
There’s no way he should have been at large in the U.S. No fucking way.
