View source for Computer-related Search Issues

{{Fr|Problèmes_de_recherche_liés_à_l%27informatique}}
{{Currency2|January|2023}}
{{LevelZero}}
{{HeaderWarrants}}
==General Principles==
{{seealso|Special Search Issues}}

Search warrants under s. 487 are the most typical manner of authorizing an officer to examine the contents of a computer.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Blazevic|5qng|2011 ONSC 7549 (CanLII)|213 AR 285}}{{perONSC|PJL Smith J}}{{atL|5qng|32}}, ("the police have the right to search computers with a search warrant under s. 487 of the Criminal Code to assist them in uncovering evidence associated with an offence.")
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
==Warrant Issues==
===Single Warrant for Multiple Zones of Privacy===
A residential search warrant that authorizes the seizure of computer devices for its evidential value can also operate as an judicial authorization for the examination of the device.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Vu|g1r8p|2013 SCC 60 (CanLII)|[2013] 3 SCR 657}}{{perSCC|Cromwell J}}<br>
see also {{CanLIIRP|Ballendine|fl8xf|2011 BCCA 221 (CanLII)|271 CCC (3d) 418}}{{perBCCA|Frankel JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRT|Nero|gnhj7|2016 ONCA 160 (CanLII)|334 CCC (3d) 148}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|gnhj7|164}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|McNeill|j7x26|2020 ONCA 313 (CanLII)|OJ No 2282}}{{perONCA|Jamal JA}}{{atsL|j7x26|53| to 59}}<Br>
cf. {{CanLIIRP|Jones|fncds|2011 ONCA 632 (CanLII)|278 CCC (3d) 157}}{{perONCA|Blair JA}}<br>
</ref>
Due to the enhanced privacy interest, the authorization must “specific[ally]” authorize the seizure of a computer before they can search it. The authorization for the device cannot be by implication.<ref>
{{supra1|Vu}}{{atL|g1r8p|3}} ("...the requirement of specific, prior authorization means that if police intend to search computers found within a place with respect to which they seek a warrant, they must satisfy the authorizing justice that they have reasonable grounds to believe that any computers they discover will contain the things they are looking for.")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Butters|g6r5l|2014 ONCJ 228 (CanLII)|311 CCC (3d) 516}}{{perONCJ|Paciocco J}}{{atL|g6r5l|25}} aff'd {{CanLII|gm5m8|2015 ONCA 783 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
</ref>

If a computer is found during a search under a warrant does not authorize the search of a computer, it can be seized until a computer search warrant is obtained.<ref>
{{supra1|Vu}}{{atL|g1r8p|49}}</ref> 

The initial seizure of the device and the later forensic examination is a separate police activity.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Barwell|, [2013] OJ 3743}}{{perONCJ|Paciocco J}}{{at-|18}}<br>
</ref>

Where a computer device is lawfully seized, the police are permitted to make a forensic copy of the data.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Eddy|gn8kr|2016 ABQB 42 (CanLII)|3 CTC 90}}{{perABQB|Rooke ACJ}}{{atsL|gn8kr|49| to 50}}<br>
</ref>

The use of analogies comparing cupboards and computer devices is not appropriate for the analysis of lawfulness of computer searches.<ref>
{{supra1|Vu}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Search of Third-Party Devices for Communications===
The privacy rights follow and apply to "electronic conversations" whether or not stored on the sender's device. Accordingly, a communication, as it exists on a third-party devices, may be protected under s. 8 of the Charter.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Marakah|hp63v|2017 SCC 59 (CanLII)|[2017] 2 SCR 608}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}}
</ref>

; Search of an Electronic Conversation by Consent
There is some suggestion that a conversation may ''not'' accessed by the police without warrant on consent of one of the parties to that conversation.<ref>
{{ibid1|Marakah}}<br>
see {{CanLIIRP|Reeves|hwk3k|2018 SCC 56 (CanLII)|[2018] 3 SCR 531}}{{perSCC|Karakatsanis J}} - relating to a search of the family computer on consent of wife<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Lim|hzsbs|2019 ABPC 87 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Creagh J}}<br>
cf. {{CanLIIR-N|Cairns|, 2018 ONSC 6411}}{{perONSC|Sweeny J}} - The search of a facebook conversation with consent of one of the parties did not require a warrant<br>
</ref>
There is no need for a consent where the conversation is between strangers as there is no expectation of privacy.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Mills|hzv2r|2019 SCC 22 (CanLII)|433 DLR (4th) 573}}{{perSCC|Brown J}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===A "Locker Warrant"===
There is some division in the case law in whether proper means of authorizing the examination a device lawfully seized and stored in an evidence locker.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Townsend|h4jdn|2017 ONSC 3435 (CanLII)|140 WCB (2d) 240}}{{perONSC|Varpio J}}{{atsL|h4jdn|61| to 73}}<br>
</ref>
There is a line of cases that suggest that the proper means of examining the device is to ask for a "locker warrant." <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Eddy|gn8kr|2016 ABQB 42 (CanLII)|DTC 5032}}{{perABQB|Rooke ACJ}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Nurse|g68rk|2014 ONSC 1779 (CanLII)|OJ No 5004}}{{perONSC|Coroza J}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Barwell|, [2013] OJ No 3743 (Ont. C.J.)}}{{perONCJ|Paciocco J}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Timing of Forensic Examination===
A computer held under a s. 490 warrant can be examined at any time irrespective of the time specified in the warrant.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Nurse|g68rk|2014 ONSC 1779 (CanLII)|OJ No 5004}}{{perONSC|Coroza J}} at pars 41 to 49<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Rafferty|fr9w5|2012 ONSC 703 (CanLII)|OJ No 2132}}{{perONSC|Heeney J}}{{atsL|fr9w5|39| to 48}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Weir|5rdq|2001 ABCA 181 (CanLII)|156 CCC (3d) 188}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atsL|5rdq|18| to 19}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Ballendine|fl8xf|2011 BCCA 221 (CanLII)|271 CCC (3d) 418}}{{perBCCA|Frankel JA}}{{atsL|fl8xf|64| to 70}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Yabarow|j0zvn|2019 ONSC 3669 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Dambrot J}}{{atL|j0zvn|49}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Sufficiency of Computer Evidence===

It is not necessary that the authorizing justice be satisfied that there is a specific device in the location to be searched, only that ''if'' a device is found it will contain evidence.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Vu|g1r8p|2013 SCC 60 (CanLII)|[2013] 3 SCR 657}}{{perSCC|Cromwell J}}{{atL|g1r8p|48}}
</ref>

; IP Address and RPG to Search
The connection of an IP address with an ISP account can form reasonable grounds to believe that a computer will be present at the address, but will often need something more.<ref>
see {{CanLIIRP|Weir|5rdq|2001 ABCA 181 (CanLII)|156 CCC (3d) 188}}{{TheCourtABCA}} ("While it is possible that the computer may have been at a different location than the billing address, it was not unreasonable to conclude that something as sensitive as child pornography would be kept on a computer in a person’s home.")</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

==Manner of Search==
When searching a computer, the manner of the search must be "reasonable" and is subject to implied restrictions.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Vu|g1r8p|2013 SCC 60 (CanLII)|[2013] 3 SCR 657}}{{perSCC|Cromwell J}}{{atL|g1r8p|61}}</ref>

It is ''not'' permissible for police examiners to "scour the devices indiscriminately". They must "adhere to the rule that the manner of the search must be reasonable."<ref>
{{ibid1|Vu}}{{atL|g1r8p|61}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Jones|fncds|2011 ONCA 632 (CanLII)|278 CCC (3d) 157}}{{perONCA|Blair JA}}{{atL|fncds|42}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Fearon|gflcd|2014 SCC 77 (CanLII)|[2014] 3 SCR 621}}{{perSCC-H|Fearon J}}{{atL|gflcd|20}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Nurse and Plummer|gf1fc|2014 ONSC 5989 (CanLII)|322 CRR (2d) 262}}{{perONSC|Coroza J}}{{AtsL|gf1fc|24|}}, {{AtsL-np|gf1fc|34|}}<br>
</ref>

The examiners should not conduct full "data dump" of the entire contents of the device and then simply give the entirety of the materials extracted to the investigator where they have the ability to narrow the scope of their search to better comply with the authorization.<ref>
{{ibid1|Nurse}}
</ref>

Limitations on search are guided by the type of ''evidence'' being sought, not any particular file format or file name.<ref>
{{supra1|Jones}}{{atL|fncds|43}}<br>
see also {{CanLIIRP|Rafferty|fr9w5|2012 ONSC 703 (CanLII)|OJ No 2132}}{{perONSC|Heeney J}}<br>
</ref>
Limitations based on locations within the device are not practical.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Cross|1wcjq|2007 CanLII 64141 (ON SC)|[2007] OJ 5384 (ONSC)}}{{perONSC|Brennan J}}
</ref>
Examiners are entitled to examine any file or folder, in at least a cursory manner, to determine whether they are likely to contain evidence of the type they are seeking.<ref>
{{supra1|Jones}}{{atL|fncds|44}}<br>
</ref>

; Imaging of Device
The process of imaging a lawfully seized device is a form of "seizure" under s. 8 of the ''Charter''.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|JW|js7dj|2022 ONSC 4400 (CanLII)}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Sinnappillai|j240n|2019 ONSC 5000 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Boswell J}}{{atsL|j240n|60| to 72}}
</ref>
<!--The process of imaging a lawfully seized device does not amount to a search upon the privacy rights of the owner.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Sinnappillai|j240n|2019 ONSC 5000 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Boswell J}}{{atsL|j240n|60| to 72}}
</ref>
-->
There is no obligation for the police to delete the image once the extraction is done.<ref>
{{ibid1|Sinnappillai}}{{atsL|j240n|73| to 80}}
</ref>
There is no limitation on the number of times that the examiner can revisit the contents of a mirror-imaged device.<ref>
{{ibid1|Sinnappillai}}{{atL|j240n|80}}<br>
{{supra1|Nurse}}
</ref>

; Report to Justice on Extracted Data
There is a line of cases suggesting that it is required under s. 489.1 for the police to file a report to justice in relation to the extracted data.<Ref>
{{ibid1|Sinnappillai}}{{atsL|j240n|93| to 100}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Merritt|hpwxs|2017 ONSC 5245 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Dawson J}}{{atsL|hpwxs|244| to 245}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Neill|hx5jk|2018 ONSC 5323 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Coroza J}}{{atsL|hx5jk|89| to 94}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|DaCosta|jlxr0|2021 ONSC 6016 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Leibovich J}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Otto|j16ds|2019 ONSC 2514 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Di Luca J}}<Br>
{{CanLIIR|Bottomley|jxx06|2022 BCSC 2192 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Devlin J}}<br>
contra {{CanLIIR|Robinson|jf57h|2021 ONSC 2446 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Akhtar J}}
</ref>

; Search Protocols
There is no need for the computer search warrant to set out a search "protocol" to limit what can be examined in the computer.<ref>
{{supra1|Vu}}{{atL|g1r8p|59}} ("...my view is that search protocols are not, as a general rule, constitutionally required for pre-authorization of computer searches.")</ref>

; Note Taking 
The person doing the examination of the device has an obligation to make notes absent unusual or exigent circumstances.<Ref>
{{supra1|Vu}}{{atL|g1r8p|70}} (" That said, there are two somewhat disquieting aspects of the search of the computer. First, Sgt. Wilde admitted in his testimony that he intentionally did not take notes during the search so he would not have to testify about the details. This is clearly improper and cannot be condoned. Although I do not decide here that they are a constitutional prerequisite, notes of how a search is conducted should, in my view, be kept, absent unusual or exigent circumstances.")
</ref>
Failure to take notes will not necessarily result in a breach of s. 8, particularly where there is sufficient information provided through the expert's report.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Schulz|hsrsh|2018 ONCA 598 (CanLII)|142 OR (3d) 128}}{{perONCA|Brown JA}}
</ref>
Failure to take notes but there is no impediment to the accused to "meaningfully challenge" the search.<ref>
{{CanLIIRT|Villaroman|hsmnh|2018 ABCA 220 (CanLII)|363 CCC (3d) 141 }}{{TheCourtABCA}} (2:1) {{AtL|hsmnh|17}} ("The forensic examiner testified at length about how he conducted the search. The failure to take detailed notes does not appear to have undermined the appellant’s ability to meaningfully challenge the reasonableness of the search.") appealed on different grounds at 2016 SCC 33.
</ref>
{{reflist|2}}

===Discovery of a New Offence===
When executing a search warrant in relation to a certain offence and the examiner discovers evidence of another crime, the discovered evidence is admissible, but any further searches for further evidence of the new offence must be done after applying for a new warrant.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Jones|fncds|2011 ONCA 632 (CanLII)|278 CCC (3d) 157}}{{perONCA|Blair JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Vu|fpfws|2011 BCCA 536 (CanLII)|285 CCC (3d) 160}}{{perBCCA|Frankel JA}} appealed to [http://canlii.ca/t/g1r8p 2013 SCC 60] (CanLII){{perSCC|Cromwell J}}<br>
</ref>

Where a new authorization is needed, the proper procedure is to apply for a search warrant and not a general warrant.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|KZ|g6ktc|2014 ABQB 235 (CanLII)|589 AR 21}}{{perABQB|Hughes J}}{{atL|g6ktc|32}} - Note however that this case considers "computers to be "places" of search rather than the "thing" of search within the meaning of s. 487, which is somewhat contrary to numerous other cases<br>
</ref>There is nothing wrong with getting a second search warrant for a device that has already been seized and searched.<ref>
{{ibid1|KZ}}{{atL|g6ktc|40}}</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Consent Searches for Electronic Communications==

Police may examine computer files that a complaint presents to them without engaging section 8 of the Charter. There are no obligations to inquire how the complainant obtained the files.<Ref>
{{CanLIIR|King|jh781|2021 ABCA 271 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Orlandis-Habsburgo|h59h9|2017 ONCA 649 (CanLII)|352 CCC (3d) 525}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{atL|h59h9|34}} ("I have considerable difficulty with the submission that s. 8 is engaged if the police look at information in which an accused has a legitimate privacy interest, even if that information is brought to the police by an independent third party acting on its own initiative. On that approach, s. 8 would be engaged if a "whistleblower" took confidential documents belonging to her employer to the police to demonstrate the employer's criminal activity. Must the police refuse to look at the documents to avoid violating the employer's s. 8 rights? As Duarte teaches, it is one thing to say that Canadian values dictate that the state's power to decide when and how it will intrude upon personal privacy must be carefully circumscribed, and quite another to say that an individual's private information is cloaked in the protection of s. 8 no matter how that information comes to the police.")
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

==Child Pornography==
{{seealso|Child Pornography (Offence)}}

Police are entitled to visually examine the full range of images across all date time-stamps as limiting the range would provide a culprit a "roadmap for concealment."<ref>
{{CanLIIR|John|htrb7|2018 ONCA 702 (CanLII)|366 CCC (3d) 136}}{{perONCA|Pardu JA}}{{atL|htrb7|24}} ("...a search of all images and videos is appropriate in an investigation like this precisely to determine whether there is more child pornography on the computer. To limit police to searches by hash values, file names and download folders would be to provide a roadmap for concealment of files containing child pornography.")
contra {{CanLIIRx|Sop|g8hd5|2014 ONSC 4610 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Sloan J}}<br>
</ref>

For details on the issue of dated information regarding the presence of CP on a computer, see [[Information to Obtain a Search Warrant#Currency of Information]].

{{reflist|2}}

==Search for Data Stored Outside of Computer==
There is some suggestion that s. 487(2.1) and (2.2) permits a search of a computer to include a search of data stored off-site.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Vu|fpfws|2011 BCCA 536 (CanLII)|285 CCC (3d) 160}}{{perBCCA|Frankel JA}}{{atL|fpfws|73}} - ''obiter'' appealed on other issues to  [http://www.canlii.org/t/g1r8p 2013 SCC 60] (CanLII){{perSCC|Cromwell J}}<br>
</ref>
{{quotation2|
487<br>
{{removed|(1) and (2)}}
; Operation of computer system and copying equipment
(2.1) A person authorized under this section to search a computer system in a building or place for data may
:(a) use or cause to be used any computer system at the building or place to search any data contained in or available to the computer system;
:(b) reproduce or cause to be reproduced any data in the form of a print-out or other intelligible output;
:(c) seize the print-out or other output for examination or copying; and
:(d) use or cause to be used any copying equipment at the place to make copies of the data.

; Duty of person in possession or control
(2.2) Every person who is in possession or control of any building or place in respect of which a search is carried out under this section shall, on presentation of the warrant, permit the person carrying out the search
:(a) to use or cause to be used any computer system at the building or place in order to search any data contained in or available to the computer system for data that the person is authorized by this section to search for;
:(b) to obtain a hard copy of the data and to seize it; and
:(c) to use or cause to be used any copying equipment at the place to make copies of the data.

{{removed|(3) and (4)}}
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 487; 
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 68; 
{{LegHistory90s|1994, c. 44}}, s. 36; 
{{LegHistory90s|1997, c. 18}}, s. 41, c. 23, s. 12; 
{{LegHistory90s|1999, c. 5}}, s. 16; 
{{LegHistory00s|2008, c. 18}}, s. 11;
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 191;
{{LegHistory20s|2022, c. 17}}, s. 16.
|{{CCCSec2|487}}
|{{NoteUp|487|2.1|2.2}}
}}

Section 487(2.1) and (2.2) were enacted in 1997 with RSC 1997, c. 18.<ref>
see [[List of Criminal Code Amendments (1984 to 1999)]]
</ref>

One possible problem with the use of s. 487(2.1) to permit off-site searches is that it does not take into account that s. 487 limits its authorization to search of a "place" that is different from the off-site "place" storing the "cloud" data. There is a possibility that the power authorized by s. 487 is limited to searches where the evidence is located within the geographical area of the "place" listed on the warrant.

There is some experience with using a general warrant to get access to a google account.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Strong|jc043|2020 ONSC 7528 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Di Luca J}}{{atsL|jc043|93| to 119}}<br>
</ref>

; Computer as "place" or "thing"
There is uncertainty as to where warrants under s. 487 to search for computers are generally framed as searching "places" to locate a computer device that is to be forensically examined once subject to a s. 490 detention order.<ref>
examples of computer as "thing":<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Nurse|g68rk|2014 ONSC 1779 (CanLII)|OJ No 5004}}{{perONSC|Coroza J}}{{atsL|g68rk|41| to 49}} – upheld on appeal on other grounds<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Weir|5rdq|2001 ABCA 181 (CanLII)|156 CCC (3d) 188}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atsL|5rdq|18| to 19}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Ballendine|fl8xf|2011 BCCA 221 (CanLII)|271 CCC (3d) 418}}{{perBCCA|Frankel JA}}{{AtsL|fl8xf|64| to 70}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Yabarow|j0zvn|2019 ONSC 3669 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Dambrot J}}{{atL|j0zvn|49}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Townsend|h4jdn|2017 ONSC 3435 (CanLII)|140 WCB (2d) 240}}{{perONSC|Varpio J}}{{atsL|h4jdn|61| to 73}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Eddy|gn8kr|2016 ABQB 42 (CanLII)|2016 DTC 5032}}{{perABQB|Rooke ACJ}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Rafferty|fr9w5|2012 ONSC 703 (CanLII)|OJ No 2132}}{{perONSC|Heeney J}}, at paras 39 to 48 – re vehicle <br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Barwell|, [2013] OJ No 3743 (Ont. C.J.)}}{{perONSC|Paciocco J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Viscomi|gt778|2016 ONSC 5423 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|McCombs J}}<br>
examples of computer as "place":<br>
{{CanLIIRP|D’Souza|gtw5g|2016 ONSC 5855 (CanLII)|OJ No 4995}}{{perONSC|McCarthy J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Salmon|hw5gn|2018 ONSC 5670 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Conlan J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Marek|gmvfq|2016 ABQB 18 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB|Moreau J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|KZ|g6ktc|2014 ABQB 235 (CanLII)|589 AR 21}}{{perABQB|Hughes J}}{{atL|g6ktc|32}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Tyler Perkins|fwrtc|2013 ONSC 1807 (CanLII)|279 CRR (2d) 224}}{{perONSC|Ferguson J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Little|2509x|2009 CanLII 41212 (ON SC)|OJ No 3278}}{{perONSC|Fuerst J}}<Br>
</ref>
The extraction of data from computer has been analogized to the analysis of a blood sample, which suggests a "search" occurring at the time of seizure and not on analysis.<Ref>
{{CanLIIR|Weir|5qng|1998 ABQB 56 (CanLII)|59 Alta LR (3d) 319 }}{{perABQB|PJL Smith J}}
</ref>

; Jurisdiction
Generally speaking, where data is stored in a foreign country but is readily accessible through a network within the country, the location of the original data is irrelevant.<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|eBay Canada Ltd v MNR|21j1p|2008 FCA 348 (CanLII)|[2010] 1 FCR 145}}, ''per'' Evans JA, (the court of appeal stated “The location of the servers was irrelevant because electronically stored information relating to the PowerSellers was readily, lawfully, and instantaneously available in a variety of places to the appellants in Canada.”)<br>
</ref>


{{reflist|2}}

==Police Undercover Investigations==
{{seealso|Wiretaps}}
The seizure of historical text messages will not be considered an "interception" requiring a Part VI wiretap warrant.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Didechko|gll4w|2015 ABQB 642 (CanLII)|27 Alta LR (6th) 290}}{{perABQB|Schutz J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Vader|gs1dj|2016 ABQB 309 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB|DRG Thomas J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Rideout|gr61s|2016 CanLII 24896 (NLSCTD)}}{{perNLSC|Burrage J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Jones|hp63x|2017 SCC 60 (CanLII)|[2017] 2 SCR 696}}{{perSCC|Cote J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Scott|grv2g|2015 MBQB 87 (CanLII)|130 WCB (2d) 418}}{{perMBQB|Edmond J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Mills|gxfxd|2017 NLCA 12 (CanLII)|NJ No 55}}{{perNLCA|Welsh JA}} leave to appeal granted [http://canlii.ca/t/hp9pt 2017 CanLII 84238] (SCC){{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}}<br>
cf. {{CanLIIRx|Croft|gfw5s|2015 ABQB 24 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB|Burrows J}}<br>
</ref>

An undercover peace officer posing as an underage officer does not amount to an intercept.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Allen|h5c33|2017 ONSC 1712 (CanLII)}}<!-- missing from Canlii--><br>
{{CanLIIRP|Graff|gjrhf|2015 ABQB 415 (CanLII)|337 CRR (2d) 77}}{{perABQB|Neilsen J}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Ghotra|, [2015] OJ No 7253 (ONSC)}}<br>
</ref>

The fact that the sender was under the mistaken belief as to the identity of the recipient does not amount an "interception."<ref>
{{supra1|Mills}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Disclosing Passwords==
It remains an open question whether it is possible to use a general warrant to compel a person to disclose their device password.<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|In Re: Application for a General Warrant and s. 487.02 Assistance Order for Eric Talbo (2017)||}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Evidence==
; Operation of a Computer Device
It should not be necessary to have the investigator to give details on the "basic functions" of computer storage devices. Computer devices are to be treated as appliance and so no need of need of proof is necessary to establish basic functionality.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Wonitowy|2cplh|2010 SKQB 346 (CanLII)|358 Sask R 303}}{{perSKQB|Dufour J}}{{atL|2cplh|46}}<br> 
</ref>

; Extraction Reports

Cell phone extraction reports primarily are classified as "real evidence."<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Bernard|h3w44|2016 NSSC 358 (CanLII)}}{{perNSSC|Gogan J}}{{atL|h3w44|26}} ("I find that the content of both Exhibits 9 and 10 [full extraction reports] are electronic real evidence.")
</ref>

These extraction results do not require independent testing or verification since they simply copy and organize data found on the device without drawing inferences.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Miro|gvzx6|2016 ONSC 4982 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Fitzpatrick J}}{{atL|gvzx6|39}} ("The software and devices he used copied or removed files out of the seized devices and then organized them so D/C Dunhill, and not the software, could draw conclusions about what was present.")
</ref>

; Inferring Location From Cellphone Evidence
It is generally accepted that a "call to or from a cell phone will usually register at the tower closest to that cell phone", which is determined by which tower has the strongest signal. This is usually but not always the tower with the closest tower.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|MacGarvie|h3nbc|2017 ONSC 2834 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Reid J}}{{atL|h3nbc|12}}
</ref>

Geographic evidence is typically tendered through use of a "propagation map" that "despict[s] the relative coverage areas of cell phone towers located at various places in a geographical area."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Cyr|fvfcv|2012 ONCA 919 (CanLII)|294 CCC (3d) 421}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|fvfcv|86}}
</ref>

There will be times where the closest tower rule will not apply such as where:<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Hamilton|fljvz|2011 ONCA 399 (CanLII)|271 CCC (3d) 208}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|fljvz|239}}<br>
{{supra1|MacGarvie}}{{atL|h3nbc|14}}<br>
</ref>
• the closest tower is at capacity
• there is a body of water between the phone and the closest tower
• there is a large obstruction between the phone and the closest tower.

Geographic evidence need not be proven by expert testimony.<ref>
{{supra1|Hamilton}}{{atL|fljvz|277}}<br>
</ref>

Given the imperfect and limited strength of geographic evidence, a single text message from a phone may be insufficiently probative to outweigh the prejudicial value of the accused location.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Oland|gp3wp|2015 NBQB 244 (CanLII)}}{{perNBQB|Walsh J}}{{atsL|gp3wp|77| to 78}}
</ref>

; Inferences from Browsing and Search History
Inferences from internet browsing and search history must be considered in the context of all the evidence.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Howley|, 2015 ONSC 7816}}{{Ats-|97, 105}}
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}

==Canadian Border Searches==

There are two sources of authority for a warrantless search of an electronic device.

Section 99(1)(a) of the ''Customs Act'' states in part that:
{{quotation1|
; Examination of goods
99 (1) An officer may
:(a) at any time up to the time of release, examine any goods that have been imported and open or cause to be opened any package or container of imported goods and take samples of imported goods in reasonable amounts;
<br>...<br>
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.)}}, s. 99; {{LegHistory80s|1988, c. 65}}, s. 79; {{LegHistory00s|2001, c. 25}}, s. 59; {{LegHistory10s|2017, c. 7}}, s. 52.
| [http://canlii.ca/t/5390k#sec99 Customs Act]
}}
Section 139(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states in part that:
{{quotation1|
; Search
139 (1) An officer may search any person seeking to come into Canada and may search their luggage and personal effects and the means of transportation that conveyed the person to Canada if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person
:(a) has not revealed their identity or has hidden on or about their person documents that are relevant to their admissibility; or
:(b) has committed, or possesses documents that may be used in the commission of, an offence referred to in section 117, 118 or 122.
<br>...<br>
|[http://canlii.ca/t/53bgk IRPA]
}}

; "Goods" Under Customs Act

The term "goods" is defined in s. 2(1) of the ''Customs Act'' as "conveyances, animals and any document in any form."
This includes information found on computers and cellphones.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Buss|g50j1|2014 BCPC 16 (CanLII)|301 CRR (2d) 309}}{{perBCPC|Oulton J}} <br>
{{CanLIIRx|Moroz|ft6xj|2012 ONSC 5642 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Desotti J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Whittaker|2fqp8|2010 NBPC 32 (CanLII)|946 APR 334}}{{perNBPC|Jackson J}}<br>
</ref>

This can include any data that is in "actual possession of or in accompanying baggage of traveller at time they arrive at border and commence dealings with customs officers", but does not include records stored remotely and accessible from the device.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Gibson|h5l2r|2017 BCPC 237 (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Gillespie ACJ}}
</ref>

NB: the definition goods under s. 2 as it relates to electronic devices has been declared invalid with a suspension for one year.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Canfield|jb956|2020 ABCA 383 (CanLII)|395 CCC (3d) 483}}{{TheCourtABCA}}
</ref>

; Expectation of Privacy
International travelers have a diminished expectation of privacy while crossing international borders.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Simmons|1ftcb|1988 CanLII 12 (SCC)|[1988] 2 SCR 495}}{{perSCC|Dickson CJ}}
</ref>

; Warrantless Search of Phones
It has been found that warrantless searches of phones are permitted at borders.<ref>
{{supra1|Buss}}<br>
{{supra1|Moroz}}<br>
{{supra1|Whittaker}}<br>
{{contra}} {{supra1|Canfield}}
</ref>

It is not necessary that the border agent first form reasonable grounds before engaging in such a "routine search" of electronic devices.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Sekhon|23c20|2009 BCCA 187 (CanLII)|67 CR (6th) 257}}{{perBCCA|Ryan JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Leask|1vlpf|2008 ONCJ 25 (CanLII)|167 CRR (2d) 267}}{{perONCJ|Nadel J}}<br>
See CBSA policy on electronic devices: [http://www.lexsage.com/documents/CBSA%20Operational%20Bulletin%20PRG-2015-31%20Examination%20of%20Digital%20Devices%20and%20Media%20at%20Port%20of%20Entry.pdf OB PRG-2015-31]
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
* [[Established_Fields_of_Expert_Evidence#Computer-related_Forensics|Fields of Expert Evidence (Computer-related_Forensics)]]