The police search did not exceed the warrant's scope: court
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed an application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from the search of cell phone records in an ongoing trial, finding that the police search did not exceed the warrant’s scope.
The defence argued that the police violated the defendant's section 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure by conducting searches outside the timeframe specified in the warrant. The court found the application "manifestly frivolous" and rejected the defence's request to exclude the evidence.
The defence sought to suppress evidence obtained from three cell phones seized during the defendant’s arrest. The defence argued that the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) exceeded the warrant’s limits by searching data on the phones outside the specified period, from December 9 to 16, 2022. The search covered data from December 8 and 17, which the defence claimed breached the defendant’s Charter rights.
At the hearing, the Crown sought summary dismissal, asserting that the defence's application lacked merit. The court agreed, referencing Rule 34.02 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules, which allows a judge to dismiss applications with no reasonable prospect of success. After hearing arguments, the court ruled in favour of the Crown, dismissing the application without further inquiry.
The Superior Court noted that the warrant in question was not solely limited by dates but also by subject matter, allowing the police to examine communications related to drug trafficking. The court found no evidence that the police violated the warrant’s scope by examining communications sent to the phone on December 17. The court also emphasized that the defence failed to prove that the police exceeded the warrant’s terms.
The court further explained that to claim a section 8 Charter breach, the applicant must demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy and show that the police exceeded their authority during the search. The defence did not provide sufficient evidence that the police searched data beyond the warrant’s scope.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the application was flawed and lacked a factual basis, dismissing it as manifestly frivolous. The trial will continue as scheduled.
