Shows & Blogs
Insiders
Featured Pages
Related Links


Mother, may I?
Posted 10/23/2012 1:20:00 AM

Do you use a company computer?  Are there rules about doing personal business on it?  Look at this story out of Ontario.  A school computer teacher is looking through a male student’s email.  He finds compromising photos of a female student and copies them onto his own school-supplied laptop.  A school technician doing maintenance finds them and blows the whistle.  The school hands the computer over to police and there is a trial on child porn charges.  But, wait a minute.  Police did not get a warrant to look in that school-owned computer so the case was tossed.  The court ruled that although there were school rules about the use of their computers, the teacher still had some expectation of privacy.  The Court of Appeal overturned that decision and it went to Supreme Court.  They ordered a new trial saying that while the teacher had a limited expectation of privacy, allowing the warrantless evidence at trial was not a really bad violation of his charter rights.  Well, they got it right.  I was afraid he’d get away with it because, like in other cases, police didn’t say “Mother, may I?” before taking three steps forward.  Let me know what you think.

Note: If you wish to leave a comment, please keep it no longer than my editorial, unless you wish us to edit it. Your comment will not appear on the blog until it has been cleared by Bob.

 You have until 1 o’clock tomorrow morning to collect 630 CHED Insider Trading points by following the URL below & entering the code word: 069

 Click here to enter the code!
Posted By: Bob Layton  

Leave a comment:

showing all comments · Subscribe to comments
Comment Like
  • 17
  1. Glen S.R. Woytuck posted on 10/23/2012 01:36 AM This comment was edited by a moderator at 08:23 AM on 10/23/2012
    I still say you're on a slippery slope to an end of ALL expectation of privacy when you allow warrantless search of personal property. THIS time they found something bad, does that give them the right to search EVERYONE's computers "just in case" they're doing something illegal? I cannot agree with "end justifies the means" mentality. I shouldn't have to worry that police, or others, can look at my most personal information on my computer on the basis that I "might" be doing something illegal.

    Bob replies: I have no problem with them looking at mine.
    1. The Infidel - Mr. John posted on 10/24/2012 04:03 PM This comment was edited by a moderator at 03:49 AM on 10/25/2012
      @Glen S.R. Woytuck I personally am aware of an existing law, on the federal books, where a "Minister" can authorize a "warrantless" search, a seizure of computers, and property, without a warrant, under the direction of the RCMP, and arrest of the RCMP, and without the approval of or warrant from a judge, where you cannot appeal to a judge to be heard, can be fined up to $5,000,000, and go to jail, without a trial, have all your property disposed of, without compensation, and without trial or legal representation,..........and this is in Canada?
      Past last year!

      Bob replies: Perhaps you could tell us where to find this law.
    2. Glen S.R. Woytuck posted on 10/25/2012 04:14 AM
      @Glen S.R. Woytuck The point is not whether you have anything to hide, or not, the point is freedom from unreasonable search. If you want the police to be able to search through your computer at any time without a warrant, how about your car, or your home. Would it be OK if you came home from work one day and found them going through your wife's underwear drawer?

      George Orwell's book 1984 was intended as a warning, not an instruction manual.
    show more replies
  2. Robert posted on 10/23/2012 06:50 AM This comment was edited by a moderator at 08:22 AM on 10/23/2012
    That's the thing, Bob. They DIDN'T need to say "mother may I?" at that time because the SCHOOL turned SCHOOL property over to the police, WILLINGLY. And therefore no need for a warrant.

    What the hell was that first judge thinking?

    I am clueless about Canada's criminal code, but no where near as bad as Vic Toews mind you, but there are times a cop can legally do a search without a warrant like he sees something out of place that raised his suspicions, hears something by chance that the bad guys didn't want him to hear, and so forth.

    Yes the bad guys do abuse the right to privacy, but that right is to protect the innocent, like that girl in those compromising photos. Yes warrants are a pain to get when trying to nail the bad guy, but they are also necessary to protect the innocent from over zealous cops.

    But here it was all by chance that gave cops just cause to nail that teacher without needing a warrant.

    Bob replies: They DID need a warrant - that was the charter violation.
  3. Paul posted on 10/23/2012 07:34 AM
    Do the ends always justify the means, Bob? By your logic the police should randomly kick in people's doors to search through their stuff. Who needs this nonsense about "warrants" and "due process"? Clearly if they find anything they were justified in ignoring that silly old Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  4. BiG John posted on 10/23/2012 07:44 AM
    Were the photos of underage children? Did he deliberately down/upload them to his computer for his own use? Did he get caught "using" or distributing them?................?
    Then drag him by his heals, naked, behind an SUV, down the Anthony Henday during construction time (which is all the time) until he.....doesn't want to do that anymore,...then let him go home,....to jail,...for LIFE!
    1. Paul posted on 10/23/2012 05:28 PM
      @BiG John So on one hand we have a user of child porn, and on the other we have someone who fantasizes about torturing and maiming people. I'm honestly having trouble deciding which is worse, John.
    show more replies
  5. fred posted on 10/23/2012 09:08 AM This comment was edited by a moderator at 09:14 AM on 10/23/2012
    What would be the difference if they looked or not? Lets assume that they find the most terrible things know to man on this computer. In our system it would take two years to get to he courts where we would get a lecture and be let go with a promise to not do it again until at least a full moon.

    Bob replies: I don't know that he'd get off that easy these days.
  6. David W. Lincoln posted on 10/23/2012 12:40 PM
    There are parameters. What belongs to the pay cheque issuer results in the user having less leeway, than what belongs to the pay cheque receiver.

    So, don't be at all surprised that what is work related is held to more accountability than what is done away from work.
  7. Gail Fox posted on 10/23/2012 08:22 PM This comment was edited by a moderator at 03:34 AM on 10/24/2012
    When you hear time and again of crimminals going free because the cops slipped up on one point or another, it is great to hear this time it was over-ruled!
  8. Guy posted on 10/25/2012 01:14 AM
    Why was he looking at a student's personal email? Isn't that hypocritical, all things considered? (It's fine for him to peek into their email but not for the police to examine his?) Also, did these teens get any kind of talking to since one was posting compromising photos of the other? Something sounds amiss there too.
showing all comments

Recent Blog Entries

BLOG ARCHIVE
<<June 2013>>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
2627282930311
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30123456