# data[].attributes.body
Search and seizure, practices engaged in by law enforcement officers in order to gain sufficient evidence to ensure the arrest and conviction of an offender. (Britannica)

# data[].attributes.body
Search or seizure

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
This video asks the Question whether the police can search me where ever i want without a warrant. The answer to that question is simply no.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are the police allowed to search me or my homes for drugs whenever they like?

# data[].attributes.body
In this photo, the police are searching a car looking for any thing that make be suspicious or illegal.

# data[].attributes.body
This an example of what police may seize from a criminal. In Canada, Guns and drugs aver highly illegal and if found in seized, the charged can go from fines to major jail time. We do this to maintain the safety of all citizens and to stop potential harm before it occurs.

# data[].attributes.body
Two men were found guilty during a search and seizure. what happened was police executed a search warrant at mans residence and seized 300 grams of cocaine and $46,000 in cash. The items seized supported convictions for possession of cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
POWERS OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Search warrants - Validity - The Lawyer's Daily

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Appeals by the accused, Ishmael and Elijah Lowe, from convictions for drug-related offences.

# data[].attributes.headline
Search and Seizure of Text messages in Canada

# data[].attributes.subject
Search and Seizure of Text messages in Canada

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, the issue of whether the search and seizure of text messages and its laws in the Charter of Rights and freedoms was sparked for debate. They brought up recent situation where the debate was very difficult to decide whether it was right to search through someones personal messages without a warrant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Doug Beazley December 15, 2017 15 December 2017

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Canada dropped a ruling that (depending on where you sit) either affirms the privacy rights of people taking part in digital conversations - or makes the work of police and prosecutors a whole lot harder.

In 2012, Toronto police executed a series of search warrants at four addresses related to a gun trafficking investigation. Three of the addresses linked back to one Andrew Winchester; one linked back to Nour Marakah. When police executed the warrants they seized the suspects' phones - Marakah's BlackBerry and Winchester's iPhone. A subsequent search of the phones found text messages that police said implicated both men in gun trafficking.

Marakah was convicted of several firearms offences, largely on the strength of the texts he had exchanged with Winchester - texts that were pulled from Winchester's phone. Marakah challenged the search and seizure of Winchester's phone under Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the section that guarantees against "unreasonable search and seizure."

To decide whether the texts on the iPhone should have been allowed into evidence, the application judge - and, four years later, the Ontario Court of Appeal - had to answer a question that borders on the metaphysical: Where do texts exist once they've been sent? In other words, did Marakah - by sending an incriminating text to a phone which was not in his control - lose the "reasonable expectation of privacy" required for a Section 8 challenge that was established by the SCC in 1996 in R. v. Edwards?

The application judge ruled Marakah did not enjoy that expectation of privacy because Winchester's phone belonged to Winchester, not Marakah. "The sender of a text message," the judge ruled, "has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents after it has been sent but before it reaches its intended destination." The appeal court agreed.

On Dec. 8, 2017, the SCC disagreed, stating in a 5-2 decision that, since "the subject matter of the search is the conversation" - which didn't exist in one phone or the other, but in some liminal space in between - the expectation of privacy attaches to the exchange of texts, not the hardware. The incriminating phone was, as the lower court pointed out, beyond Marakah's effective "control" - but the "expectation of privacy" endured.

"Control," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin for the majority, "is not an absolute indicator of a reasonable expectation of privacy, nor is lack of control fatal to a privacy interest."

The Crown conceded that, if Marakah had standing under Section 8, his right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure had been violated. The SCC, citing section 24.2 of the Charter (the exclusion of evidence obtained through a violation of Charter rights), set aside his convictions.

The implications for law enforcement are pretty obvious. "It was a bold move by the majority," said Kris Klein, an Ottawa-based lawyer and specialist in privacy law.

"My first thought on reading it was, 'I feel kind of bad for the police.'"

The debate on the SCC bench must have been heated. Justice Michael Moldaver, delivering a blistering minority opinion, attacked the majority's decision to grant Marakah Section 8 standing as absurd, since Marakah had no more control over what Winchester did with the texts than he did over investigators' use of them. The decision to "sever" the link between privacy and control, he wrote, is "at odds with the fundamental principle that individuals can and will share information as they see fit in a free and democratic society."

Worse, he added, the majority decision risks making Section 8 a Charter right without boundaries. "This carries with it a host of foreseeable consequences," he wrote, predicting justice system gridlock and the imposition of unreasonable new obstacles on investigations of crimes against "children, the elderly and people with mental disabilities."

The decision, he argued, "leads inexorably to the conclusion that a sexual predator who sends sexually explicit text messages to a child ... has a reasonable expectation of privacy in those messages on that (child's) phone."

"The minority argument turned out to be pretty compelling," said Barbara McIssac, a lawyer in a solo practice in Ottawa who co-wrote with Kris Klein and Ottawa lawyer Rick Shields the seminal text on the topic, The Law of Privacy in Canada.

"It's going to make things difficult (for police). Had the police obtained a warrant for the phone itself, there would have been no problem."

McLachlin herself took direct aim at Moldaver's claim that broader Section 8 claims will threaten police probes of sexual predators and stalkers, saying that while the "totality of circumstances" may allow someone sending a threatening or exploitative text to claim the right of privacy over it, "it does not follow that the accused's argument will succeed, or that a search of the text messages will be found to violate (Section 8)." And even in cases where texts are volunteered by recipients or third parties as evidence, she wrote, "a breach can be avoided if the police obtain a warrant prior to accessing the text messages."

"There's this notion inherent (in the minority opinion) that the law can adapt, but law enforcement can't," said Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in internet and E-commerce law at the University of Ottawa. "But it can, of course. The court here is trying to evolve privacy law covering conversations to address texting. And just because a decision makes things more difficult (for law enforcement), that doesn't make the decision wrong."

Toronto-based privacy lawyer Christine Lonsdale - who submitted written and oral arguments in the case for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association - said the majority's reference to the "totality of circumstances" suggests the Supreme Court is willing to allow courts to decide on the privacy of texts on a "case-by-case basis."

She also pointed to a second decision released by the SCC on the same day - an appeal by a man convicted of drug offenses challenging a production order used by Ottawa police to seize text messages held on a Telus server. In that case, the Supreme Court agreed Tristan Jones should have been allowed to make a Section 8 argument - but concluded the police obtained the texts lawfully. "You can find a reasonable expectation of privacy with a text," Lonsdale said, "but on its own that doesn't answer the question of whether it can be submitted as evidence."

In other words, said McIssac, the message for law enforcement is clear: "When in doubt, get a warrant."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unwarranted: The search and seizure of text messages in Canada

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Doug Beazley December 15, 2017 15 December 2017 Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Canada dropped a ruling that (depending on where you sit) either affirms the privacy rights of people taking part in digital conversations - or makes the work of police and prosecutors a whole lot harder.

# data[].attributes.body
Right now in Canada, Fentanyl is a largely used illegal drug which large amounts have been seized recently. In this case, five people have been charged after drugs, cash, replica handguns and electronics were seized by police.

Officers executed five search warrants at different buildings. Drugs worth approximately $14,600 were seized and included suspected fentanyl and cocaine, according to police. As well, $10,400 worth of cash and electronics were seized.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Five people have been charged after drugs, cash, replica handguns and electronics were seized by police in Guelph Wednesday morning.

Officers executed five search warrants at different buildings at about 9 a.m. Wednesday. Drugs worth approximately $14,600 were seized and included suspected fentanyl and cocaine, according to police. As well, $10,400 worth of cash and electronics were seized.

Warrants were executed at addresses on Franklin Boulevard, Applewood Crescent, Victoria Road N., Oakes Drive and Hastings Drive.

Police said the raids were a result of a lengthy drug trafficking investigation.

A 33-year-old Guelph man has been charged with three counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking and two counts of conspiracy for the purpose of committing an indictable offence.

A 35-year-old Guelph man has been charged with possession of a controlled substance, two counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property that is proceeds of an indictable offence.

Police said the man was in possession of more than $10,000 in cash.

Two Guelph women, aged 23 and 48, and a Fergus woman, aged 36, have been charged with possession of a controlled substance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five charged, fentanyl seized during drug raids in Guelph | CBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Five people have been charged after drugs, cash, replica handguns and electronics were seized by police in Guelph Wednesday morning. Officers executed five search warrants at different buildings at about 9 a.m. Wednesday. Drugs worth approximately $14,600 were seized and included suspected fentanyl and cocaine, according to police.

# data[].attributes.body
The Canadian High Court ruled that police do not need a warrant to search and seize a text messages. The court increased the powers of police and now many people uncomfortable with this new law and power in place.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Canada high court rules cops to search suspects' cell phones without warrant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Canada, police have been authorized to search a suspect's cell phone after their arrest without getting a search warrant. Canada's divided Supreme Court approved the increased police powers by four votes against three. The ruling demands that the search must be directly related to the circumstances of the arrest.

# data[].attributes.body
This video explains what the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms says about search and seizure and hour our country operates on these rules.