R. v. Vye

R. v. Vye

The forensic June 2012 software-assisted download of the seized iPhone violated s.8 because the Crown failed to establish the search was authorized by law (no evidence police fulfilled Caslake's subjective requirement for a search incident to arrest), the Crown failed to show the search was reasonable in execution,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 BCSC 93
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: David Edward Vye
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Voir Dire on Admissibility of June 2012 I Phone Forensic Search and S.24(2) Exclusion Application
Outcome
Charter s.8 breach found; evidence from the June 2012 forensic search of the accused's iPhone excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter.
Legal Topics
Section 8 Charter, Section 24(2) Charter, Search Incident to Arrest, Forensic Smartphone Search, Warrant Requirement, Privacy Rights
Source Language
english
Charter Law Criminal Law Search and Seizure Evidence Section 8 Charter Section 24(2) Charter Search Incident to Arrest Forensic Smartphone Search +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

David Edward Vye

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Voir Dire on Admissibility of June 2012 I Phone Forensic Search and S.24(2) Exclusion Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the June 2012 software-assisted forensic search of the accused's iPhone violated s.8 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the Crown established that the search was authorized by law (search incident to arrest)
  3. 3 Whether the manner of execution of the search was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The forensic June 2012 software-assisted download of the seized iPhone violated s.8 because the Crown failed to establish the search was authorized by law (no evidence police fulfilled Caslake's subjective requirement for a search incident to arrest), the Crown failed to show the search was reasonable in execution, and absent exigent circumstances prior judicial authorization was required for such an invasive digital search; as a result the evidence obtained was excluded under s.24(2) because admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Court Disposition

Charter s.8 breach found; evidence from the June 2012 forensic search of the accused's iPhone excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter.

Orders

  • The evidence obtained from the June 2012 software-assisted forensic search of the accused's iPhone is excluded pursuant to s.24(2) of the Charter.
  • Finding that the June 2012 search violated the accused's s.8 Charter right.