# Border agents spur suspicion at protest



## Crown-Loyal (19 Feb 2010)

Look out! Someone has let CBSA loose out onto the streets, how did they manage to escape from the Border?    

Here is an article from metronews.ca

February 17, 2010 05:02:51

sean kolenko 
Metro Vancouver

Two Canadian border agency officers have been spotted from their usual beat at an anti-Olympics rally in the Downtown Eastside, prompting civil libertarians to question their motives.

The group Anti-Olympics Resistance erected tents at an empty lot at East Hastings in between Abbott and Carrall streets — they’re calling it the Olympic tent city and say it’s meant to attract attention to the lack of affordable housing in Vancouver.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) yesterday screened a video shot by one of their volunteers, showing the border agents outside the tent city.

Michael Vonn, policy director at the BCCLA, said he wants to know why the officers were there.

“We are unclear of the authority and mandate of ... agents,” Vonn said. “We want to clarify for the public what they are doing patrolling our downtown streets.”

Hannah Mahoney, a spokesperson for the Canadian Services Border Agency, said that inland enforcement is the result of the influx of people in town for the Olympics. 

“The CBSA’s top priority is the safety and security of Canadians and visitors,” she said


----------



## Crown-Loyal (4 Mar 2010)

now on video.... http://vimeo.com/9751444


----------



## medaid (4 Mar 2010)

Their authority comes from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which allows CBSA members assigned to In-Land Enforcement duties to go anywhere in Canada in order to execute their duties.

Their roles are significantly different from those at the border crossings, and have to some extent greater enforcement powers. 

Crown-Loyal,

You're at Marine aren't you? My explanation was for people that didn't knowm not directed towards you.


----------



## Crown-Loyal (4 Mar 2010)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Their authority comes from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which allows CBSA members assigned to In-Land Enforcement duties to go anywhere in Canada in order to execute their duties.
> 
> Their roles are significantly different from those at the border crossings, and have to some extent greater enforcement powers.
> 
> ...



Hey MedTech, yes I'm marine...for now.  That was a good explanation. It amazes me that these "legal observers" don't do more home work. I mean if I devoted my life to harassing law enforcement I would do some research into the departments at least.

People wrongly assume that because we are "border services"  our authority only is at the border. WRONG. There are various divisions in CBSA that enforce various acts "inland". 

but I suppose the less these "observers" know about us, the better. Then again a detailed job list of all the CBSA Officer positions placed onto our website might allow the general public to get an understanding of who we are and what we do as an Agency.

Oh, Question for LEO's : IF asked by the public do we have to disclose out badge # AND name? I'm fine with them knowing my badge # but I don't want my name out there.


----------



## J.J (4 Mar 2010)

> Oh, Question for LEO's : IF asked by the public do we have to disclose out badge # AND name? I'm fine with them knowing my badge # but I don't want my name out there.



You have to identify yourself when asked. Agency policy is that you  only have to supply your badge #, but why do you care if they have your name?
If they want your name all they have to do is do a freedom of information request, which costs $5, get a report or incident you were involved and then they will have all the info they want.
It is not a major deal if they have your name and don't fool yourself, but if they want to know where you live, your dob etc the bad guy will get it when they want, they don't need to ask you.


----------



## Crown-Loyal (4 Mar 2010)

WR said:
			
		

> It is not a major deal if they have your name and don't fool yourself, but if they want to know where you live, your dob etc the bad guy will get it when they want, they don't need to ask you.



Well put.  I guess in the long run it doesn't matter if they have my name. I was just curious because one of the "legal observers" tells the Officer that he legally has to give him his Badge # and name.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (4 Mar 2010)

Crown-Loyal said:
			
		

> but I suppose the less these "observers" know about us, the better.



Yes, because that is exactly the right attitude to take with those that already distrust you.



> Oh, Question for LEO's : IF asked by the public do we have to disclose out badge # AND name? I'm fine with them knowing my badge # but I don't want my name out there.



Are you a serving CBSA member, you seem to be as indicated by the use of "we"?  If so, I am amazed that the response to this sort of inquiry is drilled into your head given how pissed off people can get with you.


----------



## Crown-Loyal (4 Mar 2010)

AmmoTech90,

First of all, as unprofessional as it may sound, I don't really care for a group of individuals who go around video taping law enforcement because they think that we are out doing dirty work for "big brother." Notice how right after I mentioned that on my last post I added we should have a list of all the jobs within CBSA for the public to know?

Secondly, yes I'm a serving member of CBSA. I was never told in training, I was never told in my in-service training, I was never told anything about what information I legally have to give to someone who asks. I always assumed my badge # was enough due to the fact that I wear a badge identifier on my vest. I imagine people can get pissed off with an Officer, but I work for Marine Operations, I do not deal with the general public so I have a limited experience to draw apon. However, my friends at the borders generally don't have people in their face demanding a badge # and a name.


----------



## J.J (4 Mar 2010)

> Yes, because that is exactly the right attitude to take with those that already distrust you.



AmmoTech90,
In Crown Loyals defence, there are people who actively target LEO's  personal residence and family. I have colleagues that have been targeted at home. One had their car torched and another had a bomb placed in their vehicle. That is an a span of 5 years, in an office of 14. We do not work in uniform, but it still does happen to the uniform officer's.
2 Windsor Police officers a couple of years ago had Molotov cocktails thrown at their house. The bad guys knew the officers were at work and that their family were home alone.
Those are some of the reasons why LEO's have apprehension giving out personal identifiers.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (5 Mar 2010)

WR said:
			
		

> AmmoTech90,
> In Crown Loyals defence, there are people who actively target LEO's  personal residence and family. I have colleagues that have been targeted at home. One had their car torched and another had a bomb placed in their vehicle. That is an a span of 5 years, in an office of 14. We do not work in uniform, but it still does happen to the uniform officer's.
> 2 Windsor Police officers a couple of years ago had Molotov cocktails thrown at their house. The bad guys knew the officers were at work and that their family were home alone.
> Those are some of the reasons why LEO's have apprehension giving out personal identifiers.



Yep, agree about the identification thing.  With regards to that I found it odd that, basically, a member was not informed of how to communicate with the public.

The comment regarding distrustful individuals was not in response to Crown-Loyal's implication that operations taken by uniformed Crown/government employees in a public space should be concealed.  The activities, not the pers is what I believe he and I were talking about.  If you don't want it questioned, don't try to hide it.

Yes I saw the comment about the list of jobs, good idea, but you had aimed that at the general public, who I hope trust you already.  The first part of your comment was about further alienating a specific public segment who don't trust you.


----------



## J.J (5 Mar 2010)

I can't speak on what Crown loyal has been told by his supervisors on this matter, I just know what is taught nationally and the agency policy. 
That is officers will identify themselves when asked by the public by badge #'s, supervisors will identify themselves by name.
Rigaud (where the college is) the days can be very long and at times boring....maybe the day it was taught it was a Friday afternoon and Crown Loyal was thinking of a weekend in Montreal and the inevitable trip to Super Sex!!!


----------



## medaid (5 Mar 2010)

WR,

LMAO!!!!!! 

Crown-Loyal,

Sometimes the Sierra Romeos have better INT resources then we do. If we want a lesson in HUMINT, we should take a lesson from organized crime and street level criminals.


----------



## Crown-Loyal (5 Mar 2010)

WR said:
			
		

> Rigaud (where the college is) the days can be very long and at times boring....maybe the day it was taught it was a Friday afternoon and Crown Loyal was thinking of a weekend in Montreal and the inevitable trip to Super Sex!!!



what happens in Montreal stays in Montreal  ;D   Wait, I mean, ummm I was practicing Pil and CDT on the weekend not travelling to Montreal  :nod:

In all seriousness though I cannot recall being told or instructed on what to give in regards to information (which is why I asked), other than when bording a vessel all I have to give is my badge # even if the ships security officer wants my name.



			
				MedTech said:
			
		

> Crown-Loyal,
> 
> Sometimes the Sierra Romeos have better INT resources then we do. If we want a lesson in HUMINT, we should take a lesson from organized crime and street level criminals.



Yeah I imagine that they do, they probably have better equipment too  :threat:


----------



## Container (20 Jul 2010)

I apologize about this three month old dead thread-

But I was reviewing some old posts and came across it.

As part of a police leadership program I took we reviewed a ridiculous amount of policies of various law enforcement departments. If I recall correctly there is no LEGAL requirement for any set standard of identifying youself for the public when requested. Each individual agency has a policy in place to assist for their identification. Some agencies require name and badge number, some the basic requirement is badge number.

As pointed out by WR- if someone really wants to know who you are they can find out. Thats doesnt mean I wear my address on my name tag. Their are other precautions you can take depending on your threat level.

Again- Im super sorry to revive this thread. I just thought this was a slightly valuable contribution on the topic of this thread.....


----------



## armychick2009 (21 Jul 2010)

Generally as an agent of the government in a policing/enforcement position, you are required to give your badge number. This is to permit transparency and to prevent illegal actions on the part of the person in authority. If officers or agents of the government were to walk around and refuse to give an identifier, then it would be pretty easy for illegal activities to begin taking place and accusations. It essentially protects both you and the general public.  You do not have to give your name as your badge number's original purpose and intent is to act as an individual identifier within the authorities.  Your name is linked through official agencies to that number.  If someone is arrested, they do have access to this information either way as they have a right to know the identity of their accuser through disclosure.


----------



## Container (21 Jul 2010)

Armychick. 

Im not sure if you are saying that you are entitled to a police officers badge number on arrest . If you are suggesting that eventually it comes to light in the legal process than yes. 

it varies from province to province and from agency to agency. Having a police officer "give" you their badge number, some of which are upwards of six digits when you ask would mean nothing.  What good would that do the incredibly drunk people I arrest?

The protection for the public is that it is an offence for anyone but a peace officer or public officer to say they are a peace officer or public officer acting in the execution of their duties. So theoretically if the police officers agency allowed it I could just say "Im a police officer". Agency specific policy may require more, maybe even a provincial requirement in a province specific police act- I cant speak to every agency in Canada. But I am not aware of any federal legal requirement.

Arrest 101) Identify yourself as a peace officer, inform the person they are under arrest, inform them what they are under arrest for, provides rights and cautions.

I dont have to tell you my name. Its poor attitude, and even the most basic of inquiries at the station will reveal it, but I dont have to tell it. You are not entitled to my name upon arrest. This most often happens with police foundations students who like to play lawyer. They create all sorts of crazy ideas right before going to jail.

Do you have an example of a legal requirement? But I assure you any such requirement varies from province to province. There was an issue in the Correctional Service of Canada a few years back when the introduction of nametags was rolled out. I dont recall anyone citing anything other than policy.

An easier example might be where you can find an example of the "offence" related to a peace officer not identifying themselves. I was unable to find one. 

I've been involved in several internal investigaitons where people didn't know a police officers name and it was never an issue. Furthermore I also arrested people in extreme circumstances where I couldnt stand around handing out my business card even though they really wanted to know me. I was a police officer- that was all I needed to share.

All that aside I generally introduce myself with my name. Just because it makes for easier work


----------



## armychick2009 (22 Jul 2010)

Hi Container, 
I guess my post was mostly just to state that the badge number is something available to the general public in lieu of having to give a name as it is essentially an identifier (as you stated, you don't have to give your name at the time of arrest but normally are required to give at the very least a badge number). It all comes up (or is available) as public record (as someone else stated, the freedom of information act with the golden $5 for the request) if someone REALLY wants to know an arresting officer's name, etc. 

I wonder how many drunks/punks carry around a pocket book to write the number down, heh.  They've got other things on their mind at the time! (Either crappin' their pants scared or lookin' for somewhere to hurl)...


----------



## Container (22 Jul 2010)

Yes. They usually have larger concerns.  :blotto:

And youre right- any minor digging will provide your name so its probably just better to say your name. Being mysterious gives someone something to hang on to.


----------



## IrishCanuck (3 Aug 2010)

As with everything in this line of work, my personal opinion is that it's fluid depending on the situation.

If someone is yelling and screaming and carrying on, and I feel that giving them my name could be the trigger that de-escalates them, then I'll say it.

If they continue to be belligerent after they get my name, well then time to carry on with the buisness at hand, which is usually handcuffs.

If you expect to get through your career doing good work, and I mean getting into some good cases, and think you will come out anonymous, I'd say that's a pretty naive mindset.

That being said, if someone is being obnoxious or without any provocation is _demanding_ your name, if departmental policy says badge number is all you need, feel free to stand behind the flimsy protection of the policy.  They can ATIP you anyway, but at least that process can take some time, so you can take precautions/investigate the person if need be.

To all BSO's.. remember, it's not just IRPA authority that goes with you always.. your CA and CC powers don't stop at the confines of your POE either. We're making baby steps forward together.


----------



## Crown-Loyal (8 Aug 2010)

(DELETED POST)

 took good advice from WR


----------



## J.J (8 Aug 2010)

Not everything you say is correct. There is policy and there is legislation and policy NEVER trumps legislation. It may be best not to discuss perceived CBSA shortcomings on a public site. There are changes coming to the Customs Act that may clarify things a little better.


----------



## Crown-Loyal (8 Aug 2010)

WR said:
			
		

> Not everything you say is correct. There is policy and there is legislation and policy NEVER trumps legislation. It may be best not to discuss perceived CBSA shortcomings on a public site. There are changes coming to the Customs Act that may clarify things a little better.



I agree that policy never trumps legislation, but we are what we are, Border Services not police, and we have a mandate and SOP's to follow.


----------



## J.J (8 Aug 2010)

I understand that well, but our policies are not clear and there are reasons for that. We are not the Police, but we are not bank tellers either.
There is a lot more that goes on in CBSA that a BSO does not see from the POE.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Aug 2010)

Internal protocols are just that. My suggestion , is that you guys keep them that way. PMs or internal agency emails. Whatever anyone, outside, wants to know about internal policy or their very existence, they can find out with a request under Freedom of Information.

Just my  :2c:


----------

