![]() |
Originally Posted by Deeg
This is an old law. I believe it was part of the Tariff Act of 1930, although I don't know how much it has been revised since then. Any revisions in the last four or five years have not been substantive. Of that, I am quite certain.
|
Originally Posted by PTravel
Okay, I can't blame this one on Bush. ;)
|
For those of you who requested the paper I give TSA when searching my bags with documents, can you please make sure you gave me your email addy's in the PM. I will try and send them out today.
|
Originally Posted by PTravel
In my opinion, the statute is unconstitutional for two primary reasons. First, as you note, "immoral" is undefined, rendering the statute fatally void for vagueness. Second, and more important, however, is that the statute engages in impermissible content-based discrimination, in violation of the First Amendment.
Did Jock Sturges have problems with customs? |
Originally Posted by PTravel
I don't know the source of rights in Canada, nor do I know whether Canada has a Constitution that constitutes a limitation on federal power. Finally, I don't know whether Canada has the equivalent of a First Amendment.
Canadian Constitution for your persual Hope this helps you in your analysis of the situation. Always happy to do some researching. Sanosuke! |
Originally Posted by Sanosuke
Sanosuke!
|
Originally Posted by SPN Lifer
What is the significance of the exclamation mark? Does it have to do with the meaning of your user name?
Sanosuke! |
Originally Posted by Sanosuke
Some quick reading for you to enlighten you on the Canadian Consitution since nobody else has bothered to find the url:
Canadian Constitution for your persual Hope this helps you in your analysis of the situation. Always happy to do some researching. Sanosuke! |
Originally Posted by MSY-MSP
I did get a portion of a file from an oponent using this line of questioning. The BP sent to me had SSSS on it, so I knew the bag had been opened, they claimed priviledge, but TSA is not law enforcement. They had to turn it over because of the judge indicated that because the search was held in an open area where anyone could see the documents the attorney in question had failed to try and keep the priviledge. The judge indicated had he simply requested a private screening that would most likely be enough, and he suggested to all that we have form to be signed as well.
I can't say that I think it's "just" for clients to get screwed like this because their attorneys were subject to an unreasonable search. And I suppose the same argument would thus apply to the clients themselves - if their bags were ever searched while carrying around secret documents, etc. |
Originally Posted by Doppy
And what happens if they refuse to sign the form but search your bags?
I can't say that I think it's "just" for clients to get screwed like this because their attorneys were subject to an unreasonable search. And I suppose the same argument would thus apply to the clients themselves - if their bags were ever searched while carrying around secret documents, etc. The situation isn't the best for attorneys. It is more a damned if we do, damned if we don't. We have to protect our client's interests, yet we have to go see them too. |
Originally Posted by PTravel
Sorry, I'm not qualified to analyze Canadian law. :)
Freedom of Rights in Canada: Similiar to the Bill of Rights in the USA Sanosuke! |
Originally Posted by Sanosuke
|
Originally Posted by HeathrowGuy
Althought the black-letter "constitutional law" might be similar between the countries, any sort of professional interpretation on how a given situation would be treated under Canadian law is pointless without, at a bare minimum, an understanding of Canadian judicial precedents and legislative/executive interpretations (and knowledge of the degree to which they play a role in adjudicating future issues that may arise).
The most pertienent information regarding protection of personal info and such: Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act AND Canadian Privacy Act Sanosuke! |
Originally Posted by PTravel
"... or any lottery ticket, or any printed paper that may be used as a lottery ticket, or any advertisement of any lottery."
|
Originally Posted by SPN Lifer
Many do not.As an attorney, you undoubtedly know that a CBP search at the "functional equivalent of a border" is almost unlimited, while a TSA search is not. In either case, one would want to summon a supervisor -- someone chime in about the levels of TSA officer supervision -- and be sure to explain everything and document everything, including names. You might want to generally tell them about attorney-client files. It would be good to have documentation of your assertions, such as business cards, bar cards, copies of law degree, etc.
Business cards and bar cards, though, would be a good idea. (For that matter, I never leave home without my business cards, because I never know when I'll be asked for one by a potential client.) I've read at least one story of an attorney being asked by Customs for a business card to back up his answer to the, "What do you do for a living?" question. I hadn't been worried about the TSA wanting to go through my files; at most, I figured they'd ask me to turn on the laptop to prove it's actually a computer and not a bomb in disguise. But I have considered the CBP issue, especially since I live relatively near the border, and here are my thoughts on it.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:40 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.