Made with Love

You're phone is no longer safe

Madman

Reviewer
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Messages
17,534
This is a serious topic which may have serious ramification considering it's following the Neo Cons bill C 36



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ce...rrest-allowed-by-canada-s-top-court-1.2869587

The SCC has let Canadians down. Cell phones are now miniature lap tops and a search warrant is still needed to go through one's computer.

Imagine being caught coming out of an incall and now the phone being password protected means nothing. The officer can go through it and for your sake, I hope nothing is found.

Based on the votes the SCC was very split on this decision.




keep-calm-this-is-a-no-pork-zone.png
 
From what I understand that court indicated that what they find on your phone must be directly related to the crime they would be investigating. They cannot go on a fishing expedition for other things unrelated to the crime.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ce...rrest-allowed-by-canada-s-top-court-1.2869587

The court warned that allowing some narrow searches doesn't give police free rein to go through the phones of everyone they arrest.


"Police officers will not be justified in searching a cellphone or similar device incidental to every arrest," Cromwell wrote.


Further, allowing a narrow search "does not give the police a licence to rummage around in the device at will," he wrote.


"In practice... only recently sent or drafted emails, texts, photos and the call log may be examined as in most cases only those sorts of items will have the necessary link to the purposes for which prompt examination of the device is permitted."
 
From what I understand that court indicated that what they find on your phone must be directly related to the crime they would be investigating. They cannot go on a fishing expedition for other things unrelated to the crime.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ce...rrest-allowed-by-canada-s-top-court-1.2869587

True the search must be related to the crime but BillC36 makes visiting a sex worker a crime therefore searching your phone is allowed I would think as it's related to the prostitution law.

Why would you worry if you haven't done anything wrong.
You are now a criminal if you pay for sex thanks to the Neo Cons therefore this law may affect you directly unless you've entirely devoted your life to only dating civilians or being faithful to your spouse.
 
From what I understand that court indicated that what they find on your phone must be directly related to the crime they would be investigating. They cannot go on a fishing expedition for other things unrelated to the crime.

This is true, but in the scenario where LE is watching an incall, and sees guys outside on the sidewalk, or sitting in a hotel lobby making calls and/or texting before going in and coming out of a suspected prostitute's specific locale, seems to me like checking your phone to see what type of potentially illegal communication may have gone on between the guy and the SP would fall under the acceptability clause.

If anyone has ever stood at Yonge and Wood between noon and 2pm on a weekday and seen the gaggle of dudes walking up and down the street all making short calls and/or texting, then all entering/exiting the exact same entrance after a fixed 30/60 mins will know what I mean. Doesn't take Captain Obvious to figure out what's going on and who looks suspiciously like a John, enough to warrant checking their phone....
 
If anyone has ever stood at Yonge and Wood between noon and 2pm on a weekday and seen the gaggle of dudes walking up and down the street all making short calls and/or texting, then all entering/exiting the exact same entrance after a fixed 30/60 mins will know what I mean. Doesn't take Captain Obvious to figure out what's going on and who looks suspiciously like a John, enough to warrant checking their phone....


Guilty.
 
What's a cell phone? One of these new-fangled brick things? They'll never catch on! Why would anyone want to talk while moving????
 

Attachments

  • untitled.jpg
    untitled.jpg
    8.1 KB · Views: 11
The SCC ruled that there is no warrant required to search your phone if YOU'RE UNDER ARREST... they can't just arbitrarily search your phone for no reason. I think the OP is a little misleading. And Louis XIV is fear mongering. Nobody is stopping dudes to search their phones on the street.

This is a completely ridiculous comment....Doesn't take Captain Obvious to figure out what's going on and who looks suspiciously like a John, enough to warrant checking their phone....


Unless they place them under arrest they certainly don't have enough to warrant checking their phone. Good grief.

Thanks for your attempt to clarify Cardinal Fang.


Um...no one is fear mongering at all. In the scenario I outlined above, if the police have an incall location under surveillance, and choose to detain you/and or others for questioning (which may include the SP), depending on the evidence, the result of that questioning may be that they decide there is reasonable and probable grounds that a crime may have been committed, and they may move to arrest and formally charge you with one or more prostitution-related crime(s). In this circumstance, your phone is now subject to seizure and search without a warrant. No one is suggesting police will walk up to you and demand your phone for inspection just for shits and giggles.

BTW - it doesn't take much for the police to justify an arrest, especially now. If they do arrest and charge you, even on flimsy circumstantial evidence (which is entirely within their right) your phone can now provide the necessary and incremental corroborating evidence to make the charges stick post arrest. In the past, on occasion police have been known to make such arrests knowing the charges won't stick due to a technicality, but do so anyway just to send a message.

For guys willing to roll the dice, at least be aware of the new reality.
 
Why always have your hobby and regular phone. Cops wants to see it, show them your regular phone.

Too hard to understand?.
 
The best way is to book the appointment now a days is via text or call with ones hobby phone. Once the specifics are done, walk in with only your real phone just in case a bust and arrest is made. They now seize the phone and search only to find nothing but a picture of dickhead spitting at them LOL.
 
"Cromwell said the police don’t have “licence to rummage around in the device at will.He set out four conditions to ensure warrantless searches of a suspect’s cellphone meet constitutional muster: the arrest must be lawful in the first place, the search on any cellphone found must take place promptly, the extent of the cellphone search must be “tailored” to the law enforcement objective (meaning, the court said, police should look at only recently sent or drafted emails, texts, photos and the call log). Finally, the police must take “detailed notes” of what they looked at and for how long — in order to aid courts to later rule whether the search was justified."



No disrespect intended. But some readers aren't sophisticated or experienced and may mistake your opinion for fact. Let's keep it real. :)


I did keep it real. I said if the police believe (in THEIR opinion) that there exists sufficient evidence to arrest and charge you with a crime which will have strong likelihood of resulting in a conviction, they will. At that point, your phone becomes fair game. The police can and do arrest people based solely on the suspicion that a crime has or will be committed based on the evidence they have available. They then often continue their investigation towards gathering the most evidence they can to build their case in support of the charges they lay. They typically don't arrest people on nothing more than a whim, but they also often only have the thinnest of circumstantial evidence available to support probable cause.

In the case of prostitution, if the police target a known incall, it seems fair to assume they are taking action for a reason (public complaints; rumours/reports of trafficking, sale of drugs, etc.) The example I gave would provide, post surveillance, sufficient evidence for police to start by detaining suspected Johns for questioning. Depending on the outcome of questioning an individual in the context of being in or around the incall, it's not unreasonable to expect they may make arrests based solely on circumstantial evidence, knowing there is a high probability of finding incremental damning evidence on the arrested party's phone which will support the arrest made under probable cause. (Probable cause e.g. If they see a suspected John lurking outside a known/suspected incall, see him dash in and out 30/60 mins later) It's the typical manner in which they make arrests already for things like prostitution and drug possession. Why do you believe that would change? They know the courts will virtually always side with them, so pushing the limits would seem even more attractive to them now that they're armed with yet another tool in the box.

The key for LE is to ensure the arrests are supported by the least possible acceptable evidence of probable cause. Not really a tough job the way many incalls are setup in hotels and condos.

Even if the charges are thrown out in court, the John and the incall host still loses big time, so what's the real downside for the cops?
 
Not really. I think it was pretty clear what I meant. You can play semantics word games all you like Jessica, but the truth is, the police will make more arrests based on flimsy evidence if their observation of you in/around an incall tells them they will likely find more incriminating evidence on your phone. This wasn't possible before due to the time/effort/logistics of securing a warrant to access your phone either before or after the fact.

It's new fact of life post C-36, not fear mongering.
 
Back
Top Bottom