Law Allowing Phone, Laptop Search at Borders Unconstitutional, Ontario Court Rules<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Friends Read Free<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 51<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Save<\/p>\n\n\n\n By Chandra Philip<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 8\/10\/2024Updated: 8\/12\/2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0:00<\/p>\n\n\n\n A law that allows border agents to search personal electronic devices, including computers and smartphones, violates Canadians\u2019 charter rights, Ontario\u2019s top court has ruled, telling Parliament it needs to rewrite the law in six months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In an Aug. 9 decision<\/a> of the province\u2019s Court of Appeal<\/a>, Chief Justice Michael Tulloch and justices Jonathon George and Patrick Monahan said the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms \u201cguarantees everyone the right to be secure against unreasonable searches.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The decision says one section of the Customs Act \u201coffends this basic guarantee.\u201d It says section 99(1)(a) of the act allows border agents to search \u201csome of the most private information imaginable on the lowest possible standard to justify a search,\u201d based merely on suspicion \u201cin the border officers\u2019 own minds.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The charter requires more, Tulloch wrote in the decision. \u201cA reasonable search in this context requires a reasonable suspicion,\u201d which means the suspicion must be based on facts indicating reasonable possibility officers will find evidence of law violations on the device, the chief justice said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI conclude that the law infringes s. 8 of the Charter and is unconstitutional,\u201d Tulloch wrote, noting that the Crown failed to show that the law\u2019s low requirement to justify a search was necessary, because a higher threshold is already in place for similar situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He also said a less restrictive alternative\u2014requiring border agents to rely on facts that show travellers could be violating laws, as opposed to \u201cgood faith purpose\u201d\u2014\u201cwould not jeopardize its mandate.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Related Stories<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n r<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 7\/25\/2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n s<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 10\/22\/2023<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBecause the border is not a Charter-free zone, it is also not an almost-anything-goes zone for highly intrusive searches like digital device examinations,\u201d Tulloch wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He further noted, \u201cReasonable suspicion requires border officers to rely on objective facts supporting a possibility of border violations that courts can independently scrutinize. This prevents border officers from relying on mere hunches, intuition, and uncorroborated tips of unknown reliability.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The appeals court also noted that about 62 percent of the 31,579 searches of digital devices made by border agents between 2017 and 2020 found no evidence of any border law violations. The invasion of these innocent individuals\u2019 privacy \u201cis a strong sign that the law is unreasonable,\u201d the decision said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The appeal court\u2019s decision relates to the case of two Canadians, Jeremy Pike and David Scott, whose devices were searched at the border and who were charged with possessing and importing child pornography. Pike was acquitted and Scott was sentenced to 23 months of house arrest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The two men challenged the constitutionality of Section 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act, and Scott sought to appeal his conviction while the Crown sought to appeal Pike\u2019s acquittal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe unconstitutionality of this law does not entitle Mr. Pike and Mr. Scott to acquittals on the serious crimes against children with which they were charged,\u201d the court decision said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding Pike, Tulloch disagreed with the trial judge\u2019s decision to disallow the content found on Pike\u2019s devices to be used as evidence and to thus acquit him. Tulloch allowed the Crown\u2019s appeal against Pike\u2019s acquittal, admitted the evidence of child pornography found on Pike\u2019s devices, and ordered a new trial on the pornography charges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As for Scott, evidence found on his devices had been allowed in his trial. Tulloch not only dismissed his appeal of his conviction but also said Scott should have received three years in jail instead of 23 months\u2019 house arrest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhile the trial judge generally appreciated the seriousness of Mr. Scott\u2019s crime, he overlooked the significant number of children Mr. Scott victimized and the three-decade duration of his offending,\u201d Tulloch wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, Tulloch declined to impose jail time on Scott at this time, saying that he has already served more than half of his 23-month sentence and that he would likely have received parole by this time if he had received a three-year sentence.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis decision\u2019s condemnation of possessing child pornography and guidance for future cases is sufficient to denounce and deter that crime,\u201d Tulloch added.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Law Allowing Phone, Laptop Search at Borders Unconstitutional, Ontario Court Rules Law Allowing Phone, Laptop Search at Borders Unconstitutional, Ontario Court Rules Friends Read Free 51 Save By Chandra Philip 8\/10\/2024Updated: 8\/12\/2024 0:00 A law that allows border agents to … Continue reading ![\"Law](\"https:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/_next\/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.theepochtimes.com%2Fassets%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F09%2F02%2Fid5485414-20210806090816-610d3641bd51ac776c389167jpeg-870x522-700x420.jpeg&w=1200&q=75\")
![\"Chandra](\"https:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/_next\/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.theepochtimes.com%2Fassets%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F10%2F23%2Fid5515214-ChandraPhilip_WEB.jpg&w=256&q=75\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"Ottawa](\"https:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/_next\/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.theepochtimes.com%2Fassets%2Fuploads%2F2022%2F02%2F10%2FGettyImages-1238334457-300x180.jpg&w=3840&q=75\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n