In early 1999, the RCMP received intelligence from two informants who alleged Walter Tessling was growing marijuana (pg. 436). The police first checked with Tessling’s hydro company to see if he had been using excess amounts of electricity to determine whether Tessling, the respondent, was growing marijuana in his house (pg. 436). The hydro bill and the visual did not reveal any evidence of marijuana growth (pg. 436). Visual surveillance of the property also did not relieve anything. Subsequently, the RCMP used the Forward Looking Infrared Radiometer (FLIR), a thermal imaging camera to record images of thermal energy or heat radiating from the suspect’s house from flying above his property (pg. 437). The police did not obtain a search warrant
…show more content…
statement is an obiter dictum that holds constitutional significance of the right to privacy. Especially given that there is a high expectation of privacy in someone’s home. In other words, to what extent should the government be allowed to collect personal information of its citizens. Although it is evident that Tessling broke the law, the method of seizure was found to be unlawful and a serious intrusion on his privacy rights according to Abella J.A (pg. 439). The search and seizure was, therefore, unreasonable and in violation of s. 8 of the Charter. The actions of the RCMP should be considered to be an invasion of the dignity, autonomy and self-worth of Tessling. Moreover, they did not have a warrant prior to using the FLIR, which is a crucial aspect of privacy. I find the police’s act to be absolutely repulsive because it is unconstitutional as proper procedures were not followed. The police had no judicial authorization to use the FLIR technology to obtain the information from the applicant’s home. Under s.8, the search and seizure of the information is unconstitutional and it violated Tessling’s privacy …show more content…
states that “[t]he restraints imposed on government to pry into the lives of the citizen go to the essence of a democratic state” (pg. 440). His interpretation of privacy and informational about a person can also be best viewed as obiter dicta. It is evident that Tessling’s rights were limited. The police had no warrant prior to using the thermal cameras on his property. Moreover, they used the evidence gathered from the imagery to obtain a warrant to search Tessling’s property. This should be seen as an unlawful and unconstitutional act by the police. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Tessling since the action of the police was considered to be
statement is an obiter dictum that holds constitutional significance of the right to privacy. Especially given that there is a high expectation of privacy in someone’s home. In other words, to what extent should the government be allowed to collect personal information of its citizens. Although it is evident that Tessling broke the law, the method of seizure was found to be unlawful and a serious intrusion on his privacy rights according to Abella J.A (pg. 439). The search and seizure was, therefore, unreasonable and in violation of s. 8 of the Charter. The actions of the RCMP should be considered to be an invasion of the dignity, autonomy and self-worth of Tessling. Moreover, they did not have a warrant prior to using the FLIR, which is a crucial aspect of privacy. I find the police’s act to be absolutely repulsive because it is unconstitutional as proper procedures were not followed. The police had no judicial authorization to use the FLIR technology to obtain the information from the applicant’s home. Under s.8, the search and seizure of the information is unconstitutional and it violated Tessling’s privacy …show more content…
states that “[t]he restraints imposed on government to pry into the lives of the citizen go to the essence of a democratic state” (pg. 440). His interpretation of privacy and informational about a person can also be best viewed as obiter dicta. It is evident that Tessling’s rights were limited. The police had no warrant prior to using the thermal cameras on his property. Moreover, they used the evidence gathered from the imagery to obtain a warrant to search Tessling’s property. This should be seen as an unlawful and unconstitutional act by the police. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Tessling since the action of the police was considered to be