The Current Framework for Determining a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy: The Basics
The principal
purpose of section 8 of the Charter is to protect an accused’s privacy
interests against unreasonable intrusion by the State. Accordingly,
police conduct interfering with a reasonable expectation of privacy is said to
constitute a “search” within the meaning of the provision.
R. v. Law, 2002 SCC 10 (CanLII), at para. 15.
A section 8 analysis consists of two steps:
(1) whether the state action constitutes a
search; and if so,
(2) whether the search was
reasonable.
R. v. Law, 2002 SCC 10 (CanLII).
A
search occurs when state conduct interferes with an individual’s reasonable
expectation of privacy.
Hunter v. Southam Inc., 1984 CanLII 33 (SCC);
R. v. Edwards, 1996 CanLII 255 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 12;
R. v. Law, 2002
SCC 10 (CanLII), at para. 15.
The Doctrinal Framework for Determining a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Section 8 applies
“where a person has a reasonable privacy interest in the object or subject
matter of the state action and the information to which it gives access”.
R. v. Cole,
2012 SCC 53 (CanLII), at para. 34;
R. v. Spencer, 2014
SCC 43 (CanLII), at para. 16;
R. v. Tessling, 2004
SCC 67 (CanLII), at para. 18.
To claim s. 8
protection, a claimant must first establish a reasonable expectation of privacy
in the subject matter of the search, i.e., that the person subjectively
expected it would be private and that this expectation was objectively
reasonable.
Hunter v. Southam Inc., 1984 CanLII 33 (SCC),
at pp. 159-60;
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), at p. 361, per Harlan J.,
concurring.
Whether the claimant
had a reasonable expectation of privacy must be assessed in “the totality of
the circumstances”.
Edwards, at paras. 31 and 45; see also Spencer, at paras. 16-18;
R. v. Cole, 2012
SCC 53 (CanLII), at para. 39;
R. v. Patrick, 2009
SCC 17 (CanLII), at
para. 26;
R. v. Tessling, 2004
SCC 67 (CanLII), at para. 19.
In considering the
totality of the circumstances, four “lines of inquiry” guide the court’s
analysis:
1.
What was the subject matter of the alleged search?
2.
Did the claimant have a direct interest in the
subject matter?
3.
Did the claimant have a subjective expectation of
privacy in the subject matter?
4.
If so, was the claimant’s subjective expectation of
privacy objectively reasonable?
R. v. Cole, 2012
SCC 53 (CanLII), at
para. 40;
R. v. Spencer, 2014
SCC 43 (CanLII), at para. 18;
R. v.
Patrick, 2009 SCC 17 (CanLII), at para. 27;
R. v.
Tessling, 2004 SCC 67 (CanLII),
at para. 32.
Only if the answer to
the fourth question is “yes” — that is, if the claimant’s subjective
expectation of privacy was objectively reasonable — will the claimant have
standing to assert his section 8 right. If the court so concludes, the
claimant may argue that the state action in question was unreasonable. If,
however, the court determines that the claimant did not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the subject matter of the alleged search, then the
state action cannot have violated the claimant’s section 8 right. He will not have standing to
challenge its constitutionality.
R. v. Marakah, [2017] 2 SCR 608, 2017 SCC 59 (CanLII), at para. 12.
Stuart O'Connell, O'Connell Law Group (All rights reserved to author).
Comments
Post a Comment