"Mere evidence"?: Why customs searches of digital devices violate Section 8 of the 'Charter'

In 1884, E.A. Boyd and Sons ("Boyd") contracted with the United States government to supply imported glass for a new federal building in Philadelphia. The government agreed to waive duty, but to hasten construction told Boyd to use its existing stock (for which it had already paid duty) an...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:University of British Columbia law review 2016-08, Vol.49 (2), p.485-519
Main Author: Penney, Steven
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Access control
Border searches
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canada)
Cellular telephones
Constitutional amendments
Evidence
Laws, regulations and rules
Searches and seizures
Self-incrimination
Tariff
U.S. states
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In 1884, E.A. Boyd and Sons ("Boyd") contracted with the United States government to supply imported glass for a new federal building in Philadelphia. The government agreed to waive duty, but to hasten construction told Boyd to use its existing stock (for which it had already paid duty) and import duty-free glass to replace it. Suspecting that Boyd had fraudulently imported more than it needed, the government seized one of the shipments, brought a civil forfeiture action, and obtained a subpoena requiring Boyd to produce the invoice from a previous shipment. Boyd complied, but argued at trial that the subpoena violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court agreed and excluded the invoice. Applying what would later be called the "mere evidence" rule, it held that the Fourth Amendment forbade the taking of non-illicit property for evidentiary purposes. It further concluded that compelling Boyd to provide the invoice violated the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment.
ISSN:0068-1849