FWIW, just a couple of months ago at the tunnel going into Windsor I was asked (by the hottest border agent I think I've ever seen...smoking lady ^ ) if I had ever been arrested (I never have). She then went on the "do you have guns discussion" for some time and told me "lots of people from Texas have guns" and I told her in my experiance so do lots of people in Canada but unfortunetly I didn't bring mine with me. Then I asked her to go to dinner with me and she told me to go on and have a nice evening. I was single traveller in rental car with a well used passport. YMMV

I used to be asked quite often, maybe half of the time, but he answer was always truthfully "no." Not that it should have been as I did things in my youth that would get me put under the jail today. The best I can remember, this line of questioning stopped soon after I got my Nexus, which is linked to my passport, and is the result of a detailed background check on both sides of the border. I wonder what they checked and whether they kept what they found. Too late now to worry about it.

I found out that Canada even links the work permit to the passport. Violate the terms of the permit and get caught and it goes in your passport record.

Arrest history. I got that crap in Miami customs on a simple connecting flight...
Doesn't that violate the presumption of innocence. Why not conviction
history? What if you got arrested, say, as a result of a frivolous sex
assault accusation like that football player int he news last month.. Imagine the ridiculous conversation at the border.

I'd need to get my record, but I assume conviction will show up. Also, my reading of Canadian law indicates 'refusal to submit to chemical test' carries the same sanctions as DUI, and I know motor vehicles has that information stored.

Another wild card is arrests when charges were either dropped or simply not pursued. It sounds like many people get dinged that way - as far as the Border Agent is concerned, a charge with no clear resolution can be interpreted as a flight from justice.

abaheti - thanks for the email link. I think I wrote to them and didn't get and answer, but I'll check again.

I'd start by reading this http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/informa...ns/rehabil.asp

If five years have elapsed since the end of the sentence you may apply for rehabilitation. 200$ fee isn't too much of a burden to be able to visit your northern neighbor.

I'm sorry that you don't like the law in AZ. But an objective person would have to admit that for CIC or CBSA, it would be impractical to investigate the legitimacy of every claim of unjust conviction.

Both the US and Canada routinely deny entry to individuals with arrest, but not conviction records. The burden is on the individual non national to show that he ought to be admitted, not on the border agency involved to demonstrate that he shouldn't.

I have a friend who has been refused entry to the US on a permanent basis because he truthfully answered "yes" to the US immigration question "have you ever used marijuana?". It doesn't matter that he has never been arrested, charged, or even caught by police using the drug. Just the fact that he used it at some point makes him inadmissible. Countries do have some strange rules.

I visit Vancouver 2 -3 times a year as I have close family living there and have been doing so for the last 25 years. Majority of the times I have flown in but I have also crossed via the land border. One time I drove from San Diego to Vancouver just as a sightseeing vacation. On that occasion the Canadian border agent did did not even look at my passport (I was in a rental car).

I have never had anything more than a brief interview with the border agents - never sent to secondary and never asked about convictions and arrest records. So some of the posts in this thread is quite a surprise to me.

The US provides Canada with court histories because Canada insisted on it when the USA said "Canada will have to provide all court histories of Canadians to us or we'll close the border". At least Canada got some level of reciprocity, but it all started from US insisting on Canadian records. Note that Canadian airlines flying domestic Canadian routes also have to provide the USA with passenger lists.

Also, what makes every American here think that the USA doesn't exclude entry to the USA to every Canadian with a criminal history? The USA will and does exclude people even without a criminal history if they have any connection to the drug trade - like they did to a a UBC professor who had done LSD research.

The problem is that it sweeps up a lot of innocents also. If you're in a rural area sleeping it off in the back seat very well might be the best course of action--except these days that will get you a DUI so you might as well risk driving home. The law should be encouraging people to sleep it off, not making that the riskier choice!

As far as I'm concerned DUI should involve *DRIVING*. Not merely being in a car with the keys. Not even if the car is running in a climate where you need the heater to keep warm.

I ask because I had a similar circumstance where I have a 3 year old DUI, however, in the state of Illinois a first offense is typically supervision as long as you follow through with what the judge orders (fines, classes, and community service usually). Now, on my record it shows the arrest but does not show a conviction.

I was actually approved by the Canadian side for NEXUS because I was never actually convicted. If there is not a conviction on your record this may be a route to go for you to avoid any future hassles.

Townshend - interesting. In AZ they can pursue 'DUI - Impaired to the Slightest Degree', which basically means jail for a first offense of driving sober. Someone busted for walking with car keys at a .05 BAC in AZ would have a jail record, while someone driving over .08 from another state would show not much of anything, record-wise.

I assume this is where the TRP comes in to play, where each case can be judged on the individual merits. The problem is the required lead-time makes it a non-starter for most business travel. Maybe the solution to this whole mess is a streamlined online application process that takes days, not months.

The cops see you walk out of a bar. You're clearly drunk. They watch you get in your car, and turn on the ignition. The throw the car in drive, slam your foot down on the gas, shoot forward and a half a block later you mow down a pedestrian or t-bone a car. The cops then arrest you.

That was the old method. The problem is, citizens had an issue with the whole "why did you let a drunk guy drive and mow down the pedestrian/t-bone a car". I admit, it can be a tough one, and truthfully, it's more bad luck than anything else to get arrested before you're driving. But, it's also foolish to let someone get behind the wheel and try and drive when they're falling down drunk.

How often did the pedestrian get hit in half a block, though?

The reason for the rule was the cop finds the guy sleeping it off beside the highway and it's obvious that he drove drunk but he's not driving now.

There's also the issue of the cop having to wait for you to actually do something before arresting you. Keys + car + drunk = DUI makes life simpler for them. That doesn't mean it's justice.

As far as I'm concerned the cop should watch and nail you if you move the car.

The whole 'actual physical control' thing came in to play decades ago when a guy was found asleep in his pickup truck with engine running at an intersection. He apparently stopped at a red light and passed out. Common sense law. The problem is that prosecutors started stretching the definition and the whole thing was left up to precedent.

For a while case law supported the idea that someone 'sleeping it off' was safe from prosecution, but recent precedents have upheld convictions of folks just using car AC to get out of heat.

The law, in AZ at least, has been tweaked to make the jury the final decider in these cases - only the jury can decide what 'actual physical control' means in each case. So, while the cops can arrest someone using the 'key FOB' trick, it doesn't mean a jury has to agree that equates to 'driving.' That's why a DUI arrest typically comes with a laundry list of other charges that can be dropped to get the big money plea.