Canada: police can now search cellphones without warrant on arrest

[Danifilth]

People use the internet and don't freak out when his or her information is being collected to make browsing easier. Now freaking out over cell phones lol?

[Krolikn]

They've been doing this for years already.

[Zoranon]

People use the internet and don't freak out when his or her information is being collected to make browsing easier. Now freaking out over cell phones lol?

Some people actually value their privacy.

[belfpala]

If I am already being arrested I would refuse to unlock it. What is in my phone is none of their business, I will smash it on the ground then stomp on it before letting police or anyone of government power searching through my business.

omg destruction of evidence!@!!!

[Marquize]

I think it's only logical to let police search your phone when doing an arrest. The phone in todays society is used for alot and could contain valuable information needed for the case and if the search is not done at that point it could very well be deleted easily by the owner (or even through use of apps on remote devices)

[Zoranon]

I think it's only logical to let police search your phone when doing an arrest. The phone in todays society is used for alot and could contain valuable information needed for the case and if the search is not done at that point it could very well be deleted easily by the owner (or even through use of apps on remote devices)

You are aware that a thing called "warrant" exists?

[tj119]

I think it's only logical to let police search your phone when doing an arrest. The phone in todays society is used for alot and could contain valuable information needed for the case and if the search is not done at that point it could very well be deleted easily by the owner (or even through use of apps on remote devices)

You think it's logical to possibly hand over imcriminating evidence of yourself? Lol.

[belfpala]

Actually, I'm going to re-state something I said above...

A circuit court recently (october-ish this year) ruled that a person is not required to provide a pass code. I think in Virginia. So it may not be true in any other part of the US.

I recall a situation here a few years ago. There was a hit and run, the car was identified by security camera footage, but the driver was not. The defense argued that no charges could be brought because the potential defendant was unknown. So they got warrants for the phones of everyone with a drivers license in that family. THey used the location data on the phone to identify that only the wife was in that area at that time, so they brought manslaughter charges. (She got off on the "I thought it was a construction cone" defense, but that's off topic).

[SidFwuff]

I find it rather amusing that the rule for a citizen is that the ignorance of law is not an excuse, but police are accorded deference when the law is not clear.
At any rate, the decision is just bad when compared with Riley (the recent SCOTUS case on the same subject).

Citizens have the same deference. They are making it illegal to sell eCigarettes to minors, for example. Once that comes into effect, someone that did it last year will not be able to be charged because it wasn't an illegal offense when he did it.

This isn't something to be concerned about. Again, I'll redirect you to the 8-0 decision that ruled that Canadians have a right to privacy when it comes to the internet, computers, and phones. A narrow 4-3 decision that allowed evidence because there was no precedence at the time for examining an unlocked phone at the scene of a crime isn't something to get worked up over.

C-13, however, is now law and allows ISPs to hand over all your personal data voluntarily (including that hypothetically drunk text example by belfpala).

That's legal.

And no one seems to care. But a police officer looking at an unlocked phone?

Oh, gawd! My rights!

[Conspicuous Cultist]

Canada police state

[madmanx]

Will likely be overturned before the end of the year....

Idiotic law and very surprising for Canada.

[Zoranon]

Citizens have the same deference. They are making it illegal to sell eCigarettes to minors, for example. Once that comes into effect, someone that did it last year will not be able to be charged because it wasn't an illegal offense when he did it.

This isn't something to be concerned about. Again, I'll redirect you to the 8-0 decision that ruled that Canadians have a right to privacy when it comes to the internet, computers, and phones. A narrow 4-3 decision that allowed evidence because there was no precedence at the time for examining an unlocked phone at the scene of a crime isn't something to get worked up over.

C-13, however, is now law and allows ISPs to hand over all your personal data voluntarily (including that hypothetically drunk text example by belfpala).

That's legal.

And no one seems to care. But a police officer looking at an unlocked phone?

Oh, gawd! My rights!

You are mistaking retroactivity with confusing law. If for example, someone makes a wrong declaration of some tax, or other regulatory or criminal law, there is absolutely no chance of a court accepting a defence stating that he though his action was lawful.

There is absolutely no reason for a police officer looking through the phone of someone they arrested absent some ticking bomb scenario. I will never be able to understand the mindset of people who claim relatively smaller infractions of rights are ok if they are some perceived bigger ones.

And it is absolutely irrelevant by if the decision was unanimous of 4-3, it has the exactly same force as you know well. So stop acting like it matters.

- - - Updated - - -

Will likely be overturned before the end of the year....

Idiotic law and very surprising for Canada.

By who? The parliament? Dont make me laugh.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Remember kids, according to the other threads recently on MMOC, every criminal should be punished and police should have full authority to find out and punish you.

And then this thread is back to the usual "invasion of privacy!"

[Zvinny]

There was a case a few years ago in America where an accused child pornographer was arrested, but all the files on his computer were encrypted. Like, hella good military level encryption. He got off because he refused to provide a password utilizing the fifth amendment.

[belfpala]

C-13, however, is now law and allows ISPs to hand over all your personal data voluntarily (including that hypothetically drunk text example by belfpala).

That's legal.

That's why I'm very polite when I talk to Comcast, no matter how terrible the service. I know the dude on the other end is probably looking at my porn surfing history.

[Zoranon]

Remember kids, according to the other threads recently on MMOC, every criminal should be punished and police should have full authority to find out and punish you.

And then this thread is back to the usual "invasion of privacy!"

Glad you are here to ensure that at least one thing remains constant, your baiting zero substance posts. Your posts in this and other threads seem to lack arguments and their only goal is to provoke others.

[Zvinny]

That's why I'm very polite when I talk to Comcast, no matter how terrible the service. I know the dude on the other end is probably looking at my porn surfing history.

All my guy gets is "Connected to VPN."

[belfpala]

Remember kids, according to the other threads recently on MMOC, every criminal should be punished and police should have full authority to find out and punish you.

And then this thread is back to the usual "invasion of privacy!"

Different posters, if I recall. Cognitive dissonance is strong with some of them.

(I probably have my CogDiss moments too, and I'm happy when people point them out.)

[Drsolders]

Today is a terrible day for canada and therefore the world. (Couldn't pass that up)

I'm sure there would be enough backlash that they would change it right?

[SidFwuff]

You are mistaking retroactivity with confusing law. If for example, someone makes a wrong declaration of some tax, or other regulatory or criminal law, there is absolutely no chance of a court accepting a defence stating that he though his action was lawful.

No, I'm not:

“The police simply did something that they believed on reasonable grounds to be lawful and were proven wrong, after the fact, by developments in the jurisprudence,” Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote for the majority.

In other words, what they did was considered lawful at the time. I.e, in other words the evidence (at the time it was collected) was legal.

How it was obtained is now illegal, but it wasn't then.

There is absolutely no reason for a police officer looking through the phone of someone they arrested absent some ticking bomb scenario. I will never be able to understand the mindset of people who claim relatively smaller infractions of rights are ok if they are some perceived bigger ones.

And it is absolutely irrelevant by if the decision was unanimous of 4-3, it has the exactly same force as you know well. So stop acting like it matters.

The courts have been very consistent, and very clear, on the right to privacy. This ruling specifically states that what the police did is illegal- should they do it again, in the future, it will be thrown out. It was nearly thrown out this time, even though police didn't need a warrant to look at a cellphone, at the time of arrest.

By who? The parliament? Dont make me laugh.

The courts.

In the 8-0 ruling, they were very clear that police may not ask or request information from ISPs. They went so far as to call out future attempts at 'fishing'.