The recent changes and precedents in privacy, search law and technology adequately achieve a balance between individual and collective rights. Every individual should know the limit to their right, leading into the idea that citizens should be well know-ledged about the rights they are guaranteed. This does not mean memorizing the Charter, but it does mean knowing that the rights may be infringed under specific circumstances with a justification. An individual should be aware as to when their right is no longer applied or does not come into significance. The government also has some rights on their own but one of them does not include conducting unreasonable searches, as this may violate privacy rights. The recent precedents have come to shown
…show more content…
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