Loss of Privacy

A Canadian woman is now suing two female U.S. border guards in Detroit for an unreasonable search conducted at the border in 2010.

In March 2010, Loretta Van Beek was travelling to Savannah, Ga., where she owns a small vacation home, when she was pulled over by customs agents at the Ambassador Bridge, across the river from Windsor, Ont.

Van Beek, 46, told CBC News she was sent to secondary inspection when customs officers found a few raspberries in her car that she’d forgotten to declare. After more than an hour of questions, Van Beek was told she was being denied entry on suspicion that she was living illegally in the U.S.

Van Beek said she was marched into a holding cell by two female agents and ordered to remove her shirt and stand spread-eagled against the wall.

“She was squeezing my nipples, etc., for a very long time, unnecessary attention,” Van Beek said of one of the agents. “It was sexual — using her fingertips, not back of hand like you would expect.”

Then she said the search became even more invasive.

“She ran her hands in my lower region,” Van Beek said.

Van Beek claims the guard shoved her hand inside her genital area while the other officer watched.

She said they photographed her and took her fingerprints, then sent her back to Canada.

Though this happened nearly a year ago, it highlights the extent and length of invasive searches by US Customs and Border Patrol officers.

The CBP’s comment exemplify who so many people are distrustful of them.

We rely upon the judgment of our individual CBP officers to use their discretion as to the extent of examination necessary. However, CBP officers are expected to conduct their duties in a professional manner and to treat each traveller with dignity and respect.”

A spokesperson said a strip-search is allowed when there is reason to believe someone is hiding something on his or her body, and the person has to be told the reason.

CBP’s actions in this matter are also questionable. If she had a few raspberries, why not toss them, check Van Beek’s car and send her on her way? She probably just forgot she had them. It happens. Also, why would they need to do a strip search? If she was going to hide anything, she’d hide it in the car.

There is also the fact that they believed she was living illegally in the US, yet it doesn’t appear that CBP ever attempted to see if she really had a vacation home. A simple check would have returned results that she came to America often to stay at her vacation home in Georgia.

Even if it was true she was living illegally in America, why was she subjected to a secondary search? It appears that it was a random stop, but the raspberries still do not warrant the indignity that Ms. Van Beek suffered.

Since constitution free zones have been put into place, Customs and Border Patrol have encroached into the once sovereign United States under the guise of protecting its citizens. One such place where CBP is now a regular fixture is on Amtrak. On the Lake Shore Limited line, which never stops at a border point, CBP frequently makes checks of everyone on the train.

While it is true that the line never enters Canada or stops at a border check point, it does stop in cities near water, such as Buffalo and Chicago. Because these cities are within the 100-mile zone of the United States’ border, CBP now have some jurisdiction over policing Amtrak.

These new powers allow them to harass every single person on the train by asking them their country of citizenship. If you answer with an accent, by admission of the CBP officer in the video below, you are suspicious. Refuse to answer and you’re considered suspicious. Any suspicion and the CBP will remove you from the train.

One thing that I noticed is that these are supposed to be random searches, yet everyone is asked what country they hold citizenship from. Near the beginning, someone refuses to answer. Their voice sounds American and CBP move on. Later, when the woman filming doesn’t want to give any personal information, the CBP tells her, half-joking that now she is acting suspicious. He then helps remove a couple from the train. They then asked when the next train was, indicating that they wouldn’t be detained long, but there isn’t enough information to truly know how long they were going to be detained for. It is unclear why the couple have been removed from the train because the woman filming was talking and the CBP and the couple were speaking in low voices.

There are three important and curious items of not in this video. First, it appears that the couple was merely asked if they had luggage and that they should take it with them when they were escorted off the train. If they were truly terrorists, they would leave a package or two behind to blow up the train. CBP never tried to ascertain whose luggage was whose. This is a major flaw in security. It would also be common sense to match all luggage with its owners before allowing the train to continue. Since this is an exercise in security theater, however, doing so is unnecessary.

The second problem with the type of security CBP is providing is the fact that by merely having an accent, you are suspicious. Considering the fact that there are numerous accents in the US, will Southerners or Texans be suspects as well? What if you have a naturalized citizen who, even after living in the US for decades, still retain their original accent? They have already passed numerous tests and background checks by state and federal authorities. The federal government cleared them and allowed them to become citizens. Now, however, CBP has decided you’re a terrorist suspect because you talk funny. This is an absolutely absurd way to pick terrorist suspects out of a crowd of people on a train. It is inept policing and harassment of the general populace.

The third thing that I have noticed in the video is the fact that CBP allowed filming. They did not seem bothered at all that the woman was recording what they were doing. While it is perfectly legal to film law enforcement officials, many people have fallen afoul of police who are overzealous and/or abusive and don’t want any evidence of their wrongdoing. It is a pleasant surprise that none of these CBP officers were bothered by the video camera.

Since we don’t seem to be able to stop the CBP and their “random” searches for now, we should continue to refuse to give our country of origin and always have a camera handy. Until the law changes and more people fight against this invasion of free travel, we need to equip ourselves with tools that will not only keep the CBP in check, but our rights as well.

Between 2006 and 2008, Customs and Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers lost 243 weapons [http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/18/government.guns/index.html?hpt=T2] belonging to Homeland Security. Most of the cases involve carelessness on the part of the officers, leading to criminals to owning the weapons.

In all, 243 firearms were lost in both agencies during that period, according to the January report from Inspector General Richard Skinner. Of those, 36 were lost because of circumstances beyond officers’ control — for instance, ICE lost a firearm during an assault on an officer. Another 28 were lost even though officers had stored them in lockboxes or safes.

But 74 percent, or 179 guns, were lost “because officers did not properly secure them,” the report said.

The inspector general cited several examples of “inappropriate practices.” A customs officer, for instance, left a firearm in an idling vehicle in the parking lot of a convenience store. The vehicle was stolen while the officer was inside. “A local law enforcement officer later recovered the firearm from a suspected gang member and drug smuggler,” the report said.

Read that carefully. The vehicle was stolen while the officer was inside. These are the people that are supposed to be protecting us.

In addition, an ICE officer left an M-4 rifle and a shotgun unsecured in a closet at his home. Both weapons were stolen in a burglary and later recovered from a felon, according to the report. Another officer left his firearm in the restroom of a fast-food restaurant, and it was gone when he returned.

“Other CBP and ICE officers left firearms in places such as a fast food restaurant parking lot, a bowling alley and a clothing store,” the report said.

Of the 179 lost because of laxity, 120 were reported stolen and 59 as lost, the report said. That resulted from the agencies’ lack of guidance on a standard method for classifying and reporting lost firearms, as well as “a common perception among officers that reporting a stolen firearm was more acceptable than reporting a lost firearm.

There are two groups at fault in the loss of weapons. The officer is guilty for not taking due care to secure his/her weapon and DHS is guilty for not having set guidelines and standards for taking due care to secure weapons.

“Although CBP and ICE reported 120 firearms as stolen, our analysis showed that these firearms were lost (stolen) because officers left the firearms unsecured,” according to the report. “All 179 losses may have been prevented had the officers properly secured their firearms.”

DHS has 188,500 in listed in its possession. Losing 179 represents a 0.09% loss of weapons. While it’s a small number compared to the total, the lack of personal responsibility is still appalling. These officers are entrusted with weapons and should have taken more care to see that they were secured at all times.