A Kamloops law professor says a pair of monumental decisions last month by Canada’s highest court bring the nation’s laws into the information age, ending a period of “windfall” for police.
“It’s another one of those decisions that beings the Charter up to date as it relates to modern technology,” Thompson Rivers University law professor Micah Rankin told KTW.
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Canadians can expect their text messages to remain private — at least in some cases — even after the messages reach their destination.
“Before, it was kind of like the police saw it as a windfall — ‘Oh, we got a bunch of stuff in there like a photo of a guy with a gun. Jackpot,’” Rankin said. “Now, they’re not precluded from using it, but if they want to get in there, they are going to have to seek some form of [judicial] authorization.”
In a potentially significant 5-2 ruling, the high court set aside the firearms-trafficking convictions against Nour Marakah, whose messages were found by Toronto police on the mobile phone of an alleged accomplice.
The court said Marakah had a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning the messages, meaning he had a right to challenge the police search of the phone as a violation of his guarantees under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“The test is whether you have an expectation of privacy,” Rankin said.
“I don’t think you could say yes every time. If I sent an incriminating message to an RCMP officer, for example, I wouldn’t. But if you’re having a private message exchange, the police are going to have to get a production order or warrant.”
In her reasons for the majority, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin noted Marakah was the author of the text messages introduced as evidence against him, that he expected the electronic conversation to remain private and that he asked recipient Andrew Winchester numerous times to delete the messages.
Marakah’s convictions were tossed out because, the high court concluded, police should have had a judicial warrant to search Winchester’s phone and that effectively excluded the messages from evidence. However, the court cautioned that gauging the expectation of privacy depends on the facts of a case and that the outcome might be different in other circumstances.
McLachlin said the expectation can hinge on the place of a search, even though it may not be a physical space in the digital era.
“This interconnected web of devices and servers creates an electronic world of digital communication that, in the 21st century, is every bit as real as a physical space,’’ she wrote.
“The millions of us who text friends, family and acquaintances may each be viewed as having appropriated a corner of this electronic space for our own purposes. There, we seclude ourselves and convey our private messages, just as we might use a room in a home or an office to talk behind closed doors.’’
It is difficult to think of a type of conversation or communication capable of promising more privacy than text messaging, she added.
“A wife has no way of knowing that, when her husband appears to be catching up on emails, he is in fact conversing by text message with a paramour. A father does not know whom or what his daughter is texting at the dinner table.’’
Marakah accepted the risk that Winchester might disclose the messages to other parties, but in doing so, Marakah “did not give up control over the information’’ or his right to Charter protection, McLachlin said.
She noted that even if an accused person has the right to argue there was a violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure, it does not mean the argument will succeed.
In addition, not every kind of electronic communication will involve a reasonable expectation of privacy that allows an accused to make the Charter argument, she wrote: “This case does not concern, for example, messages posted on social media, conversations occurring in crowded internet chat rooms or comments posted on online message boards.’’
In a dissenting opinion for the minority, Justice Michael Moldaver warned that the court’s defence of privacy rights could prompt police, out of an abundance of caution, to seek a judicial warrant even in cases where a victim voluntarily hands over threatening or offensive messages he or she has received.
In turn, this could “strain police and judicial resources in an already overburdened criminal justice system,’’ he wrote.
In her reasons, McLachlin said that if and when such concerns arise, “it will be for courts to address them’’ and that the protection of privacy in electronic conversations “should not be lightly denied.’’
In a second ruling last month, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal of gun and drug convictions in a case in which Ottawa police had a production order to seize text messages stored on a Telus server.
In keeping with the Marakah decision, McLachlin wrote that the convicted man, Tristin Jones, was improperly denied an opportunity to challenge the production order as a violation of Charter guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure.
However, McLachlin concluded the messages were lawfully seized and, as a result, his constitutional rights were not breached.
The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association intervened in the case, arguing police should have to meet more stringent warrant requirements when seeking text messages from a telecommunications provider.
The Supreme Court decision “is an unfortunate development in the law,’’ said Caily DiPuma, the association’s acting litigation director.
— with files from The Canadian Press
The post Canada’s highest court’s decision brings the nation’s laws into information age appeared first on Kamloops This Week.
