Established Areas of Privacy: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+-[A-Z][a-z]+)," to "''$1'',"
m Text replacement - "\{\{fr\|([^\}\}]+)\}\}" to "fr:$1"
 
(164 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[fr:Zones_établies_de_confidentialité]]
{{Currency2|July|2021}}
{{HeaderSearch}}
{{HeaderSearch}}
==Introduction==
==Introduction==
Line 4: Line 6:
Courts have set out specific rules and principles when dealing with certain situations where privacy interests have been found. Those circumstances include searches of persons, residences, vehicles, storage, and more recently electronic devices.
Courts have set out specific rules and principles when dealing with certain situations where privacy interests have been found. Those circumstances include searches of persons, residences, vehicles, storage, and more recently electronic devices.


A person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy "related to contraband".<ref>
A person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy "related to contraband."<ref>
R v M.(A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1wnbf 2008 SCC 19] (CanLII), [2008] S.C.J. No. 19{{perSCC|LeBel J}} para 73<br>
{{CanLIIRP|AM|1wnbf|2008 SCC 19 (CanLII)|[2008] SCJ No 19}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}}{{atL|1wnbf|73}}<br>
''R v Butters'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6r5l 2014 ONCJ 228] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Paciocco J}}, at para 26<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Butters|g6r5l|2014 ONCJ 228 (CanLII)|311 CCC (3d) 516}}{{perONCJ|Paciocco J}}{{atL|g6r5l|26}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}


==Person==
==Zones of Privacy==
'''Bags, Pockets, Purses'''<br>
* [[Established Areas of Territorial Privacy]]
Bags and pockets are protected.<ref>
* [[Established Areas of Informational Privacy]]
''R v Grant'', [http://canlii.ca/t/24kwz 2009 SCC 32] (CanLII){{perSCC|McLachlin CJ and Charron J}}<br>
* [[Established Areas of Personal Privacy]]
</ref>
 
An individual who attends a hospital for medical treatment is entitled to expect that his clothing will be held by the facility until discharged. Hospitals have been identified as an area of concern for the protection of privacy. <ref>''R v Pickton'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2c72m 2006 BCSC 1098] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Williams J}} at para 38 citing ''R v Calarusso'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1frw6 1994 CanLII 134] (SCC){{perSCC|Lamer C.J. and Cory, McLachlin and Major JJ}} at para 70</ref>
 
'''Bodily Samples'''<br>
DNA samples taken as part of a previous sentence is not protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy.<ref>
''R v DeJesus'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2ch4l 2010 ONCA 581] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}}
</ref>
 
'''Fingerprints'''<br>
Fingerprints taken as part of a previous sentence is not protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy.<ref>
R v Jackpine (Rodgers), [http://canlii.ca/t/1n3br 2006 SCC 15] (CanLII), [2006] 1 SCR 554, (2006), 207 CCC (3d) 225 (SCC){{perSCC|Charron J}} at para 43 - anything taken under the Identification of Criminals Act has no REP</ref>
 
'''Photographs'''<br>
Photographs taken as part of a previous sentence is not protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy.<ref>
Jackpine (Rodgers){{ibid}} at para 43 - anything taken under the Identification of Criminals Act has no REP</ref>
 
'''Body Cavity'''<br>
Strip searches can be humiliating, embarrassing, and degrading for the accused.<ref>R v Golden [http://canlii.ca/t/51xm 2001 SCC 83] (CanLII){{perSCC|Charron J}} at para 89</ref> It is also one of the most extreme forms of search available to police.<ref>''R v Flintoff'', [http://canlii.ca/t/538d 1998 CanLII 632] at para 24</ref>
 
'''Inmates'''<br>
A person convicted of a crime has a reduced expectation of privacy.<ref>
''R v Briggs'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fg12 2001 CanLII 24113] (ON CA){{perONCA|Weiler JA}} at paras 33 to 35<br>
</ref> Accordingly, an inmate should have less expectation of privacy in their personal zone of privacy.<ref>
Briggs{{ibid}}</ref>
 
'''Sound of Voice'''<br>
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the "sound" of one's voice.
<ref>
''R v Pelland'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6h5s 1997 CanLII 502] (ON CA), (1997), 99 O.A.C. 62, 34 W.C.B. (2d) 356 (Ont. C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}} - police surreptitiously record the accused voice in a public place<br>
R v Adam et al, [http://canlii.ca/t/1pmdd 2006 BCSC 1430] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} at paras 9 to 11 - use of voice may still violate s. 13 for incrimination.
</ref>
 
'''Licences and registration'''<br>
There is no intrusion on REP where a person is required to present documents proving compliance with a legal requirement in order to have a right of privilege.<ref>
''R v Hufsky'', [1988] 1 SCR 621, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftg3 1988 CanLII 72]{{perSCC|Le Dain J}}</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
==Vehicles==
A driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents of his motor vehicle.<ref>R v Belnavis [http://canlii.ca/t/6jgz 1996 CanLII 4007], 107 CCC (3d) 195 (Ont. C.A.){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}; appeal dismissed  [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqzw 1997 CanLII 320], [1997] 3 SCR 341{{perSCC|Cory J}} at 19</ref> The reasonable expectation of privacy for a vehicle is low or reduced.<ref>
''R v Alkins'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1r4fd 2007 ONCA 264] (CanLII), [2007] OJ No 1348 (Ont. C.A.){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}<br>
''R v Shankar'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1r4zm 2007 ONCA 280] (CanLII), [2007] OJ No 1406 (Ont. C.A.){{perONCA|Gillese JA}}<br>
''R v Rebelo'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1r6tr 2007 ONCA 289] (CanLII), [2007] OJ No 1468 (Ont. C.A.){{TheCourt}}<br>
''R v Caslake'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqww 1998 CanLII 838] (SCC), [1998] 1 SCR 51{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}, at para 15<br>
''R v Nicolosi'' (1998), [http://canlii.ca/t/6h03 1998 CanLII 2006] (ON CA){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} at para 9<br>
''R v Harflett'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gp6lb 2016 ONCA 248] (CanLII){{perONCA|Lauwers JA}}{{at|47}}<br>
</ref>
It is considered more limited than locations such as houses.<ref>
''R v Wise'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsdl 1992 CanLII 125], [1992] 1 SCR 527{{perSCC|Cory J}} at para 6 ("although there remains an expectation of privacy in automobile travel, it is markedly decreased relative to the expectation of privacy in one's home or office.")<br>
''R v Belnavis'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqzw 1997 CanLII 320], [1997] 3 SCR 341{{perSCC|Cory J}}<br>
''R v Higgins'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1ngfp 1996 CanLII 5774] (QC CA), (1996) 111 CCC (3d) 206 (QCCA){{perQCCA|Otis JA}} at p.212 (houses or <br>
</ref>
This applies even on any public roadway.<ref>
Higgins{{ibid}}</ref>
 
Police, however, are entitled to perform a visual examination of the interior of a vehicle, including with the use of a flashlight, for safety purposes incidental to a lawful vehicle stop.<ref>
e.g. ''R v Bonilla-Perez'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6dm3 2014 ONSC 2031] (CanLII){{perONSC|Code J}}, at para 37<br>
</ref>
 
Passengers, however, do not generally have a reasonable expectation of privacy.<ref>See [[Applications_and_Motions_Procedure#Standing|Standing]]</ref> However, in some cases they can. It will depend on the totality of the circumstances including the passenger's connection with the vehicle, the vehicle's owner, the passenger's use of the vehicle, and ability to control access to it.<ref>R v Belnavis at p. 22<br>
R v Madore & Madeira, [http://canlii.ca/t/fqzrs 2012 BCCA 160] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Finch CJ}} at para 55<br>
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
==Buildings==
===Residences===
There is a high expectation of privacy in a house. Unlawful entry will be a serious intrusion on the person's privacy rights.<ref>
see R v Silveira [http://canlii.ca/t/1frk8 1995 CanLII 89] (SCC){{perSCC|Cory J}} at 463-4, 495-6 (the “historic inviolability of a dwelling-house”) and ("There is no place on earth where persons can have a greater expectation of privacy than within their "dwelling‑house"")<br>
''R v Dhillon'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2chjx 2010 ONCA 582] (CanLII), [2010] OJ No 3749 (C.A.){{perONCA|Simmons JA}}<br>
''R v Tessling'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1j0wb 2004 SCC 67] (CanLII), [2004] 3 SCR 432, 189 CCC (3d) 129{{perSCC|Binnie J}} at 139<br>
</ref> It is recognized that "our most intimate and private activities are most likely to take place" in the residence.<ref>
Tessling at para 22<br>
''R v Silveira'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1frk8 1995 CanLII 89] (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 297{{perSCC|Cory J}} at para 140<br>
</ref>
 
A police's authority to investigate at a residence without a warrant, barring the established exceptions, "ends at the door".<ref>
''R v Landry'', [1986] 1 SCR 145, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftvb 1986 CanLII 48] (SCC){{perSCC|Estey J}} at para 85 ("At present the rule is clear. Absent well recognized and widely supported exceptions, they may not enter private homes. These exceptions apart, their authority ends at the door. That rule protects them and the public from violence.")<br>
</ref>
 
It can "be presumed unless the contrary is shown in a particular case that information about what happens inside the home is regarded by the occupants as private".<ref>
{{supra1|Tessling}} at para 144
</ref>
 
A search of a dwelling is considered an invasion of a place with the "highest degree of privacy", especially when the intrusion is at night.<ref>
R v Sutherland [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbjz 2000 CanLII 17034] (ON CA), (2000), 150 CCC (3d) 231 (Ont. C.A.){{perONCA|Carthy JA}} at para 239 ("search of a dwelling house must be approached with the degree of responsibility appropriate to an invasion of a place where the highest degree of privacy is expected") see also para 23 citing US case of Gooding v US</ref>
 
However, the privacy in a residence does not "cloak the home in an impenetrable veil of privacy".<ref>
{{supra1|Gomboc}}, at para 46
</ref>
 
The fact that illegal activities are being carried out within the residence doe not reduce the level of privacy.<ref>
{{supra1|Silveira}} at para 41</ref>
 
A person will have a diminished expectation of privacy where legislation authorizes police intrusion.<ref>
''R v DLW'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fts53 2012 BCSC 1700] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} at para 38<br>
("A person has a restricted objective expectation of privacy when legislation authorizes the police’s intrusion into that person’s privacy.")</ref>
 
Police intrusion upon private property can only be permitted "only by powers granted in clear statutory language"<ref>
''R v Kokesch'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsq7 1990 CanLII 55] (SCC), [1990] 3 SCR 3, 61 CCC (3d) 207{{perSCC|Dickson CJ}} at p. 218 ("... This court consistently has held that the common law rights of the property holder to be free of police intrusion can be restricted only by powers granted in clear statutory language.")
</ref>
 
A non-resident to a residence may have an expectation of privacy, although diminished, where evidence shows that they had personal property that was kept there.
<ref>
e.g. ''R v Jones'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fzchh 2013 BCPC 149] (CanLII){{perBCPC|Woods J}}<br>
''R v Vi'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22072 2008 BCCA 481] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Finch CJ}}<br>
</ref> However, it can vary depending on the application do the Edwards factors.<ref>
{{supra1|Edwards}} - no REP in residence of accused girlfriend's home
</ref>
 
A residence that is "solely for the commercial trade in drugs" has a "diminished privacy interest".<ref>
''R v Nguyen'', [http://canlii.ca/t/flxb7 2011 ONCA 465] (CanLII), 273 CCC (3d) 37{{perONCA|Blair JA}}, at para 61
''R v Shin'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ggrtc 2015 ONCA 189] (CanLII){{perONCA|Gillese JA}}, at para 68
</ref>
 
'''Apartment Buildings'''<br>
There is a diminished, if any, privacy in the hallway of an apartment building.<ref>
''R v Brar'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1vd3k 2008 MBQB 1] (CanLII){{perMBQB|MacInnes J}} at para 44</ref>
 
Filming the hallway of an apartment, whether or not the interior of the apartments are visible, without a warrant, will generally require a warrant.<ref>
''R v Batac'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hq0jn 2018 ONSC 546] (CanLII){{LinkNeeded}} <br>
''R v Sandhu'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hqkpf 2018 ABQB 112] (CanLII){{perABQB|Antonio J}}
</ref>
 
'''Temporary Dwellings'''<br>
A rented hotel suite has an expectation of privacy while the suspect is renting it.<ref>
''R v Mercer'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g1390 1992 CanLII 7729] (ONCA){{perONCA|Arbour JA}} - police were let into a hotel room by the owner after a cleaner found an amount of cash and drugs in a pillow case in closet<br>
see also [http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0326p-06.pdf US v Domenech], 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
</ref>Objects outside of plain view of the cleaner can be expected to be private despite the presence of cleaning staff.<ref>
Mercer</ref>
 
Each unit of a rooming-house will be protected by the REP of the tenant for that room.<ref>
''R v Campbell'', [2011] 2 SCR 549, [http://canlii.ca/t/flz50 2011 SCC 32] (CanLII){{perSCC|Charron J}}
</ref>
 
A tenant of a multi-unit building has the same expectation of privacy as a single dwelling unit. A search of a multi-unit building must set out "reasonable and probable grounds for each unit to be searched".<ref>
Campbell{{ibid}}
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
===Non-dwelling Premises===
Provided that there is an expectation of privacy in a non-dwelling premises, the accused's standing may invoked where he has "an ownership interest in the premises" absence countervailing evidence.<ref>
e.g. ''R v Fankhanel'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2bqs6 1999 CanLII 19075] (AB QB){{perABQB|Veit J}}<br>
cf. ''R v Pugliese'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1npnm 1992 CanLII 2781] (ON CA), (1992) 71 CCC (3d) 295 (ONCA){{perONCA|Finlayson JA}} - no standing for owner of building who did not live in it<br>
</ref>
 
'''Workplaces and Businesses'''<br>
The search of a private office will generally require a warrant.<ref>
''R v Rao'' (1984), [http://canlii.ca/t/g12df 1984 CanLII 2184] (ON CA), 46 O.R. (2d) 80, 10 C.R.R. 275, 12 CCC (3d) 97{{perONCA|Martin JA}} ("I have, for the reasons which I have set forth, concluded that the search of an office without a warrant where the obtaining of a warrant is not impracticable, is unreasonable and, to that extent, s. 10(1)(a) (of the Narcotic Control Act) is of no force and effect.")
</ref>
 
A works place has a "relatively low expectation of privacy" in respect to the premises and documents used and produced in the course of business.<ref>
Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission), [1990] 1 SCR 425, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsz8 1990 CanLII 135] (SCC){{perSCC|La Forest J}} at para 123<br>
''R v Silveira'', [1995] 2 SCR 297, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frk8 1995 CanLII 89] (SCC){{perSCC|L'Heureux-Dube J}} in dissent, at para 117  ("I note that our Court has previously discussed, with respect to the reasonableness of searches and seizures under s. 8 of the Charter, the lower expectancy of privacy in a workplace.")<br>
</ref>
 
A business "open to the public" has an "implied invitation" for everyone to enter. As such, it has no reasonable expectation of privacy from police.<ref>
''R v Fitt'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1mqf2 1995 CanLII 4342] (NS CA), (1995) 96 CCC (3d) 341{{perNSSC|Hallett JJA}} aff'd (1996) 103 CCC (3d) 224 (SCC), [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>
 
'''Schools'''<br>
The privacy interests of a student attending a school is "significantly diminished".<ref>
''R v MRM'', [1998] 3 SCR 393, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqq9 1998 CanLII 770] (SCC){{perSCC|Cory J}}{{at|33}}<br>
{{supra1|Tessling}} at para 22<br>
</ref>
 
Students have no expectations of privacy while engaged in common activites on the school premises.<ref>
''R v Jarvis'', [http://canlii.ca/t/h6lql 2017 ONCA 778] (CanLII){{perONCA|Feldman JA}}
</ref>
 
'''Public Washrooms'''<br>
A public washroom where a person in engaging in sexual activity is ''not'' necessarily protected by a REP.<ref>
''R v LeBeau'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22kn3 1988 CanLII 3271] (ON CA){{TheCourtONCA}}
</ref>
However, in some cases a bathroom stall will be considered private.<ref>
''R v Wegner'', [http://canlii.ca/t/h2mnt 2017 ONSC 1791] (CanLII){{perONSC|Fairburn J}}
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
===Holding Cells and Prisons===
Generally, a prison inmate will not usually have any expectation of privacy in a correctional facility.<ref>
R v Lamirande [http://canlii.ca/t/1dj62 2002 MBCA 41] (CanLII), (2002) 164 CCC (3d) 299 (Man.C.A.){{perMBCA|Scott CJ}} at para 31 - no REP in documents held by inmate
</ref>
 
There is a "substantially reduced level of privacy" in a prison setting.<ref>
Weatherall v Canada (Attorney General), [1993] 2 SCR 872, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fs1z 1993 CanLII 112] (SCC){{perSCC|LaForest J}}, at p. 877 ("A substantially reduced level of privacy is present in this setting and a prisoner thus cannot hold a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to these practices.") <br>
''R v Major'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1hcgw 2004 CanLII 12791] (ON CA), (2004), 186 CCC (3d) 513, 23 C.R. (6th) 294{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}, denied leave [2005] SCCA No 106 - expectation of privacy in family visit trailer<br>
</ref>
The search of a prison cell or frisk of a prisoner and other practices are not subject to any expectation of privacy.<ref>
Weatherall v Canada (Attorney General), at p. 877 ("Imprisonment necessarily entails surveillance, searching and scrutiny.  A prison cell is expected to be exposed and to require observation.  The frisk search, the count and the wind are all practices necessary in a penitentiary for the security of the institution, the public and indeed the prisoners themselves.")<br>
''R v Lamirande'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1dj62 2002 MBCA 41] (CanLII), (2002), 164 CCC (3d) 299 (Man. C.A.){{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}, denied leave [2002] SCCA No 203<br>
</ref>
 
An inmate in a correctional facility has a very limited expectation of privacy over their phone calls.<ref>''R v Drader'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fqkdb 2012 ABQB 168] (CanLII){{perABQB|Macklin J}}<br>
''R v McIsaac'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1k8bl 2005 BCSC 385] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Parrrett J}}<br>
</ref>
 
An accused person being held in a police cell has an expectation of privacy over his own speech, absent a sign warning that there may be recording devices present.<ref>
''R v Mohamud'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2f1n7 2010 ONSC 6264] (CanLII){{perONSC|Pomerance J}}<br>
R v Simon [http://canlii.ca/t/fxm84 2013 ABQB 95] (CanLII){{perABQB|Moreau J}}</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
===Airports and Border Crossings===
Border crossings are an exceptional case to reasonable expectation of privacy.<ref>
''R v Simmons'', [1988] 2 SCR 495, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftcb 1988 CanLII 12] (SCC), 45 CCC (3d) 296{{perSCC|Dickson CJ}} ("...the degree of personal privacy reasonably expected at customs is lower than in most other situations. People do not expect to be able to cross international borders free from scrutiny.")<br>
See also ''R v Monney'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqnx 1999 CanLII 678] (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 652, 133 CCC (3d) 129{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}} <br>
''R v Jacques'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr7n 1996 CanLII 174] (SCC), [1996] 3 SCR 312, 110 CCC (3d) 1{{perSCC|Gonthier J}}<br>
</ref>
 
There is a lower expectation of privacy since people accept that foreign countries have a right to control who enters their country and can screen people for illegal goods. This permits physical searches of luggage and person "where there are grounds for suspecting that a person has made false declaration and is transporting prohibited goods."<ref>
{{supra1|Simmons}} at pp. 528-29 [SCR]
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
===Outdoor Areas===
Trespasser growing marijuana in abandoned but secluded fields do not possess any REP.<ref>
''R v Lauda'', [1998] 2 SCR 683, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqrt 1998 CanLII 804] (SCC){{perSCC|Cory J}}<br>
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
==Storage==
 
===Schools===
School lockers have a reduced expectation of privacy due to school's authorities responsibility to provide a "safe environment and maintaining order and discipline in the school".<ref>
''R v MRM'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqq9 1998 CanLII 770] (SCC), [1998] 3 SCR 393{{perSCC|Cory J}}<br>
see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._M._(M.R.)<br>
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
===Storage Lockers===
A bus stop locker will be private despite emanations from the locker.<ref>
''R v Buhay'', [2003] 1 SCR 631, [http://canlii.ca/t/1g6p7 2003 SCC 30] (CanLII){{perSCC|Arbour J}}<br>
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
===Suit Cases===
There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a suit case.<ref>
R v Kang-Brown [http://canlii.ca/t/1wnbc 2008 SCC 18] (CanLII){{perSCC|LeBel J}}
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
===Packages===
Parcel accepted for delivery by a courier service can still have a reasonable expectation of privacy.<ref>
R v Fry [http://canlii.ca/t/27prk 1999 CanLII 18945] (NL CA), (1999) N.J. No. 352, 142 CCC (3d) 166{{perNLCA|Green JA}}
</ref> However, that objective expectation can be negated by circumstances such as search clause in the shipping contract.<ref>
''R v Godbout'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g8kk8 2014 BCCA 319] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Goepel JA}} - police open package without warrant
</ref>
 
Where a package has been opened either unlawfully or inadvertently by a non-state agent, discovering evidence of an offence such as cocaine, there may still be a reasonable expectation of privacy requiring a warrant.<ref>
''R v Washington'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1tkht 2007 BCCA 540] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Ryan JA}}<br>
cf. ''R v Snow'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1knrc 2005 NLTD 81] (CanLII){{perNLSC|Dymond J}} - opened package seizeable without warrant
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
===Garbage===
Garbage bags themselves contain information that "paint a fairly accurate and complete picture of the householder's activities and lifestyles".<ref>
R v Patrick at para 30<br>
</ref>
 
Generally speaking, materials found in a dumpster or left on the street curb for pickup are [[Warrantless Search of Abandoned Property|abandoned]] and so have no expectation of privacy.<ref>
''R v Sipes'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fxh4n 2008 BCSC 1500] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Smart J}} and [http://canlii.ca/t/fvfd1 2012 BCSC 1948] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Smart J}}<br>
Patrick<br>
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
==Business Records==
Business records found in the accused's place of business will be protected.<ref>
E.g. Hunter v Southam, [1984] 2 SCR 145, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mgc1 1984 CanLII 33] (SCC){{perSCC|Dickson CJ}}
</ref>
 
Telephone records detailing contact between various persons has a reduced expectation of privacy, in comparison to personal medical records<ref>R v M.(B.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1nptj 1998 CanLII 13326] (ON CA), (1998), 42 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.){{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}{{at|62}}<br>
See also, R v Hutchings [http://canlii.ca/t/1f07v 1996 CanLII 703] (BC CA), (1996), 111 CCC (3d) 215 (BCCA){{perBCCA|McEachern JA}}{{at|25}}<br>
''R v Mahmood'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fnr5s 2011 ONCA 693] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}} at para 98</ref>
 
Several lines of cases have developed on the issue of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information associated with business accounts, in particular IP addresses.<ref>
''R v Graff'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gjrhf 2015 ABQB 415] (CanLII){{perABQB|Neilsen J}} - No REP on IP when it doe not divulge personal information<br
</ref>Generally they have sided on there not being privacy rights in "tombstone" information of a person since it is freely available to the public.<ref>
No REP:
''R v Ward'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ft0ft 2012 ONCA 660] (CanLII){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}<br>
''R v Thomas'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx63f 2013 ABQB 223] (CanLII){{perABQB|Jerke J}}<br>
''R v Caza'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fqzgm 2012 BCSC 525] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Powers J}}<br>
''R v Friers'', [2008] OJ No 5646 (Ct. Jus.){{NOCANLII}}<br>
''R v Verge'', [2009] OJ No 6300 (Ct. Jus.){{NOCANLII}}<br>
''R v Vasic'', [http://canlii.ca/t/23jrk 2009 CanLII 23884] (ON SC){{perONSC|Thorburn J}}<br>
''R v Wilson'', [2009] OJ No 1067 (Sup. Ct.){{NOCANLII}}<br>
''R v Spencer'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2d2hl 2009 SKQB 341] (CanLII), [2009] S.J. No. 798 (Q.B.){{perSKQB|Foley J}} appealed to [http://canlii.ca/t/g7dzn 2014 SCC 43] (CanLII){{perSCC|Cromwell J}}<br>
''R v McNeice'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2d5dp 2010 BCSC 1544] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Meiklem J}}<br>
''R v Brousseau'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2fcf5 2010 ONSC 6753] (CanLII){{perONSC|Croll J}} <br>
''R v Ballendine'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fl8xf 2011 BCCA 221] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Frankel JA}} <br>
Yes, REP:<br>
''R v Trapp'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fp3n3 2011 SKCA 143] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Cameron JA}}<br>
''R v Cuttell'', [http://canlii.ca/t/25z7h 2009 ONCJ 471] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Pringle J}}<br>
</ref>
In certain cases this will turn on the service contract. Where a contract is not in evidence a court is more likely to find in favour of there being a expectation of privacy.<ref>e.g. in Cuttell{{ibid}} at para 57</ref>
 
Whether a person has a bank account with a particular bank does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because that information does not reveal any core biographical information.<ref>
R v Quinn [http://canlii.ca/t/1nc1t 2006 BCCA 255] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Thackray J}} - police were allowed to speak to bank to find out if accused had an account there and used that information for a search warrant.</ref>
 
'''Employment Records'''<br>
Employment records generally are considered private and confidential, containing personal information about an individual's "employment terms and conditions, performance evaluations, salary and benefits paid or payable, seniority standing, discipline, commendations or reprimands, all of which directly impact the individual’s identity or self worth."<ref>
''R v Musselwhite'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1jpv9 2004 BCPC 443] (CanLII){{perBCPC|Dhillon J}}{{at|63}}<br>
</ref>
 
'''Records Produced in Ordinary Course of Business'''<br>
Those records produced during the ordinary course of business of regulated activities will have a diminished expectation of privacy.<ref>
''R v Jarvis'', [http://canlii.ca/t/50d7 2002 SCC 73] (CanLII), [2002] 3 SCR 757{{perSCC|Iacobucci and Major JJ}},  at para. 72<br>
e.g. Thomson Newspapers, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsz8 1990 CanLII 135] (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 425{{perSCC|La Forest J}}, at p. 507<br>
</ref>
 
'''Documents Seized During a Regulatory Inspection'''<br>
Documents seized during a regulatory inspection are ''not'' subject to a REP.<ref>
Thomson newspapers ltd. v Canada (Director of investigation and research, restrictive trade practices commission), [1990] 1 SCR 425, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsz8 1990 CanLII 135] (SCC){{perSCC|La Forest J}}
</ref>
 
'''Utility Records'''<br>
Utility records specifically have been found not to hold a high degree of expectation of privacy.<ref>
''R v Tran'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1r695 2007 ABPC 90] (CanLII){{perABPC|Van de Veen J}}<br>
''R v Cheung'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1rg07 2007 SKCA 51] (CanLII){{TheCourtSKCA}}<br>
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
===Service Providers===
 
An account holder with an internet service provider has a expectation of privacy over the Customer Name and Address (CNA) records that are associated with an assigned IP address.<ref>
''R v Spencer'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g7dzn 2014 SCC 43] (CanLII){{perSCC|Cromwell J}} at para 47<br>
</ref>
 
There is no expectation of privacy with the CNA records associated with a telephone or cellphone number.<ref>
''R v Khan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gj7rj 2014 ONSC 5664] (CanLII){{perONSC| Code J}}<br>
R v TELUS Communications Company, [http://canlii.ca/t/gjlbq 2015 ONSC 3964] (CanLII){{perONSC|Nordheimer J}}<br>
''R v Lattif'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ggmfc 2015 ONSC 1580] (CanLII){{LinkNeeded}} <br>
cf. Re Subscriber Information, [http://canlii.ca/t/gkldk 2015 ABPC 178] (CanLII){{perABPC|Henderson J}} - asks whether this applies only to non-internet accessible phones
</ref>
 
{{Reflist|2}}
 
==Personal Communications==
Generally, the private conversations, including private telephone calls, are protected by a REP.<ref>
''R v Duarte'', [1990] 1 SCR 30, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fszz 1990 CanLII 150] (SCC){{perSCC|La Forest J}} - face-to-face conversations<br>
''R v Shayesteh'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6j4c 1996 CanLII 882] (ON CA), (1996), 31 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.){{perONCA|Charron JA}}<br>
''R v Deacon'', [http://canlii.ca/t/24nv4 2008 CanLII 78109] (ON SC), [2008] OJ No 5756{{perONSC|Trafford J}}<br>
</ref>  However, there exist communications that are not protected.<ref>
e.g. see ''R v Moldovan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/26bff 2009 CanLII 58062] (ON SC){{perONSC|R Clark J}}{{at|43}}<br>
{{supra1|Duarte}} at para 28<br>
</ref>
 
The court may look at the contents of the communications to determine whether there is a subjective and objective expectation of privacy.<ref>
''R v Marakah'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hp63v  2017 SCC 59] (CanLII){{perSCC|McLachlin CJ}} <br>
Moldovan at para 44<br>
''R v McIsaac'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1k8bl 2005 BCSC 385] (CanLII), [2005] BCJ No. 946 (SC){{perBCSC|Parrett J}} at para 67 - re wiretaps on jail phone calls<br>
''R v Bartkowski'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1l2wp 2004 BCSC 44] (CanLII), [2004] BCJ No. 2950 (SC){{perBCSC|Macaulay J}} - re wiretaps phone calls<br>
</ref>
 
'''Subject matter of Intrusion'''<br>
In a communication by electronic means, the subject of the intrusion is ''not'' the device but rather the "conversation".<ref>
{{supra1|Marakah}}<br>
</ref>
 
The fact that the sender of a message in an the electronic conversation knows that there is as risk that the recipient may disclose the conversation is not the same as understanding of a risk that the state may intrude on the conversation.<ref>
Marakah{{ibid}}<br>
</ref>
 
'''Control'''<br>
Control as a factor in analysis of REP must be considered in relation to the subject matter of the search, which is, when talking about online communications is the "electronic conversation".<ref>
Marakah{{ibid}}<br>
</ref>
 
Control over the electronic conversation is only one factor in the analysis of expectation of privacy.<ref>
Marakah{{ibid}}<br>
</ref>
 
'''Awareness of lack of privacy'''<br>
Where the conversation makes many references the lack of confidence in the privacy of the conversation may be sufficient to eliminate subjective expectations of privacy.<ref>
e.g. {{supra1|Moldovan}} - many statements such as "Listen, man, we shouldn’t talk about it on the phone." <br>
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
===Social Media and Text Messages===
Telephone calls by accused in custody, often where there are signs indicating that the conversation is not private, will reduce or eliminate any subjective expectation of privacy.<ref>
e.g. see ''R v McIsaac'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1k8bl 2005 BCSC 385] (CanLII), [2005] BCJ No. 946 (SC){{perBCSC|Parrett J}}<br>
''R v Bartkowski'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1l2wp 2004 BCSC 44] (CanLII), [2004] BCJ No. 2950 (SC){{perBCSC|Macaulay J}}<br>
''R v Ballantyne'', [http://canlii.ca/t/234bf 2008 BCSC 1566] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Chamberlist J}}<br>
</ref>
 
The text messages of the accused, present on a third-party's phone, may be subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy.<ref>
''R v Marakah'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hp63v 2017 SCC 59] (CanLII){{perSCC|McLachlin CJ}}<br>
''R v Pelucco'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gkrd1 2015 BCCA 370] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Groberman JA}}<br>
''R v Craig'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gpbj5 2016 BCCA 154] (CanLII){{perBCCA| Bennett JA}}<br>
cf. ''R v Lowrey'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gs1vr 2016 ABPC 131] (CanLII){{perABPC| Rosborough J}} - police access Facebook account of luring victim and seize text messages between victim and accused<br>
</ref>
 
'''Protections Upon Electronic Conversations'''<br>
The protection of the "electronic conversation" includes "existence of the conversation, the identities of the participants, the information shared, and any inferences about associations and activities that can be drawn from that information".<ref>
{{supra1|Marakah}} at para 20<br>
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
==Electronic Devices==
Data found on electronic devices are generally protected by "informational privacy". However, the analysis often makes use of the metaphors with territorial privacy.<ref>
e.g. ''R v Marakah'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hp63v 2017 SCC 59] (CanLII){{perSCC|McLachlin CJ}} at para 25 to 30<br>
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
===Computers===
'''Generally'''<br>
Any electronic device (computer, cell phone, etc) will contain information detailing a persons life that can be "deeply personal". Personal information can be found in:
<ref>see discussion in ''R v Polius'', [http://canlii.ca/t/24ntc 2009 CanLII 37923] (ON SC), [2009] OJ No 3074 (Sup. Ct.){{perONSC|Trafford J}}</ref>
* Contact Information (detailing names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses and similar information);
* Internet Browsing (history of websites, log-in information, passwords, form data);
* Calendars;
* Photographs and videos;
* Messages (emails, texts, voicemails);
* Phone Call Logs (dialled/received/missed calls, caller identification);
 
A lack of exclusive control over the control over contents of the information is not a sole basis for finding a lack of expectation of privacy.<ref>
R v Cole at para 54</ref>
 
'''Home and Personal Computers'''<br>
Home and personal computers are imbued with a high degree of privacy due to the frequency that it contains intimate correspondence, financial, medical, or personal information. In addition to our personal interests and tastes.<ref>  ''R v Morelli'', [http://canlii.ca/t/28mrg 2010 SCC 8] (CanLII){{perSCC|Fish J}} at 105</ref> According to the Morelli court, the level of privacy does not get much higher.<ref>Morelli{{ibid}} at para 2: (“It is difficult to imagine a search more intrusive, extensive, or invasive of one's privacy than the search and seizure of a personal computer.”</ref>
 
The high expectation exists not only due to amount of intimate personal information is stored on the devices but also because of its high capacity to store data, the existence of a significant amount of information that the user is unaware of, such as metadata and tracking history, it also stores data after its deletion and may provide access to sources outside of the device.<ref>
''R v Vu'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g1r8p 2013 SCC 60] (CanLII){{perSCC|Cromwell J}}, at para 42, 43<br>
</ref>
 
Generally, all personal electronic devices similar to home computers have a high level of privacy.<ref>
''R v Choudry'', [2009] O.J. No 84 (ONSC){{NOCANLII}}<br>
''R v Little'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2509x 2009 CanLII 41212] (ONSC){{perONSC|Fuerst J}}<br>
{{supra1|Polius}}<br>
</ref>
 
It is suggested that the degree of privacy is lessened where a personal computer has been brought to a repair shop.<ref>
''R v Graham'', [http://canlii.ca/t/27gk6 2010 ONSC 119] (CanLII), [2010] OJ No 146 (Sup. Ct.){{perONSC|Desotti J}}: ( Defence argued a high degree of privacy in the computer at the repair shop, the judge said "I agree that in other factual situations that a court may have to consider, those other concerns [of Defence] might have a more prominent place.  I do not have those facts before me.")<br>
''R v Winchester'', [http://canlii.ca/t/27qm8 2010 ONSC 652] (CanLII), [2010] OJ No 281 (Sup. Ct.){{perONSC|Valin J}} at para 36: (“while I am not prepared to find that the applicant had no expectation of privacy in the contents of the computer when he left it at the store, I do find that this expectation was significantly reduced.”)</ref>
In some cases, there is no expectation of privacy.<ref>
''R v Piette'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2cr9x 2009 QCCQ 14499] (CanLII){{perQCCQ|Bonin J}} a computer repairman makes copy of child abuse images found on computer onto a CD and gives it to police. The court found no REP on CD so no need for warrant<br>
</ref>
 
An accused loses their reasonable expectation of privacy to a household computer once they move out.<ref> ''R v Pommer'' (2008), 58 C.R. (6th) 319, 2008 CarswellBC 1181, [http://canlii.ca/t/1x6ms 2008 BCSC 423] (CanLII), (B.C. S.C.){{perBCSC|D Smith J}}</ref>
 
The search of a computer cannot always be precise. An investigating officer looking for a particular piece of evidence may need to diverge into several areas of the hard drive in the same way as a person searching a house would look into a number of draws of a bedroom before finding evidence.<ref>''R v Stemberger'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fpqjb 2012 ONCJ 31] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Borenstein J}} at paras 99, 110</ref>
 
A computer seized as under plain view under s. 489 during the execution of a general residential search warrant is permissible. However, the search of its contents may require a warrant.<ref>
''R v Little'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2509x 2009 CanLII 41212] (ON SC){{perONSC|Fuerst J}}
</ref>
 
It has been suggested that a search of a memory stick has a REP and so requires a search warrant.<ref>''R v Tuduce'', [http://canlii.ca/t/flfj1 2011 ONSC 2749] (CanLII){{perONSC|Taylor J}} at paras 41-45</ref>
 
'''School and Workplace Computers'''<br>
Workplace computers are considered to have limited expectation of privacy. <ref>
''R v Cole'', [http://canlii.ca/t/23bps 2009 CanLII 20699] (Sup. Ct.){{perONSC|Kane J}} rev'd [http://canlii.ca/t/fkmxr 2011 ONCA 0218] aff'd [http://canlii.ca/t/ft969 2012 SCC 53] (CanLII){{perSCC|Fish J}}<br>
''R v Ritter'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1nvxf 2006 ABPC 162] (CanLII), (2006), 402 A.R. 249 (Prov. Ct.){{perABPC|Fraser J}}<br>
</ref> This will turn on the employer's privacy policy on whether the employees can keep personal things on work computers.<ref>
''R v Cole'', supra</ref>
 
The deleted internet browsing history of a school computer will still have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Deleted files represents an intent to keep potential private information hidden. <ref>
''R v McNeice'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fwd7w 2013 BCCA 98] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Finch JA}}
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
===Online Data and Communications===
'''Online Information'''<br>
Activities online, even when in a public internet forum under a pseudonym, will retain a degree of privacy.<ref>
''R v Ward'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ft0ft 2012 ONCA 660] (CanLII){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} at paras 71, 74<br>
''R v Spencer'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g7dzn 2014 SCC 43] (CanLII){{perSCC|Cromwell J}}<br>
</ref>
 
It seem communications with undercover police officers online would ''not'' engage a privacy protection.<ref>
''R v Graff'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gjrhf 2015 ABQB 415] (CanLII){{perABQB|Neilsen J}}<br>
''R v Kwok'', [2008] OJ No 2414{{NOCANLII}}<br>
''R v Caza'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fqzgm 2012 BCSC 525] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Powers J}}<br>
''R v Ghotra'', [20015] OJ No 7253 (ONSC) {{NOCANLII}}{{perONSC|Durno J}}<br>
''R v Vader'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gs1dj 2016 ABQB 309] (CanLII){{perABQB|Thomas J}} - cell phone text messages obtained from ISP by production order after they have been sent<br>
''R v Mills'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gxfxd 2017 NLCA 12] (CanLII){{perNLCA|Welsh JA}} leave to appeal to SCC granted - involved active screen capture by the police officer<br>
</ref>
 
'''Facebook'''<br>
An open facebook profile containing broadcast communications are not protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy.<ref>
''R v Patterson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ht1l4 2018 ONSC 4187] (CanLII){{perONSC|Bawden J}}, at paras 6, 8, 21, 33<br>
</ref>
 
'''Text Messages'''<br>
Depending on the "totality of circumstances", the sender of text messages that have been received by the recipient may still be able to retain privacy rights over  the content of the messages.<ref>
''R v Marakah'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hp63v 2017 SCC 59] (CanLII){{perSCC|McLachlin CJ}} at para 4 ("...depending on the totality of the circumstances, text messages that have been sent and received may in some cases be protected under s. 8 and that [the sender] had standing to argue that the text messages at issue enjoy s. 8 protection.")<br>
</ref>
This however does not mean that a sender ''always'' has an expectation of privacy, it will depend on the case-by-case analysis under ''Edwards''.<ref>
''R v Vickerson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hq2r1 2018 BCCA 39] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Bennett JA}} at para 54<br>
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
===Peer-to-Peer Software===
Software installed on a computer that enables other persons on a network to access information and files on a computer, such as Peer-to-Peer software, is relevant to the courts usually in a child pornography cases.
 
US Courts have concluded that files found on a computer that are accessible and transferable over a peer-to-peer do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy due to the intention of the user.<ref>
US v Ganoe, 538 F.3d 1117 (2008) ("although as a general matter an individual has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal computer…we fail to see how this expectation can survive Ganoe’s decision to install and use file-sharing software, thereby opening his computer to anyone one else with the same freely available program.")<br>
State v Mahan, 2011 WL 4600044: the police internet investigation program "simply automated the ability to search information that had been placed in the public domain")<br>
US v Sawyer, 786 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (2011) suggested that once access is given to a “friend” the owner is giving up their right to privacy over those shareable files, simply because the police are not identifying themselves does not change things
</ref>
 
A shared directory in a peer-to-peer network has a lower expectation of privacy than a home.<ref>
''R v Caza'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fqzgm 2012 BCSC 525] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Powers J}}<br>
</ref>
The search of shared files on peer-to-peer network does not engage s. 8 of the Charter.<ref>
Caza{{ibid}} at paras 90 to 97, 113</ref>
Equally, the text messages shared between users of the Gigatribe community are not protected either.<ref>
Caza{{ibid}}</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
===Contents of Cell Phones===
There is a division in the case law on the level of privacy there is for cell phones.
 
All cellphones, regardless of their capacity, is said to have a high expectation of privacy.<ref>
''R v Fearon'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gflcd 2014 SCC 77] (CanLII){{perSCC|Cromwell J}}<br>
see also ''R v Sheck'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fqcl3 2012 BCPC 39] (CanLII){{perBCPC|Bahen J}} at para 17 (It is like "an archive of social, family and business activities")</ref>
 
There should  be no distinction between cell phones and computers given the sophistication of phones.<ref>
''R v Vu'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g1r8p 2013 SCC 60] (CanLII){{perSCC|Cromwell J}} at para 38
</ref>
 
Where an accused suggests that he "found" a cell phone in his possession he ''cannot'' assert s. 8 Charter rights.<ref>
''R v Hebrada-Walters'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fwj90 2013 SKCA 24] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Ottenbreit JA}} at para 35 to 38<br>
</ref>
 
The contents of a cell phone protected by s. 8, includes any information visible on the face of the locked screen after any button is pressed.<ref>
''R v Millett'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gwr7l 2017 ABQB 9] (CanLII){{perABQB|Viet J}}
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
===Vehicle Data Recorders===
There is some division on whether there is a warrant needed to examine the data recorders that exist within vehicles.<ref>
''R v Hamilton'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g352z 2014 ONSC 447] (CanLII){{perONSC|MacDougall J}} - warrant required<br>
''R v Glenfield'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ggnd9 2015 ONSC 1304] (CanLII){{perONSC|Hambly J}} - warrant required<br>
''R v Fedan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gn22f 2016 BCCA 26] (CanLII){{perBCCA|D Smith J}}, leave to SCC dismissed - warrant not required<br>
</ref>
 
It has been suggested that a lawful seizure of a vehicle under s. 489(2) is sufficient to extinguish any subjective expectation of privacy over the contents the vehicle including on-board data.<ref>
Fedan{{ibid}}
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}

Latest revision as of 14:19, 14 July 2024

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed July 2021. (Rev. # 95212)

Introduction

See also: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Courts have set out specific rules and principles when dealing with certain situations where privacy interests have been found. Those circumstances include searches of persons, residences, vehicles, storage, and more recently electronic devices.

A person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy "related to contraband."[1]

  1. ↑ R v AM, 2008 SCC 19 (CanLII), [2008] SCJ No 19, per LeBel J, at para 73
    R v Butters, 2014 ONCJ 228 (CanLII), 311 CCC (3d) 516, per Paciocco J, at para 26

Zones of Privacy

Retrieved from "https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Established_Areas_of_Privacy&oldid=95212"