Silk Road forums
Discussion => Shipping => Topic started by: kst1791 on December 20, 2012, 02:24 am
-
Hi there,
Thought I'd put my skills to use for the community here and do some research and review of Canadian cases that have been heard by the courts, where a shipment of drugs via Canada Post is involved. It takes me some time to review and summarize each case so this thread will be a work-in-progress for me and I'll keep at it as I can / have time, please be patient with me. These cases are interesting (for those who are interested in that sort of thing) because sometimes there's information in the judgments about the details around what was sent by whom and how, and what police methods were used for interception.
I will update this original post with details about what i've searched so far (i.e. progress), what my research parameters were, and observations arising from the research. I will keep all results from each search in its own single post (i.e. the Canada Post and cocaine search, the Canada Post and weed search, etc etc).
Each summary contains the name of the case, a clearnet link to the decision, a short summary and outcome, and some guidance as to where to find the juiciest details. I'm trying to do this with as little "legalese" as possible (i.e. plain language), but if something is confusing, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to put it in non-lawyer language for you. No judgment.
RESEARCH PARAMETERS:
- only looking seriously at cases post-2000, unless there's something particularly interesting that pre-dates
- only looking at criminal prosecutions (for example, not reviewing cases where someone who works at Canada Post is a drug addict and is complaining about having been fired)
WHAT I'VE DONE SO FAR :
1) searched all Canadian court and tribunal decisions for "Silk Road" or "bitcoin": zilch
2) searched all Canadian court and tribunal decisions for "Canada Post" and "cocaine". Finished that case review!
Next I plan to do a weed search next (it's spelled "marihuana" in the case law - isn't it marijuana?)
OBSERVATIONS SO FAR:
1) A disproportionate number of cases arise out of Newfoundland! What are you crazy kids up to out there?? That could be as a result of a number of factors, but it's definitely something I noticed.
2) These cases generally involve fairly large quantities, but that doesn't mean smaller quantities don't get intercepted, I just don't know. I suspect however that any smaller quantities intercepted are resolved without expensive trials, and therefore there would be no published judicial decisions.
Hope this is helpful to the cause! :D
-
RESULTS OF SEARCH FOR "CANADA POST" AND "COCAINE" (FINISHED!)
R. v. Payne, Newfoundland, 2012 http://canlii.ca/t/fs3tx (see paras. 6+ for description of events)
Recipients went in person to Ontario to purchase large quantities of cocaine, weed, ecstasy etc., then shipped packages themselves to Newfoundland. Seven packages sent to four addresses. Packaged in mustard jars, Tupperware, pickle containers. RCMP informed by Canada Post in Newfoundland about suspicious packages, surveilled deliveries, arrested senders/recipients, found more contraband in a subsequent search.
Outcome: pled guilty, sentenced to a bunch of jail time
R. v. Parsons, Newfoundland 2012 http://canlii.ca/t/fs5md
package identified as suspicious by Canada Post – police called. Package addressed to a real person at a real address but no return address. While this package was being investigated, another suspicious package arrived for the same person at the same post office. There were also two informants involved in this case. Not much detail, and a procedural decision, but just interesting to note that the packages were sent without a return address.
R. v. Tatchell, Newfoundland 2011 http://canlii.ca/t/flwgw
RCMP contacted by Canada Post re suspicious packages. Packaging included cases of mustard jars, one of which contained cocaine, vacuum sealed bags of pot, pills. Packages shipped to General Delivery and P.O. Boxes. Tracking devices attached to the packages. One recipient noticed police following and took off up a dirt road and tried to dispose of drugs, to no avail. No info re how Canada Post identified the packages as suspicious.
Outcome: this was a sentencing hearing for one of the package recipients who pled guilty to possession for trafficking – 9 months house arrest.
R. v. Kavanagh, Newfoundland 2011 http://canlii.ca/t/2d9db (see paras. 2-17 for convoluted explanation of facts)
- package addressed to non-existent company at Location A
- 2 kilos of coke – no info as to how it was flagged
- referred by Canada Post to RCMP, who got a warrant to secure and enter any premise the package was “observed or determined by other means” (i.e. tracking device) to have entered
- RCMP replaced contents with inert substance, and attached an open-alarm (i.e. alarm goes off when package opened) and tracking device
- undercover RCMP posing as CP delivered to Location A
- dude (not defendant) took package from Location A into a car, drove car to Location B (defendant’s address),
- RCMP saw vehicle go into Location B’s driveway, didn’t see dude and package go into Location B,
- dude drove away to another location
- RCMP got a tracking signal that showed package could be at Location B or somewhere else nearby
- open-alarm went off
- RCMP entered and searched Location B
- police refused to give specific testimony as to how the tracking device worked stating a desire to protect their investigative techniques
Outcome: Court held that search of Location B was illegal because tracking device could not pinpoint that package was at Location B as opposed to somewhere else nearby, and police did not visually see the package being taken from car into Location B.
Note that a finding that a search is illegal does not automatically mean that the evidence obtained thereby will be inadmissible – that’s a separate test / decision by a judge that was not addressed here.
R. v. Naugle, Newfoundland, 2011 http://canlii.ca/t/fl54p (see paras. 2-5 for details)
Package sent from Vancouver to Newfoundland, flagged as suspicious by Canada Post, RCMP called. No details as to packaging or what flagged CP. Recipient had it sent to a friend’s house, then picked up by another friend, then delivered to him. RCMP watched the delivery and transport to recipient, arrested middle-man courier. 2 kilos of coke.
Outcome: house arrest for middle-man courier
R. v. Armstrong, Ontario 2009 http://canlii.ca/t/22t4t (see paras. 4+ for description of events)
Sender (british Columbia) sent trackable package to “general delivery” in Mississauga (which doesn’t exist). recipient called Mississauga postal depot and identified himself and wanted to pick it up. Meanwhile, CP supervisor noticed a strong odour. Could see through a tear in the package that packets of cocaine were inserted into a hollowed out book. Called police. Undercover cops waited for recipient to pick up package. Controlled delivery executed, police arrested right away (before recipient opened the package).
Outcome: Acquitted: not enough evidence to prove that recipient had knowledge of what was in the package.
R. v. Soucy, New Brunswick, 2009 http://canlii.ca/t/23b3p
Package containing cocaine intercepted from New Brunswick to Manitoba. This is a procedural case of not much interest other than the fact that it happened.
R. v. Fry, Newfoundland 1999, Court of Appeal (carries more legal weight than regular court decision) http://canlii.ca/t/27prk (see paras. 4-12 for facts)
Purolater contacted RCMP (no evidence why) re package from Alberta to Newfoundland. Police considered the package “suspicious” because: (a) sender paid in cash, (b) no record of sender’s name in phone book in Alberta, (c) package addressed to Purolator office in NFLD, presumably to be picked up by recipient, (d) telephone number for recipient given was actually Purolator’s fax number, and (e) recipient had a “lengthy” criminal history relating to drugs. Package was marked as “Christmas gifts”.
Police x-rayed the package, saw what looked like drugs, got a warrant, opened, found drugs wrapped inside sweaters which were themselves wrapped as gifts. Arrested recipient. Recipient acknowledged package was intended for him but denied knowing there were drugs in the sweaters.
Outcome: Evidence thrown out because the x-ray was done without a warrant and without reasonable grounds. Police were acting on a “hunch”. Distinction made between x-rays and sniffer dogs, i.e. an x-ray is a “search” whereas sniffer dogs are normal procedure.
R. v. Oates, Newfoundland 1992 http://canlii.ca/t/fsxtd (see paras. 13+ for description of events)
Note: RCMP allowed four deliveries to occur, then arrested on fifth. Large quantities of cocaine. Also police had wiretap for dude’s phone and dude discussed drug deals over this phone.
Outcome: jail time
-
great work - would give you a +1 if I had the needed post count.
Getting some actual statistics on procedure and convictions will definitely help to identify which of the many opinions and advice on packaging, accepting delivery, use of postal boxes and delivery adresses etc are valid.
even if this is canada and requirements on evidence etc vary country for country police procedure, and court procedure, requirements for a conviction in western countries does not vary that much.
One thing I note is that all the cases concern mailing from somewhere in canada to somewhere else in canada.
If there was a way to search out cases concerning cross border mailings that would be even more interesting.
In any case great work - keep it up. I will definitely be following this.
-
One thing I note is that all the cases concern mailing from somewhere in canada to somewhere else in canada.
If there was a way to search out cases concerning cross border mailings that would be even more interesting.
hey thanks!
to answer your request re. cases dealing with cross-border shipments, i'm searching all Canadian courts and tribunals, so that would include federal court decisions, where cases involving shipments into or out of canada would be dealt with provided the shipper or receiver is Canadian and that is the person being prosecuted. i haven't seen any reported decisions yet re. cross-border shipping, at least not for the cocaine search, which is somewhat curious but could be explainable by any or all of the following:
1) i will find some when i search for "canada post" and other drug names
2) these cases didn't go to trial and so there's no reported judicial decision - i can't tell you what's gone on behind closed doors at federal prosecutors' offices :)
3) if we're talking serious weight and somehow the feds convinced the judge that it was in their national security interest, some judicial decisions might have been kept secret, which we'll never know about
4) cross-border shipments were caught using other delivery service providers - for now i'm sticking to just Canada Post
so that does limit the utility of my research, but hey, it's the best i can do without drawing unwanted attention to myself in the legal community :)
-
+1 karma to you OP
Thanks for doing the research...it was awesome to see the acquittal in that one case!
-
+1 karma to you OP
Thanks for doing the research...it was awesome to see the acquittal in that one case!
why i tell my friends to never open my packages when they come. They don't even touch most of them
-
This is amazing news, Our own Canadian Silk Road attorney. If you are into blow, contact us on the Road for a generous free sample.
-MM Team
-
Hey MM I have never heard of you guys but daaammmmnnn that coke looks like fire!
-
OMG thanks guys! it makes me feel good to be able to help. seriously. also doing this research helps me with my own anxiety and to pass the time whilst waiting for a shipment... :)
re. the acquittal in R. v. Armstrong: note that the defendant in that case had definitely identified himself as the person for whom the package was intended (big time - he called the post office repeatedly looking for it, showed ID), and yet that was not enough to convict. i want to read that case again but looks like they'll need much more than evidence that you knew the package was coming and that it was intended for you in order to prove that you knew there were drugs inside, which is part of the offence. good news!
in case you're interested, i've also started a thread where i talk about an old experience of mine, and open it up for legal questions. if you need some legal advice about the road or anything else for that matter, feel free to post there and i'll do my best to give you an answer. here's the link to that thread:
http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=94512.0
:)
-
2 new cases added to the cocaine post (#2 in this thread):
R. v. Kavanagh
R. v. Fry
:)
-
Hey MM I have never heard of you guys but daaammmmnnn that coke looks like fire!
Thanks Divine, We like to think its some fire coke, you should place an order sometime and can see how much "fire" is in this shit!
-
OMG thanks guys! it makes me feel good to be able to help. seriously. also doing this research helps me with my own anxiety and to pass the time whilst waiting for a shipment... :)
re. the acquittal in R. v. Armstrong: note that the defendant in that case had definitely identified himself as the person for whom the package was intended (big time - he called the post office repeatedly looking for it, showed ID), and yet that was not enough to convict. i want to read that case again but looks like they'll need much more than evidence that you knew the package was coming and that it was intended for you in order to prove that you knew there were drugs inside, which is part of the offence. good news!
in case you're interested, i've also started a thread where i talk about an old experience of mine, and open it up for legal questions. if you need some legal advice about the road or anything else for that matter, feel free to post there and i'll do my best to give you an answer. here's the link to that thread:
http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=94512.0
:)
Reading your posts are quickly becoming one of the high points of my day, I, not so much the team, is super interested in law in canada, even more for quebec provincial law also. Please feel free to take us up on our offer and please dont stop posting good info for all of us to learn with.
Magic
-
The question is, why were these packages flagged as suspicious.
There has to be more to the story than just looked suspicious.
It was more than likely just a box, there should be no reason for it to be flagged.
People need to understand there's a lot of work that go into investigations.
They usually want the higher up, or someone who's looking to sell quite a bit.
Not only that, to really get what they want, they have to prove it was to be trafficked.
So the investigation is not only when they find the coke, but the investigation
continues to prove that it is being trafficked.
Sometimes just receiving a large sum of drugs isn't enough to convict for trafficking.
They need proof to build a case. It takes time and money, so they have to decide if
it's worth it or not.
-
@tyrano - Often times in small communities you will find vigilant people at post offices that stick their nose in other peoples business. The town bad apple or what have is bringing the drugs in by mail, they will report it.
-
to Tyrano: yes you're right, there's a lot more to it than what's in the judgments, so these summaries / decisions have to be read for what they are: a judge's analysis of the evidence put before him/her. Lots of facts are left out etc., so it's not perfect, I'm just trying to put out what at least is out there...
-
THREE INTERESTING CASES NOT DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO SEARCH PARAMETERS BUT RELEVANT NEVERTHELESS:
R. v. Kang-Brown, 2008 Supreme Court of Canada http://canlii.ca/t/1wnbc, R. v. A.M., 2008 Supreme Court of Canada, http://canlii.ca/t/1wnbf
Two cases that set new standard for grounds to employ drug-sniffing dog: must be a “reasonable suspicion” of illegal contents. “Reasonable suspicion” is less onerous than “reasonable and probable grounds” (which is the standard for an actual search), but can’t be just pure conjecture or random. In other words, drug sniffer dogs are not permitted to be employed randomly to just go through bins of bags/packages just in case there’s something somewhere in there.
Also see:
R. v. Chehil, 2010 Nova Scotia, http://canlii.ca/t/2fzcb
Police looked at passenger manifest for Westjet redeye from Vancouver to Nova Scotia, saw that defendant had purchased ticket at last minute, with cash, became suspicious. Used sniffer dog on his luggage, detected drugs, arrested defendant and found cocaine in his suitcase.
Outcome: drugs found not allowed to be used as evidence since the search was unreasonable. Behaviour of defendant not enough to form a “reasonable suspicion” that would warrant use of the dog (Boris).
BUT NOTE: see paras. 9-13 for facts, AND EVEN MORE INTERESTING: see paras. 14-64, 163-174 for details re how the RCMP CIT (Criminal Interdiction Team) operates, and how the court viewed those methods. Also see paras. 184-197 for very interesting info about Boris the dog.
-
Two new cases added to cocaine post (#2 in this thread):
R. v. Tatchell, Newfoundland 2012
R. v. Parsons, Newfoundland 2011
Also, here's another case that doesn't involve an intercepted shipment but it's interesting:
Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Treasury Board, 2009 http://canlii.ca/t/27425
See paras. 3-16 for an interesting outline of the operations of Canada Border Services Agency, including para. 15 for 2008 mail/seizure numbers.
I'll start the weed search tomorrow and will at least go through the search results to figure out how many cases there are to review. Will also try to do some reviews; so far I seem to be getting through 2-3 cases per day.
:-*
-
Thank you for the great info!!!
I have heard of an interesting story I would like to share and hear comments/advice on how the community might handle these types of situations.
Domestic Canadian order via cad post (no sig. required). Contents ~5-10g schedule I. PO tracking suggests,
1. Order out for delivery to recipient
2. Order redirected to recipient's "new address"
3. One day passes
3. Order sent out for delivery again
4. Mailman rings/knocks on door when making daily delivery rounds. No one answers. Note left to pickup at PO.
5. Order picked up at PO
6. Package appears to have small rip
7. Package remains unopened
You are most welcome.
If you have a question about a specific shipment, and you haven't been arrested and/or been to court, may I respectfully suggest you set up a thread for that on its own? I'm not trying to be rude, it's just that questions like yours seem to often lead to multi-page debates, etc. I would really like it if this thread could be, in the main, about actual court cases so that those who want to read/discuss legal cases can do so without having to wade through a lot of other unrelated stuff. Make sense? Of course I can't force anyone to do anything and you're entitled to tell me to eff-off, you'll post your questions wherever you like (which is true!), but I'm hoping you'll appreciate the many (many!) hours it takes me to put this kind of work together and respect that.
Thanks, and hope it all works out well :)
-
this is a very interesting read, I'll keep subbed to this post because it is very interesting reading how things realistically happen past the arrest part and could benefit in the long run just knowing how some things work
-
taking a break back in a coupla days :-*
-
I'll try to help out in those "coupla days" :)
From R. v. Chehil, 2010 NSSC 255 (CanLII):
"[27] Westjet employees routinely allowed the police to look at the passenger manifest for its flights without prior judicial authorization. Air Canada did not allow for such a viewing without a judicial authorization."
Since Air Canada and Westjet often have the same fares between two locations, you should choose Air Canada in the future everyone.
-
I'd like to expand this thread to court cases AND law involving Canada Post and shipments.
According to http://members.shaw.ca/tjromaniuk/wp07v01p3a.htm:
Search warrants are NOT valid for mail, while in the process of the post. But this ends once the mail is delivered.
While mail is in the post, "Every person commits an offence who, except where expressly authorized by or under this Act, the Customs Act or the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, knowingly opens, keeps, secretes, delays or detains, or permits to be opened, kept, secreted, delayed or detained, any mail bag or mail or any receptacle or device authorized by the Corporation for the posting of mail." per the Canada Post Corporation Act.
During this time, except under the Acts named above, only Canada Post (seemingly only Postal Inspectors), may open any non-letter mail.
From the same Act:
"41. (1) The Corporation may open any mail, other than a letter, to determine in any particular case
(a) whether the conditions prescribed by regulations made pursuant to paragraph 19(1)(c) have been complied with;
(b) whether the manner prescribed by regulations made pursuant to paragraph 19(1)(e) has been adhered to; or
(c) whether the mail is non-mailable matter.
Idem
(2) The Corporation may open any undeliverable mail, including any undeliverable letters.
"
This suggests that letters, even if they were suspected to contain non-mailable matter, cannot be opened by Canada Post, as long as its deliverable? But the "Undeliverable and Redirected Mail Regulations" define undeliverable mail as including mail prohibited by law. Confusing. Can a letter be non-mailable but not undeliverable?
One would think that there is at least some expectation of privacy with the mail, so the Postal Inspector should have some good reason to open any mail that the Act does not prohibit the opening of. The Charter trumps any laws passed by parliament, and the Charter does secure Canadians against unreasonable search and seizures. One would think that the mail, a communication medium that also carries goods that can also tell a lot of personal information about someone, would have a relatively high expectation of privacy. People may order things via mail/online that they'd be too embarrassed to order in-person, even though legal to do so.
-
Tagging thread so I can track it.
-
R. v. Schwengers, 2005 BCPC 578 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/t/1m7rz
"The Crown maintains the accused arranged for the Metandienone to be sent to Canada from Taiwan by Canada Post’s Express Mail Service. When the package containing the controlled substance arrived in Vancouver it was x-rayed and the nature of the drug confirmed by the Health Canada laboratory. The Vancouver City Police subsequently arranged a controlled delivery to the accused, and when he took possession of the package, he was arrested."
"On September 12, 2003 Detective Constable Dhaliwal of the VPD picked up the parcel containing Metandienone from a postal inspector and sent four of the tablets to Health Canada for analysis. She received a rush analysis by fax on September 15th. After making photographs of the parcel and its contents the detective passed it on to Detective Torvik who was tasked with attempting an under cover controlled delivery of the parcel to the accused at the residence printed on the package. "
September 12th was a Friday and September 15th was a Monday.
"Finally, it is not disputed that a sample of the drug found in the parcel was analysed as Metandienone by a Department of Health Analyst on September 20, 2003." This suggests that the September 15th analysis wasn't a chemical one, but perhaps one based on visual identification?
"On 03/09/17 at approx. 11:55 hrs members from the VPD drug squad set up surveillance at 2970 W. 42nd Avenue. At approx. 13:12 hrs Det/Cst. Torvik (playing the role of a postal worker) attended the residence with the parcel. … He was unable to make the delivery at that time. At approx. 14:40 hrs on the same date, Det/Cst. Torvik again attended at the residence with the parcel. An Asian male answered the door and spoke with him. This male informed Det/Cst. Torvik that Schwengers was not home at the time but offered to call him at work. The Asian male then went back inside, grabbed the phone and called Schwengers. He then handed the phone to Det/Cst. Torvik. Schwengers informed Det/Cst. Torvik over the phone that he was at work, located at 2120 W. 10th Avenue. He asked Det/Cst/ Torvik to drop the package there as he would be working until late in the evening and early the next morning. At 15:13 hrs Det/Cst. Torvik made the delivery to Schwengers at 2120 W. 10th Avenue. Schwengers provided a BC ID as well as his FAC licence. … He was subsequently taken into custody by members of the Drug Squad."
Canada Post attempted to re-deliver on the same day 1.5 hours later, and then delivered the parcel at the accused's place of employment 1/2 hour after that. The residence and place of employment were 5km apart in Vancouver.
"[90] My [the judge's] conclusion is also consistent with the ratio in Bell. In that judgment, the Supreme Court held that importing is not a continuing offence. As quoted above, the offence of importing is complete when the drugs enter the country and thereafter, “the possessor or owner may be guilty of other offences, such as possession, or possession for the purpose of trafficking …”. Accordingly, I find the accused’s possession of the parcel, knowing its contents or being wilfully blind to the nature of its contents does not make him a party to the offence of importing or a principal actor in this offence.
[91] I acquit the accused on Count 1, importing Metandienone. "
It seems that you're only importing if you take stuff with you over a border, unload it off the ship, clear it through customs yourself, etc. Receiving something by post that happened to be imported does not make you an importer unless there's evidence to show that you made arrangements with the sender to have it shipped across a border.
The search warrants for the residence were declared invalid, thus the charges resulting from that, for unsafe storage of a firearm and possession for the purpose of trafficking were likely stayed or withdrawn.
-
Thank you very much for posting this, good info to keep in mind!
-
:(
Hi guys,
Just wanted to say that for personal reasons I have to end my participation in this thread and the forums in general - I'll spare you the details but want to apologize for not keeping it up. At least I did finish the search for Canada Post and cocaine shipments, and hopefully that was helpful to some.
Sorry to disappoint, but, sometimes you've gotta do what you've gotta do.
Cheers to all,
K
-
thanks.
I noticed the cases cited above many related to cocaine, and some even kilos of cocaine.
frankly, who would send kilos of coke through regular mail?
damn...........