One-Party Consent Intercepts to Prevent Bodily Harm: Difference between revisions
Created page with "==General Principles== Under s. 184.1 a peace officer may do a one-party consent intercept a private communication without judicial authorization: {{quotation2| ; Interception to prevent bodily harm 184.1 (1) An agent of the state may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication if :(a) either the originator of the private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it has consented to th..." |
m Admin moved page Wiretap to Prevent Bodily Harm to One-Party Consent Wiretap to Prevent Bodily Harm |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 13:56, 17 June 2024
General Principles
Under s. 184.1 a peace officer may do a one-party consent intercept a private communication without judicial authorization:
- Interception to prevent bodily harm
184.1 (1) An agent of the state may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication if
- (a) either the originator of the private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it has consented to the interception;
- (b) the agent of the state believes on reasonable grounds that there is a risk of bodily harm to the person who consented to the interception; and
- (c) the purpose of the interception is to prevent the bodily harm.
- Admissibility of intercepted communication
(2) The contents of a private communication that is obtained from an interception pursuant to subsection (1) [interception to prevent bodily harm – offence] are inadmissible as evidence except for the purposes of proceedings in which actual, attempted or threatened bodily harm is alleged, including proceedings in respect of an application for an authorization under this Part or in respect of a search warrant or a warrant for the arrest of any person.
[omitted (3) and (4)]
1993, c. 40, s. 4.
[annotation(s) added]
This requires that:
- consent of one of the parties to the interception;
- the interceptor reasonably believes there is a risk of bodily harm to the consenting party;
- the purpose of the interception is to prevent bodily harm (such as to an undercover peace officer making a drug buy).
Wiretaps under 184.2 do not require the affiant to establish "investigative necessity" for the wiretap.
- Destruction
Should the wiretap not intercept any relevant communications, the recording must be destroyed "as soon as practicable".
184.1
[omitted (1) and (2)]
- Destruction of recordings and transcripts
(3) The agent of the state who intercepts a private communication pursuant to subsection (1) [interception to prevent bodily harm – offence] shall, as soon as is practicable in the circumstances, destroy any recording of the private communication that is obtained from an interception pursuant to subsection (1) [interception to prevent bodily harm – offence], any full or partial transcript of the recording and any notes made by that agent of the private communication if nothing in the private communication suggests that bodily harm, attempted bodily harm or threatened bodily harm has occurred or is likely to occur.
[omitted (4)]
1993, c. 40, s. 4.
[annotation(s) added]
- Definition of "agent of the state"
see Wiretaps#Misc_Wiretap_Terms (184.1(4)).