"CBSA officers are trained to look for clues or multiple indicators before referring someone for secondary inspection. CBSA officers consider many factors, including previous infractions, countries visited, nervousness, etc., in assessing who or what might be a risk. When CBSA officers suspect a possible presence of narcotics, a field test will be conducted. These may include narcotic identification tests, spray tests and detector dogs."OK, but as subsequent testing revealed no trace of heroin at all, what "clues" tipped you guys off?
That she had no prior record? That she was a retired Girl Scouts administrator on her way to a regular bingo game?
Reading the many comments desperately attempting to absolve CBSA below the Winnipeg Free Press article - that it was her own fault for having an unmarked jar of motor oil in her vehicle, that perhaps her son-in-law had heroin on his hands when he gave her the jar of motor oil that subsequently tested for no heroin, that heroin does look like motor oil after all, that maybe she was a mule doing a test run, that the CBSA are just doing their job - you realize the extent to which the terr'rists really did win and that this is how we wound up with Steve.