Where did GPP suggest that doctors should be absolved of legal responsibility? To reform a legal system that causes doctors to perform unnecessary cover-your-ass procedures does not mean remove responsibility.

It is not a he said-she said sort of thing. It is a "person who allowed a search which resulted in incriminating evidence" said - "cop that saw the evidence" said thing. Accused people tell stories that differ from the police all the time, juries still convict.

Quit living in a fantasy land, reasonable doubt does not favor a person that consented to a search which resulted in incriminating evidence and is now trying to hide it. The jury is going to think: "He is hiding something, he is guilty." The jury is not going to think: "OOOOOO an encrypted hard drive! Technicality! Ignore everything the officer said!"

It is not feasible that there is something else on the hard drive. If there was it would have been brought up already, the fact nothing but this 5th amendment argument was raised means there is nothing else. And if there was something else it is now waived and irrelevant. That argument is gone.

The only way the accused can rebut what the officer was is to get on the stand and testify. That is not going to happen because the only time an accused person should take the stand is when they have an air tight story which is sympathetic to the jury. Otherwise the prosecution will tear him a new one.

While it is true you don't have to open your trunk when stopped for a speeding ticket, that argument is irrelevant for two reasons.
1. This is a border crossing, not a traffic stop. Different rules apply, like it or not.
2. If you want to continue with the car analogy, a more analogous fact pattern is: The accused was stopped, he opened his trunk which has a combination lock voluntarily, the cops say the weed, the accused shut the trunk and refuses to give the combination. The incriminating evidence has already been discovered, the time to refuse to open the trunk already passed. He can't refuse to reopen the trunk now. This isn't a 5th amendment right, it is discovery.

This guy consented to a search, the search resulted in incriminating evidence that he is now trying to hide. No "what about" or "what if" hypotheticals are going to change the fact the accused already gave the prosecution all the evidence to convict him.

The 1st amendment states that: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...."

The 5th amendment states: "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...."

You cannot compare 1st and the 5th amendments, in the manner you did, because they do not have analogous effects. One prevents congress from making laws the other vests rights in an individual. You cannot waive your 1st amendment right because it is not granted by the 1st amendment, it is considered inalienable, and congress is prohibited from impinging on it by the 1st.

Also, this whole focus on the 5th amendment is a waste of time, Boucher cooperated with border patrol, he waived his 5th amendment right at that time. He told the cops everything. If he now wants to re-assert his 5th amendment right, he can, but the cops can testify against him. You cannot plead the 5th to prevent other people from testifying against you.

If you admit it is your laptop, you can plead the 5th at trial, but the cop can say "He said it was his laptop."

The cat is out of the bag, Boucher let it out, quit whining.

I believe in the democratic process. Let your representatives know how you feel.
Ontario Highway Transport Board
http://www.ohtb.gov.on.ca/eng/main.html
Telephone: 416-326-6732
Fax: 416-326-6738
e-mail: ohtb@mto.gov.on.ca

10th Floor, 151 Bloor Street West
Toronto, Ontario M5S 2T5
Canada

Obama is now president, The GWB 9-11 conspiracy theory is OVER, you are going to have to find a different windmill to joust.

Google flu tracker is an anecdotal "g-wiz" project that contains no individually identifiable material and has no real scientific value. Why would it be used as an argument in favor of data retention? Is getting the sniffles now a crime?

While despicable, sex offenders are not terrorists and the PATRIOT act is not used to gain information about them.

The patriot act was ready to go so soon after 9-11 because it is a poorly drafted pile of garbage that is not used for anything more than lip service.

If you want privacy, I can respect that, keep to yourself and be private. Don't put your private information in a place accessible to the public, like the internet. Don't start making up stories about how THEY are out to get YOU. That is not paranoia, that is megalomania.