Supreme Court of Canada Upholds Cellphone Search at Arrest

A 4-3 decision by the country's highest court said the evidence Toronto police found on a robbery suspect's phone, including a photo of a handgun and a draft text message which read in part, "We did it," should not be excluded.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled 4-3 in an important privacy case that law enforcement personnel may search the cellphone of someone they have arrested, without needing a search warrant. The 4-3 decision issued Dec. 11 dismisses the appeal of Kevin Fearon, who was convicted of participating in a 2009 robbery after Toronto police searched his cellphone. Fearon challenged the search.

Police who arrested Fearon found a photo of a handgun on his phone and a draft text message which read in part, "We did it." The robbery had been carried out by two men, one of whom carried a handgun, Judge Thomas Cromwell wrote in the majority opinion.

The opinion says Fearon's rights were violated by the search because the police did not take adequate notes detailing precisely what was searched, how, and why, but says despite that, the evidence should not be excluded:

"Although any search of any cell phone has the potential to be a very significant invasion of a person’s informational privacy interests, the invasion of F's privacy was not particularly grave," it states. "Further, as he did not challenge the warrant that was subsequently issued for the comprehensive search of the cell phone, his privacy interests were going to be impacted and the particular breach did not significantly change the nature of that impact. . . . In addition, the police fully disclosed the earlier searches when they decided to obtain the warrant to search the cell phone. While the police should, when faced with real uncertainty, choose a course of action that is more respectful of the accused's potential privacy rights, an honest mistake, reasonably made, is not state misconduct that requires the exclusion of evidence. Society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits also favours admission: the evidence is cogent and reliable, and its exclusion would undermine the truth seeking function of the justice system."

The three dissenting judges argued a warrantless cellphone search should be allowed only in exigent circumstances, which they defined as: "when (1) there is a reasonable basis to suspect a search may prevent an imminent threat to safety or (2) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the imminent destruction of evidence can be prevented by a warrantless search."

"Tailoring the scope of the common law power to search incident to arrest does not adequately protect the reasonable expectations of privacy in personal digital devices. The majority's proposed modifications generate problems of impracticality, police uncertainty, and increased after-the-fact litigation. And while detailed note-taking may be desirable, it may prove to be an impractical requirement, and it is not an adequate remedy to what would be an extraordinary search power," the dissenting opinion states. "Fundamentally, the police are not in the best position to determine whether the law enforcement objectives clearly outweigh the potentially significant intrusion on privacy in the search of a digital device, and, if they are wrong, the subsequent exclusion of the evidence will not remedy the initial privacy violation." It argues that the searches of Fearon's phone "were not justified and unreasonably infringed his privacy," and that the facts of his case "fall far below either standard for exigency."

Download Center

HTML - No Current Item Deck
  • Safety Management Software - Free Demo

    IndustrySafe Safety Software’s comprehensive suite of modules help organizations to record and manage incidents, inspections, hazards, behavior based safety observations, and much more. Improve safety with an easy to use tool for tracking, notifying and reporting on key safety data.

  • What is Behavior Based Safety?

    Learn the ins and outs of Behavior Based Safety (BBS), a process that informs management and employees of the overall safety of the workplace through safety observations.

  • How to Properly Use Job Safety Observations

    While there are many pros and cons of behavior based safety programs, often times these programs fail because of poor implementation. Learn how to properly use safety observations that result in improvement.

  • The 4 Stages of an Incident Investigation

    So, your workplace has just experienced an incident resulting in the injury or illness of a worker. Now what? OSHA recommends that you conduct investigations of workplace incidents using a four-step system.

  • Levels of a Risk Matrix:

    Risk matrices come in many different shapes and sizes. In the following blog article, we break down the three most popular sizes of a risk matrix — 3x3, 4x4, and 5x5 — and reveal the pros and cons of each.

  • Industry Safe

OH&S Digital Edition

  • OHS Magazine Digital Edition - March 2020

    March 2020

    Featuring:

    • HUMAN FACTORS
      The Case for Managing Human Factors at Heights
    • DRUG TESTING
      An Overview of SAMHSA'S New Oral Fluid Testing Guidelines
    • HAND PROTECTION
      Cutting to the Chase
    • PROTECTIVE APPAREL
      Choosing the Right Protective Clothing
    View This Issue