Quote:
Originally Posted by jar_e
Incorrect. See section 489(2) below with emphasis added.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...6.html#docCont
It would be up to the officer to be able to articulate the evidence believed to be on the digital medium (ie. audio, video, both). That article you posted originally from the Hamilton Spectator was right in the sense that there's nothing "illegal" about filming cops but if there is evidence afforded in what the video captured, that video and device can be seized.
edit: I should add some clarity. The phone/recording device could be seized however the police would most likely need a warrant to search the phone and obtain the video from it. But still, the phone could be seized at the time of capturing the incident. |
Well, yeah, anything can be seized in connection to a crime and subsequently searched upon a granted warrant. That's not what you said. What you said was that any video device can be seized and used as evidence without warrant.
The Supreme Court made a ruling specifically about cell phone searches saying that any unwarranted search needs to be in connection to the accused in a crime...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle22038283/
There are several examples of police seizing video and then having to give it back....Robert Dziekanski for example. Also many examples of cops not seizing video...Sammy Yatim. I'm actually not 100% sure cops can seize a private device in connection to a crime if you are not involved in the crime. Do you have an example of a person's private device being seized and a warrant for search granted? I really don't know the answer to that. The Globe and Mail article contradicts the act you highlighted.