Case PERMITABLE OR INVASION OF PRIVACY?
R. v. Fearon, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13
Facts
Compelling evidence obtained from a warrantless search incident conducted by law enforcement authorities linked Kevin Fearon to a robbery of a jewelry merchant at a Toronto market in July 2009.
The accused and his associate, F and C, seized numerous bags, one of which contained jewelry, and escaped in a black vehicle. Police authorities momentarily became involved. F and C were arrested incident to the locating of the vehicle. When the pat-down procedure was conducted on F, a cell phone was found and retained as evidence for the trial against the accused. The police subsequently conducted a search of the cell phone and once more within two hours of the arrest. …show more content…
1985, c. C‑46. These provisions breach the rights of prostitutes under s.7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom because they criminalize several activities that are linked to the profession.
S. 210 of the Criminal Code criminalizes the concept of prostitution houses; s. 212(1) (j) makes it in offence to live on the benefits of the profession; s. 213(1) (c) prohibits public communication for the reasons of prostitution.
They claimed that the safety and the lives of prostitutes were in jeopardy due to these provisions. These restrictions set limitations on certain safety measures that should be considered. These restrictions also disregard the freedom of expression, specifically s.213 (1)(c), because they prevent frontal conversation about their profession. Freedom of expression is protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter. S.1 does not protect any of the provisions.
Issue
Should prostitutes be entitled to the same rights as other professions?
Can the judicial system make exceptions for this
R. v. Fearon, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13
Facts
Compelling evidence obtained from a warrantless search incident conducted by law enforcement authorities linked Kevin Fearon to a robbery of a jewelry merchant at a Toronto market in July 2009.
The accused and his associate, F and C, seized numerous bags, one of which contained jewelry, and escaped in a black vehicle. Police authorities momentarily became involved. F and C were arrested incident to the locating of the vehicle. When the pat-down procedure was conducted on F, a cell phone was found and retained as evidence for the trial against the accused. The police subsequently conducted a search of the cell phone and once more within two hours of the arrest. …show more content…
1985, c. C‑46. These provisions breach the rights of prostitutes under s.7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom because they criminalize several activities that are linked to the profession.
S. 210 of the Criminal Code criminalizes the concept of prostitution houses; s. 212(1) (j) makes it in offence to live on the benefits of the profession; s. 213(1) (c) prohibits public communication for the reasons of prostitution.
They claimed that the safety and the lives of prostitutes were in jeopardy due to these provisions. These restrictions set limitations on certain safety measures that should be considered. These restrictions also disregard the freedom of expression, specifically s.213 (1)(c), because they prevent frontal conversation about their profession. Freedom of expression is protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter. S.1 does not protect any of the provisions.
Issue
Should prostitutes be entitled to the same rights as other professions?
Can the judicial system make exceptions for this