Consent Search and Gaming House Warrants: Difference between pages

From Criminal Law Notebook
(Difference between pages)
VisualWikitext
m (Text replacement - "'''([a-zA-Z]+ [a-zA-Z]+ [a-zA-Z]+ [a-zA-Z]+)'''<br>" to "; $1")
 
m (Text replacement - "'''([a-zA-Z]+ [a-zA-Z]+ [a-zA-Z]+ [a-zA-Z]+)'''<br>" to "; $1")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderWarrantless}}
{{LevelZero}}
==General Principles==
{{HeaderWarrants}}
<!-- -->
A search by consent is one form of [[Warrantless Searches|warrantless search]].
A search conducted with valid consent is lawful.<ref>''R v Chang'', [http://canlii.ca/t/4s1h 2003 ABCA 293] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}}{{at|28}}</ref>


Valid consent exists where the following is present:<ref>
==Legislation==
''R v Wills'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1npnl 1992 CanLII 2780] (ON CA), (1992), 70 CCC (3d) 529{{perONCA|Doherty JA}} at 69<br>
{{quotation|
''R v Cooper'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2f7rc 2011 ABQB 17] (CanLII){{perABQB|Kenny J}} at paras 35-41<br>
; Warrant to search
''R v Borden'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1frrd 1994 CanLII 63], [1994] 3 SCR 145{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}<br>
199. (1) A justice who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under section 201, 202, 203, 206, 207 or 210 is being committed at any place within the jurisdiction of the justice may issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to enter and search the place by day or night and seize anything found therein that may be evidence that an offence under section 201, 202, 203, 206, 207 or 210, as the case may be, is being committed at that place, and to take into custody all persons who are found in or at that place and requiring those persons and things to be brought before that justice or before another justice having jurisdiction, to be dealt with according to law.
''R v Rutten'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1mldp 2006 SKCA 17] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Smith JA}}{{at|35}}<br>
<br>
</ref>
'''Search without warrant, seizure and arrest'''<br>
#There was a consent, either express or implied;
(2) A peace officer may, whether or not he is acting under a warrant issued pursuant to this section, take into custody any person whom he finds keeping a common gaming house and any person whom he finds therein, and may seize anything that may be evidence that such an offence is being committed and shall bring those persons and things before a justice having jurisdiction, to be dealt with according to law.
#The consenting party has the authority to give the consent;
<br>
#Consent was voluntary and not the product of police oppression, coercion or other external conduct negating freedom to choose not to consent;
; Disposal of property seized
#The consenting party knew of the nature of the police conduct to which he or she was being asked to consent;
(3) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, a court, judge, justice or provincial court judge before whom anything that is seized under this section is brought may declare that the thing is forfeited, in which case it shall be disposed of or dealt with as the Attorney General may direct if no person shows sufficient cause why it should not be forfeited.
#The consenting party knew they had the ability to refuse the search;
<br>
#The consenting party was aware of the potential consequences of giving the consent, including a general understanding of the jeopardy resulting from the police conduct about which the consent was being sought.
'''When declaration or direction may be made'''<br>
 
(4) No declaration or direction shall be made pursuant to subsection (3) in respect of anything seized under this section until
; Voluntary
:(a) it is no longer required as evidence in any proceedings that are instituted pursuant to the seizure; or
For consent to be valid it must be voluntary and informed. Voluntary search requires that the consent to be given without coercion.<ref>
:(b) the expiration of thirty days from the time of seizure where it is not required as evidence in any proceedings.
''R v Bergauer-Free'', [http://canlii.ca/t/253pd 2009 ONCA 610] (CanLII){{perONCA|Moldaver JA}}{{at|57}}<br>
See also ''R v Goldman'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1tx9c 1979 CanLII 60] (SCC), [1980] 1 SCR 976{{perSCC|Mclntyre J}} at p. 1005
</ref>
 
; Informed consent
Informed consent to a search requires the accused to be aware of the right to refuse the search and the consequences of consenting to the search.<ref>
{{supra1|Wills}} <br>
''R v Borden'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1frrd 1994 CanLII 63] (SCC), (1994), 33 C.R. (4th) 147{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}} at 158 <br>
''R v SS'', [http://canlii.ca/t/205d8 2008 ONCA 578] (CanLII){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} at paras 48, 52<br>
cf. ''R v Lupien'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1nmsf 1995 CanLII 5211] (QC CA), (1995) 68 QAC 253 (CA){{perQCCA|Rothman JA}}<br>
''R v Blackstock'', [http://canlii.ca/t/232ch 1997 CanLII 14495] (ON CA), (1997) 10 CR 5th 385 (ONCA){{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
''US v Drayton'' 536 US 194 (2002) - police need not inform of right as long as there was no coercion, intimidation, or confrontation<br>
</ref>The party expressing "consent must be possessed of the requisite informational foundation for a true relinquishment of the right.  A right to choose requires not only the volition to prefer one option over another, but also sufficient available information to make the preference meaningful.”<ref>''R v Borden'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1frrd 1994 CanLII 63] (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 145{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}</ref>
 
; Notice of Right to Refuse
The cases are divided on whether the police need to give clear instructions on the right to refuse. <ref>
''R v Rutten'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1mldp 2006 SKCA 17] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Smith JA}} at paras 39 to 44, the court stated that permission to enter to search a dwelling must include information on the person's right to refuse<br></ref>
Courts opposed to the requirement state that the standard of informed consent is less than the informational component of s. 10(b). The police need not tell the accused of the right to refuse consent. However, a failure to do so may result in a lack of informed consent.<ref>
''R v Lewis'' (1998) 122 CCC (3d) 481 (ONCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/4q25 1998 CanLII 7116] (ON CA){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}<br>
</ref>
 
; Waiver
The Crown must establish that the accused right to be searched was waived clearly and unequivocally.<ref>
''R v Collins'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftnd 1987 CanLII 84] (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 265{{perSCC|Lamer J}}</ref> 
However, where the accused is given access to counsel there is a presumption of informed consent unless the accused shows otherwise.<ref>
''R v Williams'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1dgtn 1992 CanLII 295] (BC SC), (1992) 76 CCC 385 (BCSC){{perBCSC|Melnick J}}<br>
''R v Deprez'' (1994) 95 CCC 29 (MBCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbrwh 1994 CanLII 16612] (MB CA){{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}<br>
</ref>
 
; Effect of Consent
Once consent is given there is no future expectation of privacy.<ref>''R v Arp'', [1998] 3 SCR 339, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqq7 1998 CanLII 769] (SCC){{perSCC|Cory J}} at 90</ref>
 
; invalidating consent
A threat to get a warrant when the officer knows there is no grounds to do so can invalidate consent to search.<ref>
''R v O’Connor'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1cgld 2002 CanLII 3540] (ON CA){{perONCA|O'Connor ACJ}} at paras 74, 75<br>
</ref> However, it is not necessary the police ever let the accused know that there is no grounds to search the item for which consent is sought.<ref>
{{ibid1|O’Connor}}{{at|75}}</ref>
 
; Coercion
Coercion will exist where there are threats made should the accused refuse to give consent.<ref>
''R v Bergauer-Free'', [http://canlii.ca/t/253pd 2009 ONCA 610] (CanLII){{perONCA|Moldaver JA}} - police threaten to bring in the canine unit should consent be refused. This was found to be "colorably lawful coercion"<br>
</ref>
 
; Honest But Mistaken Belief in Consent
Police are not permitted to justify a warrantless search on the basis that they had a mistaken belief in consent.<ref>
{{supra1|Wills}} (“where the Crown relies on the consent of an individual as authorization for a seizure and fails to establish the validity of that consent, then the seizure cannot be brought within s. 8 based upon the police officer’s perception of the validity of the consent”)<br>
''R v Reeves'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hphzk 2017 ONCA 365] (CanLII){{perONCA|LaForme JA}}{{at|71}}<br>
</ref>
 
; Burden
The burden is upon the Crown to prove consent on a balance of probabilities.<ref>
{{supra1|Wills}} at p. 353<br>
''R v Colson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1vdtv 2008 ONCA 21] (CanLII), 88 O.R. (3d) 752{{perONCA|Blair JA}}, at para 23 leave denied [2008] SCCA No 101<br>
''R v Simon'', [http://canlii.ca/t/205d8 2008 ONCA 578] (CanLII){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{at|49}}<br>
{{supra1|Rutten}}{{at|36}}<br>
</ref>
{{reflist|2}}
 
===Consent to Enter Residence to Arrest===
 
Consent entry for the purpose of arrest is an exception to the rule from ''R v Feeney'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr1w 1997 CanLII 342] (SCC){{perSCC|Sopinka J}} requiring a "Feeney warrant" to enter a residence for arrest.<ref>
''Tymkin v Ewatski et al''., [http://canlii.ca/t/g2mxs 2014 MBCA 4] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Monnin JA}}
</ref>
 
When executing a warrant, police may enter premises by consent where there exists:<ref>
''R v RMJT'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6px4 2014 MBCA 36] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Cameron JA}}{{at|46}}<br>
{{supra1|Tymkin v Ewatski}}{{at|89}}<br>
</ref>
# it must be given by someone who has a privacy interest in the premises
# the consent must be an informed one
 
{{Reflist|2}}
 
===Consent to Enter Residence to Search===
Consent to search a residence is guided by the "reasonable expectation of privacy".<ref>
''R v RMJT'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6px4 2014 MBCA 36] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Cameron JA}}{{at|48}}
</ref> A person who does not possess an expectation of privacy may not consent to a search.<ref>
{{ibid1|RMJT}} at para 48
</ref>
 
The relationship between the consenter and the suspect is not determinative.<ref>
{{ibid1|RMJT}}{{at|48}}<br>
</ref>
 
A parent can consent to a search of a child's portion of a residence as long as there were no restrictions on the parent's access to the zone of privacy.<ref>
{{ibid1|RMJT}}{{at|48}}<br>
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
==Implied Licence==
The "occupier of a dwelling gives implied licence to any member of the public, including a police officer, on legitimate business to come on to the property” <ref>
''R v Evans'', [1996] 1 SCR 8, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frf4 1996 CanLII 248] (SCC){{perSCC|Sopinka J}}{{at|13}} , citing ''R v Tricker'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6jqj 1995 CanLII 1268] (ON CA), (1995), 21 O.R. (3d) 575{{perONCA|Galligan JA}}{{atp|579}}<br>
See also [[Plain View Search and Seizure#Officer Trespassing and Perimeter Searches|Plain View Search and Seizure]]<br>
</ref>
The licence "ends at the door of the dwelling."<ref>
{{ibid1|Tricker}}{{at|12}}</ref>
Privacy rights are waived unless there is a clear expression of intent rebutting this.<ref>Evans at 13</ref>
 
This consent extends only insofar as it permits a person to conveniently communicate with the occupant and the activities reasonably associated with this purpose.<ref>
{{supra1|Evans}}{{at|15}}</ref>
It does not extend to police approaching and knocking at the door for the purpose of collecting evidence against the occupant.<ref>
{{supra1|Evans}} at para 16, 18, 20, 21</ref>
 
Entering on a person's driveway, where in plainview of the public will be included in the licence.<ref>
''R v Lotozky'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1nnqj 2006 CanLII 21041] (ON CA), (2006), 210 CCC (3d) 509{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}} - police observed impaired driver exiting his car in the driveway</ref> But this was found impermissible for an attached garage.<ref>
''R v Noerenberg'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1w6kg 1997 CanLII 12354] (ON SC), [1997] OJ No 4628 (Ont. Gen. Div.){{perONSC|Lally J}}<br>
''R v Maciel'', [http://canlii.ca/t/51nk 2003 CanLII 32396] (ON CA), (2003), 33 M.V.R. (4th) 152{{TheCourtONCA}} - attached garage different from driveway<br>
''R v Clements'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1sxsz 2007 ABPC 220] (CanLII), [2007] AJ No 1024 (ABPC){{perABPC|Fraser J}}<br>
See also ''R v Belnavis'', [1997] 3 SCR 341, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqzw 1997 CanLII 320] (SCC){{perSCC|Cory J}} - stating attached garage including in privacy of home
</ref>
 
A business open to the public will also provide a similar licence for police to enter.<ref>
''R v Fitt'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1mqf2 1995 CanLII 4342] (NS CA){{perNSCA|Hallett JA}} aff'd [1996] 1 SCR 70, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frfb 1996 CanLII 251] (SCC){{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}<br>
''R v Spindloe'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fjk0 2001 SKCA 58] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Jackson JA}}<br>
</ref>


Consent to enter a home does not include a blanket right to search the whole house including the basement.<ref>''R v Smith'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5scs 1998 ABCA 418] (CanLII), (1998), 128 CCC (3d) 62 (ABCA){{perABCA|Conrad JA}}</ref>
; Conversion into money
 
(5) The Attorney General may, for the purpose of converting anything forfeited under this section into money, deal with it in all respects as if he were the owner thereof.
What constitutes implied licence "must be analyzed in [its] context".<ref>
<br>
{{supra1|Evans}}
; Telephones exempt from seizure
</ref>
(6) Nothing in this section or in section 489 authorizes the seizure, forfeiture or destruction of telephone, telegraph or other communication facilities or equipment that may be evidence of or that may have been used in the commission of an offence under section 201, 202, 203, 206, 207 or 210 and that is owned by a person engaged in providing telephone, telegraph or other communication service to the public or forming part of the telephone, telegraph or other communication service or system of that person.
 
<br>
When "an invitee’s purpose changes from lawful to unlawful while on the premises, they become a trespasser.”<ref>
; Exception
''R v Nobile'' (2006), 75 W.C.B. (2d) 581 (Ont. S.C.){{NOCANLII}}{{at|53}}
(7) Subsection (6) does not apply to prohibit the seizure, for use as evidence, of any facility or equipment described in that subsection that is designed or adapted to record a communication.
</ref>
<br>
{{reflist|2}}
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 199; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203; 1994, c. 44, s. 10.
 
|[http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2#sec199 CCC ]
==Authority to Consent and Third Party Consent==
 
A third party cannot consent or waive a suspect's rights under s. 8 of the Charter.<ref>
''R v Reeves'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hwk3k 2018 SCC 56] (CanLII){{perSCC|Karakatsanis J}}<br>
''R v Cole'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ft969  2012 SCC 53] (CanLII){{perSCC|Fish J}}
</ref>
 
Third party consent by a wife or parent requires that the police also have diffident grounds to get a search warrant at the time.<ref>
''R v Barrett'', [1995] OJ No 920 (Ont. C.J.){{NOCANLII}}
</ref>
 
; Mistaken Belief in Authority
For all searches, the police must have a subjective belief that they have consented to conduct the search and it must be an objectively reasonable belief in the circumstances. Where the police wrongly relied upon consent of a third party, the reasonableness of their belief will go to section 24(2) analysis.<ref>
''R v DiPalma'', [http://canlii.ca/t/20k8k 2008 BCCA 342] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Smith JA}}
</ref>
 
Issues of consent seizure will most often be dealt with by way of warrantless seizure under s. 489.<ref>
''R v RMJT'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6px4 2014 MBCA 36] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Cameronn JA}} at para 29
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
===Joint Residency===
An "authorized occupant" of a residence may give consent to a search.<ref>
''R v Duarte'' (1987) 38 CCC (3d) 1 (ONCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/1p77j 1987 CanLII 175] (ON CA){{perONCA|Cory JA}}{{atp|11}}<br>
''R v Currie'', [http://canlii.ca/t/21f9l 2008 ABCA 374] (CanLII){{perABCA| Côté JA}} - resident gave consent to search house containing items of non-resident accused<br>
</ref>
This will usually include the homeowner.
<ref> ''R v Smith'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5scs 1998 ABCA 418] (CanLII){{perABCA|Conrad JA}}{{at|5}}</ref>
 
A parent of a suspect can usually consent to searches of the familial home where the suspect "does not expect restrictions on the access of others to those spaces".<ref>
{{ibid1|Reeves}}{{at|47}}<br>
</ref>
 
A landlord or neighbour does not constitute an "authorized occupant".<ref>
''R v Mercer'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g1390 1992 CanLII 7729] (ON CA), (1992) 70 CCC 180 (ONCA){{perONCA|Arbour JA}} - landlord<br>
''R v Blinch'' (1993) 83 CCC (3d) 158 (BCCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/1dbvq 1993 CanLII 1433] (BC CA){{perBCCA|Rowles JA}}<br>
</ref>
 
Guests can have the authority to consent to a search of a home, however, the authorization can be revoked by the homeowner.<ref>''R v Thomas'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p8vs 1991 CanLII 2736] (NL CA){{perNLCA|Goodridge CJ}} aff'd at SCC</ref>
 
The seizure of property "under mistaken authority is not necessarily fatal where authority otherwise exits".<ref>
''R v RMJT'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6px4 2014 MBCA 36] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Cameron JA}}{{at|64}}<br>
</ref>
 
'''Consent of Accused's Parents'''<br>
There will not necessarily be a violation of s. 8 where a parent consented to the search of the youth's bedroom.<ref>
R v F.(D.M.), [http://canlii.ca/t/5s36 1999 ABCA 267] (CanLII), (1999), 139 CCC (3d) 144 (Alta.C.A.), <br>
R v Figuerora [2002] OJ No 3138 (Ont. S.C.J.){{NOCANLII}}<br>
''R v Scheck'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5ktf 2002 BCSC 1046] (CanLII), [2002] BCJ No. 1671 (B.C.S.C.)<br>
</ref>
Parents who exercise control over a child's room or property may remove any expectation of privacy.<ref>
F(DM){{supra}}</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
===Computers===
Police may not seize a device without a warrant that is jointly owned by multiple people unless they have the consent of ''all'' the owners.<ref>
''R v Reeves'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hwk3k 2018 SCC 56] (CanLII){{perSCC|Karakatsanis J}}
</ref>
 
<!--
Police may seize a hard drive where a computer repair technician has been given authority to examine the contents of the hard drive and finds illegal images.<ref>
''R c Piette'', [http://canlii.ca/t/27brk 2009 QCCQ 14499] (CanLII){{perQCCQ|Bonin J}}<br>
''R v Winchester'', [http://canlii.ca/t/27qm8 2010 ONSC 652] (CanLII){{perONSC|Valin J}}<br>
</ref> The computer repair technician is not an agent of the state in calling the police.<ref>
{{ibid1|Winchester}}
</ref>
 
Joint interest in a thing such as a computer can permit one of the joint owners to give consent to search it.<ref>
''R v Pommer'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1x6ms 2008 BCSC 423] (CanLII){{perBCSC|D Smith J}} - wife consenting to search of husband's property
</ref> However, in the case of an estranged husband, the ex-wife cannot consent to a search.<ref>
''R v Libby'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1x3vt 2008 NBQB 36] (CanLII){{perNBQB| LaVigne J}}
</ref>
-->
 
; Employer Consent
An employer cannot provide consent to examine the contents of an employee's computer where they hold any reasonable expectation of privacy.<ref>
{{supra1|Cole}}, at paras 74 to 79<br>
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
==Mandatory Consent==
A court order, such as a probation order, can in certain circumstances require an offender to consent to random searches.<ref> ''R v Unruh'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fs66q 2012 SKCA 72] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Herauf JA}} </ref>
{{reflist|2}}
 
==Consent by Organizations Holding Personal Information==
Privacy of personal information within private companies is governed by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).
 
Section 7(3) permits the disclosure of personal information without the subject's knowledge or consent:
 
{{quotation|
; Disclosure without knowledge or consent
(3) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if the disclosure is<br>
...<br>
:(c.1) made to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that
::(i) it suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs,
::(ii) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction, carrying out an investigation relating to the enforcement of any such law or gathering intelligence for the purpose of enforcing any such law, or
::(iii) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of administering any law of Canada or a province;<br>
...<br>
:(d) made on the initiative of the organization to an investigative body, a government institution or a part of a government institution and the organization
::(i) has reasonable grounds to believe that the information relates to a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction that has been, is being or is about to be committed, or
::(ii) suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs;<br>
...<br>
:(h.2) made by an investigative body and the disclosure is reasonable for purposes related to investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province; ...
|[http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2000-c-5/latest/sc-2000-c-5.html PIPEDA]
}}
}}
Under this section a peace officer may make a Law Enforcement Request (LER) requesting particular information of an accused person without their consent. A proper LER should identify the person requesting the information, what information is being requested, the purpose of the request for the information (presumably to obtain evidence to an offence). The organization is permitted but not required to provide the information requested.


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
 
{{WarrantNavBar}}
Related: [[Crown Duty to Disclose|Disclosure]]
 
==See Also==
* [[Waiver of Charter Rights]]

Revision as of 21:03, 1 February 2019

Legislation

Warrant to search

199. (1) A justice who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under section 201, 202, 203, 206, 207 or 210 is being committed at any place within the jurisdiction of the justice may issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to enter and search the place by day or night and seize anything found therein that may be evidence that an offence under section 201, 202, 203, 206, 207 or 210, as the case may be, is being committed at that place, and to take into custody all persons who are found in or at that place and requiring those persons and things to be brought before that justice or before another justice having jurisdiction, to be dealt with according to law.
Search without warrant, seizure and arrest
(2) A peace officer may, whether or not he is acting under a warrant issued pursuant to this section, take into custody any person whom he finds keeping a common gaming house and any person whom he finds therein, and may seize anything that may be evidence that such an offence is being committed and shall bring those persons and things before a justice having jurisdiction, to be dealt with according to law.

Disposal of property seized

(3) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, a court, judge, justice or provincial court judge before whom anything that is seized under this section is brought may declare that the thing is forfeited, in which case it shall be disposed of or dealt with as the Attorney General may direct if no person shows sufficient cause why it should not be forfeited.
When declaration or direction may be made
(4) No declaration or direction shall be made pursuant to subsection (3) in respect of anything seized under this section until

(a) it is no longer required as evidence in any proceedings that are instituted pursuant to the seizure; or
(b) the expiration of thirty days from the time of seizure where it is not required as evidence in any proceedings.
Conversion into money

(5) The Attorney General may, for the purpose of converting anything forfeited under this section into money, deal with it in all respects as if he were the owner thereof.

Telephones exempt from seizure

(6) Nothing in this section or in section 489 authorizes the seizure, forfeiture or destruction of telephone, telegraph or other communication facilities or equipment that may be evidence of or that may have been used in the commission of an offence under section 201, 202, 203, 206, 207 or 210 and that is owned by a person engaged in providing telephone, telegraph or other communication service to the public or forming part of the telephone, telegraph or other communication service or system of that person.

Exception

(7) Subsection (6) does not apply to prohibit the seizure, for use as evidence, of any facility or equipment described in that subsection that is designed or adapted to record a communication.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 199; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203; 1994, c. 44, s. 10.


– CCC

v • e
 
Types of Warrants
Warrants
Retrieved from "http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Consent_Search&oldid=24822"