Originally Posted by
BCITMike He should win. The supreme court ruling mentioned that if there is reasonable reason why it should be searched, they can as long as they keep good records. I can't see how returning to Canada would warrant that. You can search the phone (goods), you cannot search the contents of said goods. Was he under suspicion for something?
I hope he wins.
As someone who not only follows privacy issues like these very closely but also travels internationally a lot, I will be watching this outcome very closely.
This case is going to set a very large precedent that will set in motion future searches by the CBSA. I am very conflicted on what I believe the outcome will be and here is why:
(Source article I am basing my opinion on:
Quebec resident Alain Philippon to fight charge for not giving up phone password at airport - Nova Scotia - CBC News)
Why I think this citizen may win:
As you have pointed out BCITMike, not even the CBSA has given any sort of reason as to why this man was "randomly selected". All that was offered up was a scripted response explaining that CBSA agents are given training to detect "deception" by travelers. At best, this reason may prompt an overhaul of electronic searching procedures, at worst, I do believe this may only give CBSA reason to come up with more scripted responses to explain their searches.
Why I think this citizen may lose:
From the CBC article I linked you all to above, Rob Currie, director of the Law and Technology Institute at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, explained that "Under the Customs Act, customs officers are allowed to inspect things that you have, that you're bringing into the country [...] The term used in the act is 'goods,' but that certainly extends to your cellphone, to your tablet, to your computer, pretty much anything you have."
The cynical side of me looks at this situation similar to what ArcPlug said above. All bets are off when it comes to border security and laws surrounding it. Outside of basic fundamental rights violations, it has become apparent over the years that many of the laws (domestically speaking) we have come to enjoy do not apply to CBSA searches. The litmus test for what constitutes "reasonable search/seizure" becomes quite low when at the border, unfortunately.
It is really appalling what the CBSA can do in the name of "national security", but they have been given quite the blank cheque over the years to do it.
All this being said, I will be watching very closely to see how this plays out and what type of precedent becomes set from it.