3 ms·
"if the cell phone had been password protected or otherwise ‘locked’ to users other than the appellant, it would not have been appropriate to take steps to open
by thangalin 12y ago
"if the cell phone had been password protected or otherwise ‘locked’ to users other than the appellant, it would not have been appropriate to take steps to open the cell phone and examine its contents without first obtaining a search warrant."
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2013/02/fearon-decision/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2013/02/fearon-decision/
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2013/2013onca106/2013onca106.html http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2013/2013onca106/2013on...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cellphone-searches-upon-arrest-allowed-by-canada-s-top-court-1.2869587 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cellphone-searches-upon-arre...
- adekok 12y agoBy that logic, the police should be able to search your house or car if they're not locked. The Canadian Supreme Court isn't known for it's intelligent decisions. http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/justice-system-scrutinized-woman-hires-hitman-but-goes-free-1.2079731 http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/justice-system-scrutinized-woman-hi...
- code_duck 12y agoThe judges in the case in this article say differently: "The majority also found that whether someone has protected their phone with a password doesn't carry much weight in assessing that person's expectation of privacy. "An individual's decision not to password protect his or her cellphone does not indicate any sort of abandonment of the significant privacy interests one generally will have in the contents of the phone," Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote."