Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:08:20 -0700
Reply-To: Al Knoll <anasasi@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Al Knoll <anasasi@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Crossing into Canada with just a "pink slip"
In-Reply-To: <9f4608e90909121841t7387d5d0uadda89e50700322f@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
A little more about that. Of course the polite 'no' to the queries about
what you are carrying with you or have in your possesion should reflect the
truth of the matter. Keep it short, polite, and to the point. Extra
conversation can be interpreted as evasive, tag you as a questionable risk,
and can result in avoidable delays depending upon the mood and inclination
of the official. Chitchat is not to your benefit.
What you own outside Canada is not legally their concern. If you answer
yes to a provocative question, these professionals are ready to ask you more
leading questions fully within their rights and powers. Perceived
evasiveness can be considered a reasonable justification to search your
person and vehicle. Unfortunately unless you're protected by the
"unreasonable search and seizure" of the US 4th amendment your law-abiding
tourist journey can be delayed. Works of course in both crossing
directions.
If the Homeland Security Personnel ask questions other than where you are
bound and why, your heritage and birthplace, and what you are taking with
you and you are not comfortable with a neutral answer the situation
changes. They will ask you about your laptop, your cellphone, and other
things you have with you, polite succinct answers are the best way through
the gate.
Don't pet the dog.
Pensioner
On 9/12/09, Al Knoll <anasasi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oddly, Joy, they CAN search your laptop if they choose to do so. And, they
> CAN impound various other items if they choose to do so. We gave those 4th
> ammendment rights away with the P.A.T.R.I.O.T bill. (How did your
> congresscritters vote on that little chunk? Mine went along with the rest
> of the sheep).
>
> I was detained at the Vancouver crossing for four hours while my BMW riding
> companions rode on. The semi-polite Canadian gendarme mentioned that they
> had a quota to fill and my number just came up. This was before 9/11, long
> before. My motorcycle was virtually disassembled and left for me to re-fit
> after no offensive items other than the rider, who was not offensive BEFORE
> the fol-de-rol and did a superb job of maintaining a tiny shred of cool. I
> had all the proper crossing documents and more. All questions about
> ammunition, firearms, explosives or alcohol or drugs should be answered with
> a polite 'no' ALL questions. If they ask if you own a 'fowling piece' and
> you have one at home, the answer should be a polite 'no'.
>
> There are good reasons to live in Oregon or West Virginia. The insane
> amount of bureaucratic goatblather necessary for the law abiding citizen to
> do anything is one of the best. Note that I live in Kalifornia.
>
> "There is science, logic, reason; there is thought verified by experience.
> And then there is California."
> -Edward Abbey
>
> Al (Cane Rattlin RS-ridin Geef and proud of it)
>
> On 9/12/09, Joy Hecht <jhecht@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> I'm not sure I quite understand what you are worried about - is your
>> concern
>> crossing the border, or is it what would happen if you had an accident or
>> were for some other reason stopped by the police? YOU need paperwork to
>> get
>> across the borders - passports, for sure - but your car doesn't. I've
>> crossed the border any number of times in my van, and no one has ever
>> asked
>> for anything pertaining to the vehicle. Not in either direction.
>>
>
| 
