This does not apply in the sense that each individual should have to know the Charter word-by-word. However, individuals should learn to acknowledge their rights as a Canadian citizen and to what extent the rights are applied to. In simple words, they should know when any item, document or file is under their privacy and when it becomes open to the public. A person cannot argue that their s.8 right (the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure) is being infringed upon if the item they previously held is now public. If an item is public, no one personally has any right to its security, therefore it can be searched by the police or whomever it looks suspicious to. A similar circumstance took place within the case R.v. Patrick, 2009 SCC 17. Mr. Patrick claimed that the police violated his right under s.8. However, Mr. Patrick did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; once the garbage was put out for collection, it was no longer private. Mr. Patrick was not aware of the limit of his privacy and so the trial judge admitted the evidence found from the garbage. Mr. Patrick was then convicted of unlawfully producing, possessing and trafficking in a controlled substance. If Mr. Patrick knew when his privacy is no longer a concern, he would not have claimed that the police violated his s.8 right. The police did not need a warrant to search Mr. Patrick’s garbage as it was no longer private. They simply used the evidence they found in the garbage as a reason to obtain a legal search warrant. Now the question that arises is should the police be allowed to search based on the grounds of
This does not apply in the sense that each individual should have to know the Charter word-by-word. However, individuals should learn to acknowledge their rights as a Canadian citizen and to what extent the rights are applied to. In simple words, they should know when any item, document or file is under their privacy and when it becomes open to the public. A person cannot argue that their s.8 right (the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure) is being infringed upon if the item they previously held is now public. If an item is public, no one personally has any right to its security, therefore it can be searched by the police or whomever it looks suspicious to. A similar circumstance took place within the case R.v. Patrick, 2009 SCC 17. Mr. Patrick claimed that the police violated his right under s.8. However, Mr. Patrick did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; once the garbage was put out for collection, it was no longer private. Mr. Patrick was not aware of the limit of his privacy and so the trial judge admitted the evidence found from the garbage. Mr. Patrick was then convicted of unlawfully producing, possessing and trafficking in a controlled substance. If Mr. Patrick knew when his privacy is no longer a concern, he would not have claimed that the police violated his s.8 right. The police did not need a warrant to search Mr. Patrick’s garbage as it was no longer private. They simply used the evidence they found in the garbage as a reason to obtain a legal search warrant. Now the question that arises is should the police be allowed to search based on the grounds of