
- By: Aswani Datt
- text messages
- December 9, 2024
- Comments (0)
The main purpose of s. 8 of the Charter, which guarantees that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, is to protect the right to privacy from unjustified state intrusion. A claimant seeking standing to argue that their rights under s. 8 were infringed must show that they subjectively expected the subject matter of the search would remain private, and that their expectation was objectively reasonable having regard to the totality of the circumstances. In making this evaluation, courts are guided by four lines of inquiry: (1) the subject matter of the alleged search; (2) whether the claimant had a direct interest in the subject matter; (3) whether the claimant had a subjective expectation of privacy in the subject matter; and (4) whether the claimant’s subjective expectation of privacy was objectively reasonable.
First, when the state examines text messages, the subject matter of the alleged search is properly characterized as the electronic conversation between two or more people. The subject matter of the search includes the 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. Second, a claimant would have a direct interest in a text message conversation if they participated in the conversation and wrote several of the texts at issue. Third, a claimant’s burden of establishing a subjective expectation of privacy in the subject matter of the alleged search is not a high hurdle. It can be presumed or inferred in the circumstances in the absence of the claimant’s testimony or admission at the voir dire. Fourth, in determining whether a subjective expectation of privacy is objectively reasonable, courts must employ an approach that is both normative and content‑neutral.
There is no closed or definitive list of factors relevant to whether a claimant’s subjective expectation of privacy in the subject matter of a search is objectively reasonable. However, the private nature of the subject matter is a critical factor in establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy. Courts must focus on whether the subject matter of the search at issue has the potential or tendency to reveal private information about the claimant. With respect to text messages in particular, the focus is not on the actual contents of the messages the police have seized, but rather on the potential of a given electronic conversation to reveal personal or biographical information, such as intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choices of the individual. In addition, the intrusiveness of the police technique in relation to the privacy interest at issue can be another important factor in assessing whether a claimant’s subjective expectation of privacy is objectively reasonable. This is a distinct consideration from whether the police acted lawfully at the second stage of the s. 8 inquiry.
In contrast, the level of control a claimant has over information is not determinative of the question of standing. Control is not an absolute indicator of a reasonable expectation of privacy, nor is lack of control fatal to a privacy interest. A person does not lose control of information for the purposes of s. 8 simply because another person possesses it or can access it. As a result, text message conversations may be protected by a zone of privacy that extends beyond a person’s own mobile device to the recipient of the message, even when the person shares private information with others. The zone of privacy protected by s. 8 of the Charter involves the right to keep personal information safe from state intrusion.
Once a claimant has established standing to argue that their rights under s. 8 were infringed, the next step is to determine whether the police acted lawfully, which is relevant to whether the state conduct was unreasonable. A search is reasonable under s. 8 if it is authorized by a reasonable law and conducted in a reasonable manner. However, a warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable, shifting the burden of persuasion to the Crown to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the search was reasonable.
Parliament enacted Part VI of the Criminal Code as a comprehensive regime to address the interception of private communications by balancing the individual right to privacy with the collective need for law enforcement. Under Part VI, s. 184(1)(a) creates an indictable offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment if a person knowingly intercepts a private communication by use of any electro‑magnetic, acoustic, mechanical, or other device. For there to be an interception under Part VI, the police must use a device employing intrusive surveillance technology. Unless the police use intrusive surveillance technology, police deception or trickery does not amount to an interception under Part VI.
The police have authority at common law to search a person incident to a lawful arrest and to seize anything in their possession or in the surrounding area of the arrest. This power is extraordinary because it does not require a warrant or reasonable and probable grounds. It simply requires some reasonable basis for what the police did. A search incident to arrest is lawful if: (1) the arrest itself was lawful; (2) the search was truly incidental to the arrest, in that it was for a valid law enforcement objective connected to the arrest; and (3) the search was conducted reasonably. Valid law enforcement objectives include ensuring the safety of the police or the public, preventing the destruction of evidence, and uncovering evidence that could be used at trial.
Section 11(1) of the CDSA authorizes a justice to issue a warrant to search a place for a controlled substance and to seize it. By exception, s. 11(7) authorizes a peace officer to search the place without a warrant, if the conditions for a warrant exist but exigent circumstances make it impracticable to obtain one. Section 11(7) thus has two requirements.
First, it must be shown that there were exigent circumstances, which denote not merely convenience, propitiousness, or economy, but rather urgency, arising from circumstances calling for immediate police action to preserve evidence, officer safety, or public safety.
Second, it must be shown that the conditions for obtaining a warrant existed, but that exigent circumstances rendered it impracticable to obtain a warrant, meaning that it was impossible in practice or unmanageable to obtain a warrant. Regarding the evidentiary threshold, the police must have reasonable and probable grounds, rather than merely reasonable suspicion, for the claimed exigency under s. 11(7).
The Crown must establish the reasonable probability of the claimed exigency, based on the experience and expertise of the police and the relevant facts before them. As for the standard of appellate review, a trial judge’s assessment of the evidence and findings of fact in applying s. 11(7) attract substantial deference on appeal; however, whether the facts as found by the trial judge meet the legal standard for exigency under s. 11(7) is a question of law reviewable for correctness.
Source: R. v. Campbell, 2024 SCC 42 (CanLII)