R. v. Law

R. v. Law

The warrant did not specifically authorize searches of the contents of electronic devices as required by R. v. Vu and therefore searches of device contents were warrantless and must be assessed under s.24(2); the cell phone seized in the lobby was not within the place covered by the warrant and its contents were not authorized by that warrant (though at the time police could lawfully search incident to arrest under then-prevailing common law); the manner in which police forensically processed and reviewed image and video files did not, on the evidence, constitute an unreasonable s.8 breach.

Citation
2017 BCSC 1862
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Ying Ho Raymond Law
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Omnibus Voir Dire (pre Trial Evidentiary Hearing)
Outcome
Judge ruled warrant was not Vu-compliant and did not authorize searching contents of electronic devices; cell phone contents seized in lobby not authorized by warrant; searches incident to arrest lawful at the time but admissibility of extracted contents to be determined under s.24(2); police processing did not, on...
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Electronic Device Searches, Section 8 Charter – Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Section 24(2) Charter – Exclusion of Evidence, Search Incident to Arrest, Judicial Oversight of Seizures (s.490 Criminal Code)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Privacy Law Forensic Computer Examination Search Warrants Electronic Device Searches Section 8 Charter – Unreasonable Search and Seizure +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Ying Ho Raymond Law

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Omnibus Voir Dire (pre Trial Evidentiary Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrant authorized searching contents of electronic devices seized from the residence
  2. 2 Whether the search warrant authorized searching contents of a cell phone lawfully seized from the accused in the building lobby
  3. 3 Whether the manner in which police processed and searched seized electronic devices breached s.8 of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

The warrant did not specifically authorize searches of the contents of electronic devices as required by R. v. Vu and therefore searches of device contents were warrantless and must be assessed under s.24(2); the cell phone seized in the lobby was not within the place covered by the warrant and its contents were not authorized by that warrant (though at the time police could lawfully search incident to arrest under then-prevailing common law); the manner in which police forensically processed and reviewed image and video files did not, on the evidence, constitute an unreasonable s.8 breach.

Court Disposition

Judge ruled warrant was not Vu-compliant and did not authorize searching contents of electronic devices; cell phone contents seized in lobby not authorized by warrant; searches incident to arrest lawful at the time but admissibility of extracted contents to be determined under s.24(2); police processing did not, on...