Strip-searched woman sues U.S. border guards

[Newsjock]

Source: CBC News

A woman from Stratford, Ont., has launched a $500,000 lawsuit in a U.S. federal court against two female U.S. border guards in Detroit.

In March 2010, Loretta Van Beek was travelling to Savannah, Ga., where she owns a small vacation home, when she was pulled over by customs agents at the Ambassador Bridge, across the river from Windsor, Ont.

Van Beek, 46, told CBC News she was sent to secondary inspection when customs officers found a few raspberries in her car that she'd forgotten to declare. After more than an hour of questions, Van Beek was told she was being denied entry on suspicion that she was living illegally in the U.S.

Van Beek said she was marched into a holding cell by two female agents and ordered to remove her shirt and stand spread-eagled against the wall.

... Van Beek claims the guard shoved her hand inside her genital area while the other officer watched.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/windsor/story/2011/02/11/wdr-van-beek-lawsuit.html

[Canuckistanian]

1. Do Americans ever want to see Canadian tourist dollars again?

Because shit like this make us reconsider our trip across the "friendliest border on Earth".

[Newsjock]

2. But, but ...

Those might have been DIRTY raspberries!

[crim son]

50. Not to defend the actions of the border personnel,

not by ANY MEANS would I defend them, but there are good reasons why one is not permitted to carry produce across borders and anybody who regularly makes the crossing is well aware of this.

[hlthe2b]

3. Shit like this makes me want to sneak across your border...

and pray that you let me stay. This crap is out of control.

[RKP5637]

6. I think it's only going to get worse. I've always said this has the potential to be a

police state and people just laugh at me.

[Canuckistanian]

7. I've got a spare room.....

I've made this offer before.

[hlthe2b]

8. I call dibbs!

Honestly.... What has happened to our country? Please don't let this scourge move north! I am just sick at the abuses to civil liberties and common decency since 911 gave free license to make this a police state. sigh.....

[chervilant]

10. hmm...

Don't say that unless you mean it!!!!

[uppityperson]

12. driving from SE AK to main body, through Canada, I hated the US border assholes

Never had a problem with the Canadian ones, but coming back into the good old USA? Had a couple cases of fish I'd canned over the summer. They made me open a couple and taste them, then talked about whether or not they should let me back into the USA with them.

[CreekDog]

19. crossing into the US from Canada has generally been unpleasant

there was just one time when it wasn't unpleasant...at the Montreal Airport.

in a long line at Blaine, Washington, they had customs agents walking among the cars. they stopped at the one in front of me, made her open her trunk then used some tool to basically damage it trying to pry the carpet off.

all i know is that this driver was the only black person anywhere around me and she was the only one that this happened to while i was waiting (quite a while too). (they didn't find anything or look any further, btw.)

because every experience crossing back to the USA is preceded by a trip through Canadian customs, I always compare the experience and that makes our side seem even more unpleasant.

i never had anything bad to say about customs agents or border patrol, until i started returning from Canada and also when I lived in Tucson.

(now to the nice Customs agents out there, i'm sorry, this isn't directed at you, in fact, for the most part, i wish it was you that i'd been dealing with this past decade.)

[DLnyc]

32. Yes, I have repeatedly witnessed blatant and crude racism from US agents

when returning to the US. There needs to be concentrated policy to weed out these types of agents. It certainly got worse under the idiot and Darth, but I don't know that it has improved much since Obama came in.

Of course, Canadian customs is always professional and respectful, in my opinion.

[high density]

52. It goes both ways.

I've decided I will never drive across the US/Canada border again as a single male American. Last summer was the first and last time.

Going over, the Canadians went through my car to the point of pulling up the rear seat cushions. They looked at my empty digital camera, evidently to see if I was dumb enough to transport some kiddie porn on it. (The laptop I had wasn't searched.) Overall this felt a little more dignified than the way the USA did it, because I was there to watch what they were doing. This was at a smaller crossing near Vermont. Canada doesn't know me, and I was a little more accepting of this since I was entering their country as this unknown. However, an assumption that a straight-and-narrow computer geek like myself is harmless would've been nice, though. Perhaps there are a lot of clean-cut software developers out there that also have a side job smuggling drugs between the USA and Canada, I don't know.

Coming back to the USA (Niagara Falls area), I apparently got in the wrong line and got a thousand questions from the CBP officer. The guy couldn't talk clearly while looking at me, and I had to have him repeat a bunch of stuff. It made me nervous and I'm sure it showed. Long story short, he took my keys and sent me inside the oh-so-pleasant CBP office, complete with a couple of brigs which were being utilized. After that they did who knows what to my car and its contents. A half hour later, I was asked a couple more questions and given my keys and passport back.

I won't be doing that again. In fact it has dimmed my outlook at all international travel. I don't want to get treated like I'm smuggling something every time I travel across a border just because I'm under 50 and I don't have somebody to travel with.

[christx30]

4. Totally reasonable

Totally reasonable to arrest someone and strip search them because of a few raspberries of mass destruction. Good thing it wasn't something horrible, like an apple. They might have gotten summary execution. Hope I don't need this, but just in case... :sarcasm:

[24601]

5. Boy is Obama strict! n/t

[DeSwiss]

9. POLICE STATE

K&R

[grahamhgreen]

36. Yup

[KT2000]

11. My border town with Canada

is meeting with Victoria officials to see how we can increase tourism. Gee - requiring passports and strip searches may cause Canadians to avoid this place like the plague. I have always been treated kindly by the Canadian authorities but coming back to the US is like trying to cross the border in Eastern Block countries in the 60's. presumed guilty.

[CreekDog]

21. I'm American and it feels that way

I hate it.

Even a park ranger at Glacier warned us about crossing back. He said "Canada's glad to have you...but if you want to come back..."

:wtf:

[CanonRay]

13. We're going to need a free and friendly Canada

when we all have to make a run for it.

[woo me with science]

14. What the fuck are we becoming? nt

[boppers]

15. So, has anybody seen what she's suing for, and who she's suing?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/02/10/Canadian-woman-says-was-groped-at-border/UPI-34791297392076/ makes it look like she's trying to sue the guards, but doesn't specify for what...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355743/Strip-searched-woman-sues-genitals-groped-fails-disclose-raspberries-border.html

...seems to be a 4th amendment case , but there's this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

...and the officers already two pieces of information that she was being deceptive:
1. Living "illegally" part-time in a house in the US.
2. Undeclared property.

[daleo]

17. I don't see anything in your sources

about

"...and the officers already two pieces of information that she was being deceptive:
1. Living "illegally" part-time in a house in the US.
2. Undeclared property."

Unless the undeclared property is the fruit.

The story reminds one a bit of the Monty Python skit with the scene about "how to defend yourself from an assailant armed with a banana", though in this case an entire country is being defended from a woman armed with raspberries. Monty Python skits seem to have foreshadowed much of what has come to pass in what we laughingly refer to as the modern free world.

[boppers]

18. I was almost denied entry into Canada for declaring the following:

1. Camping gear.
2. A Digereedoo.
3. A Keyboard.
4. Clothing.

They pulled my car to the side, and unpacked everything. Took hours.

Apparently, they were concerned that I was coming into the country and playing music, without a work permit making it legal for me.... to play music in Canada. You are required to have a permit for that.

This is not a joke (as many young musicians in touring vans/buses learn the hard way). Borders are funny that way, different countries have different laws.

So, lets get down to the nitty-gritty:
1. Living "illegally" part-time in a house in the US.
This is an educated guess on my part. They likely asked her where she was going, and she told them that she owns a house in the US. If she doesn't have extended stay paperwork, she's not allowed to stay as long as she wants.

2. Undeclared property.
The raspberries. I get asked about transporting fruit, vegetables, or plants 15-20 times a year, because of California/Arizona/Oregon border restrictions... we don't like invasive species in the US. Something about caring for the environment. If somebody's not honest about something as trivial as raspberries, who knows what else she's not being forthright about.

[Fastcars]

34. Similar Experience...

I had a very similar experience crossing into Canada with a bus owned by the hockey team I worked for years back. There was no problem with me bringing the bus over but the Canadian agent couldn't comprehend that the equipment mananger and trainer weren't coming up there to take Canadian jobs and refused them entry. Never mind the fact that we were meeting the coach and owner of the team to find Canadians to HIRE for jobs in the U.S.

I think it is often simply the luck of the draw, if we had got the agent with all the hockey memorabilia lining his walls I am sure we would have passed with no problem. Instead we got a person that had no idea how hockey teams work and she refused to consult the guy 20 feet away that obviously could have informed her.

[daleo]

40. So your claims were unsourced, just speculation on your part

Next time you should make that clear.

Crossing the border either way has become a daunting experience. Turning the transportation af a few ounces of fruit by a tourist into an international offence requiring a sexually abusive strip search is a prime example of the phenomenon. It's absurd. We used to (rightly) laugh at the Soviets for such things.

[CreekDog]

22. we know what you think before you type it

:eyes:

[boppers]

26. Yeah, I'm a "laws" kind of person.

Maybe the Obama signature pic gives it away.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

24. The Border Search Exception doesn't lower probable cause for a strip search

and Canadians can remain in the United States for six months at time without a visa, millions of Canadians own US homes.

[boppers]

27. This was *arguably* an "outer clothing" search.

Note: *arguably*

I didn't see anything about her being totally naked and forced to bend over (this is a messy area of law).

As far as the actual time-frames involved, I haven't seen anything that indicates she was, or wasn't, within the limits, but US border guards aren't required to be judges. They can turn people away on suspicion.

[CreekDog]

28. well i guess if you can show it on hotel pay per porn, then it's okay with you

:rofl:

[boppers]

30. I live in Portland, Oregon.

Our corner bars have entertainment workers that are illegal in many states as "porn".

We also have nudists who bicycle around town, well, nude.

In one reality, we have the burka, in another, it's okay for men and women to go around naked.

I didn't quite follow your quip, though... it was short, and subject line only.

She *didn't* get paid for it, it *wasn't* put on hotel porn channels....

... so how is that straw man relevant?

[CreekDog]

31. because hotel pay per view is not completely naked

but exposing one half of one's body is nonetheless still intrusive, especially for a female.

because it didn't go as far as one could go doesn't make it ok, it doesn't really even make it better.

[boppers]

33. I don't subscribe to that patriarchal model of shame.

I guess some women who show their faces, do.

I'll have to think about that one.

[whathehell]

37. Say what?

"Although border-searches are exempted from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, they are still subject to the amendment's reasonableness requirement.<3> Whether a border search is reasonable depends on a judicial analysis that balances the intrusion into an individual’s legitimate privacy and dignity interests against the government’s legitimate interest in the subject of the search.<4> In reviewing the reasonableness of border-searches under the Fourth Amendment, many courts have distinguished between "routine" and "nonroutine" searches.<5> Customs may conduct "routine" searches without any level of suspicion, while "nonroutine" searches must be supported by "reasonable suspicion".<6> Under this analysis, searches of a traveler's property, including luggage, briefcases, wallets, and other containers are "routine," while searches of a traveler's body, including strip, body cavity and involuntary x-ray searches, are considered "nonroutine."<7>

Check out that last sentence.

U.S border guards may not be "required to be judges"...and they may "turn people away" on suspicion,

but to my knowledge, they are NOT allowed to molest and/or rape people.

I hope she her suit is VERY successful.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

38. I think it could turn the tide on the police state

The precedent of police state operatives having their shit auctioned off on the court house steps to settle a civil claim brought against them for crimes committed in the "line or duty" could put a major chill on this nonsense.

[boppers]

42. Her underclothes were not removed, nor were her cavities inspected.

The most graphic explanations I saw resulted in camel-toe.

Clothes still on.

Not a strip search, or a cavity search.

edit: typo

[whathehell]

43. How about..

"reaching into" underpants without taking them off?

You seem not to realize that one

can be decidedly violated with "clothes still on"...Trust me on that.

Do you think this woman is lying?

What is your point?

[boppers]

44. My point is that the law is specific.

Outrage is general.

Was her anus inspected? Was it opened? (no.)

Her outrage is that, while clothed, she felt violated.

This is not different than a woman in a burqua being upset because somebody saw her heels.

She feels violated, because psychotic (to me, I admit) standards exist in religions where labia, anuses, arms, ankles, whatever are "sacred". There are crazy rules about even the most mundane of body parts.

[whathehell]

45. Your judgments are noted

but, unless you are a lawyer, one actually close to the case,

I doubt you are able to make accurate predictions on it.

BTW...Have you ever been sexually violated?


The "standards" you mention are less hard and fast than you realize,

and her lawyer, in any case, was/is in a better position than you

to evaluate them vis a vis her suit.

This person is not a burqua wearer...She is of the western culture

and unless she is ruled "psychotic", I suspect her case will proceed

your opinions notwithstanding.

[boppers]

46. I have been "violated".

I heave been inspected, strip searched, and cavity searched.

If I'm crossing a border, I know my coochie is up for inspections.

[whathehell]

48. Sorry to hear that..

I have been as well, but under different circumstance.

[struggle4progress]

25. ... Van Beek is seeking undetermined punitive and compensatory damages for the "outrageousness"

of the violations of Fourth Amendment guarantees in the U.S. Constitution against unreasonable searches and for the resulting "mental anguish and emotional distress." ...
Canadian woman sues U.S. border guards over strip-search
By Doug Schmidt, Postmedia News
February 10, 2011
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canadian+woman+sues+border+guards+over+strip+search/4261445/story.html

[boppers]

29. THANKS for the link.

Some interesting data in there....

[midnight]

16. So....At election time, when were asked to work hard and elect our president..

Because the other side will be worse........ Will we stop this cycle?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

20. It is brilliant to pursue them as individuals,

The police state might pull in their horns if fucking with the wrong person can end-up with their assets being seized and their paychecks at whatever menial job they can find being garnished for decades.

If they are made to suffer as individuals for crimes committed under the color of authority I could see a major chill descending over Fear Inc.

[alp227]

23. Don't peek at Ms. Van Beek!

Damn, hand-shoving? Who the hell are these guards right there? I say that robots do touch searches from now on.

[saras]

35. Good plan on her part

Good idea to sue the individuals involved, not the whole government.

Make it clear to every individual working for them that they can be held PERSONALLY responsible for what they do, and can't hide behind their employer.

In a better world, there would be additional rape charges as well.

[pecwae]

39. I hope she wins her suit

and wins big.

[FelixLegion]

41. I don't buy it..............

This woman has no chance of winning her lawsuit. When you cross the borders, whether a US Citizen or not, you do not have a lot of the rights that you do once you are inside the US. If you actually read the legal brief filed by her attorney (it is available on the some of the local newspapers' websites), the woman alleges that her 4th Amendment Rights were violated, but CBP Officers are granted Border Search Authority, which is an exception to the 4th Amendment. Since the woman does NOT have 4th Amendment Protection when she crosses the border, I don't see how this case doesn't get kicked once the brief is reviewed by a judge.

I also don't get all the anger placed towards CBP. Why is everyone taking her story at face value? The attorney in this case is a "Business Litigation" attorney, which aren't exactly the kind of attorneys that are only interested in justice, if you know what I mean. The lawsuit alleges that these female officers basically sexually assaulted her, which I really have a hard time buying, especially given that this happened almost a year ago and she was so traumatized by this that 1) she didn't file any charges or complaints prior to suing, and 2) according to the news reports, she has crossed AT THE SAME BRIDGE a bunch of times since this happened. It sounds to me like this woman is trying to get paid, and is suing 2 officers that work every day trying to protect the American people in order to try to get paid. It makes me sick to see so many people supporting her without there being any other information out there, because as an American, I generally object to foreigners suing police that work on MY behalf.

Now, if these officers actually did this, I will be even more furious that this happened. But I live in the area and this has been all over the news and the officers haven't been placed on "administrative leave" or anything like that and as far as the news reports say, these officers are still working. Don't you think that if there was some merit to this case then the officers would be relieved of their duties? I'm hopeful that more information comes out on this case, because I think that when it does this woman is going to be in deep trouble, but in the meantime the 2 officers that were involved have to probably pay for their own lawyers (since they're being sued personally I don't think the government gives them a lawyer).

[ReggieVeggie]

47. on behalf of your what?

She had undeclared raspberries. Oh NOES!! She was rough-handled and had to submit to unwaranted scrutiny.

And, oh by the way, you think there's nothing to the accusation because the accused agents were not suspened? Are you kidding? There have been many instances where departments will only relieve officers and agents when the shit actually hits the fan, not before.

[crim son]

51. Hell, these abuses have been documented by video

and not only have the perpetrators not been suspended or reprimanded but they have been praised for doing their duty.

Why is it that some people are terrified that allowing gay marriage opens the door to all sorts of heinous abominations, like marrying one's dog, while they are oblivious to the very real "slippery slope" we're on with respect to these unlawful invasions of privacy that are now par for the course? What's next? Immediate arrest and detention for anybody who smells funny?

Unbelievable.

[BlueIris]

49. Now, now, while "invasive" and "uncomfortable," I'm sure that molestation was "necessary."

Hope she wins.