Peel police violated cellphone customers’ charter rights, judge rules

spaminator

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,867
3,042
113
IdRatherBeSkiing said:
Page not found.
Click to expand...
Police breached cellphone customers' charter rights, judge rules
Aleksandra Sagan, The Canadian Press
First posted: Thursday, January 14, 2016 12:34 PM EST | Updated: Thursday, January 14, 2016 01:59 PM EST
TORONTO - An Ontario court has ruled that Peel Regional Police violated cellphone customers' charter rights when requesting a broad swath of personal information from about 40,000 Telus and Rogers subscribers to help them with an investigation.


Telus and Rogers brought the Charter of Rights challenge before the court in 2014 after the police asked the companies for the cellphone information of tens of thousands of customers.


The police requested the information as part of an investigation into the robberies of multiple jewellery stores. Officers wanted to identify people using cellphones near the stores around the time of the robberies.


Police asked for customer information for all calls routed through 37 cellphone towers during specific time periods under what's known as a tower dump production order, according to court records.


In his decision Thursday, Judge John Sproat of the Ontario Superior Court said the information the police sought was "particularly broad and onerous," adding that they breached the charter rights of customers, specifically their "right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure."


Telus said that if it had complied with the tower dump production order, it would have had to turn over the information of at least 9,000 customers. Rogers estimated 34,000 of its customers would have been affected.


That information included customers' names and addresses, who they called, who called them, their locations during calls and how long calls lasted. In some cases, the information included credit card details.


"We thought that crossed the line and was too broad and intrusive," said Jennifer Kett, a Rogers spokeswoman, in an email ahead of Sproat's decision.


Rogers' policy is to only share customer information "when required by law, or in emergencies after careful consideration of the request," said Kett.


The company's lawyer, Scott Hutchison, had argued that tower dump production orders are unusual in that innocent people's information will make up "99.9% of the records sought."


Peel Regional Police couldn't immediately be reached for comment.


Sproat also issued seven guidelines for police forces to follow when considering to request cellphone records and for judges to consider when granting orders.


Police, for example, must be able to explain why all the data requested is relevant to their investigation and have the capacity to meaningfully review it all, according to the guidelines.


"Production orders must be tailored to respect the privacy interests of subscribers and conform with constitutional requirements," Sproat said.


Peel Regional Police later withdrew the original requests, but Sproat still agreed to hear the Charter of Rights challenge, saying in July 2014 that the privacy rights of tens of thousands of cellphone users was of "obvious importance."
Police breached cellphone customers' charter rights, judge rules | Toronto & GTA


Cellphone users have plenty to hide - and rightly so
Ed Prutschi, Special to the Sun


First posted: Thursday, January 14, 2016 05:44 PM EST | Updated: Thursday, January 14, 2016 05:56 PM EST
If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.
So goes the common refrain when police seek access to private information in the course of important criminal investigations.
But when detectives skip the personal approach and go right to the source for more than 40,000 people, the constitutional game of hide-and-seek takes on an entirely different flavour.
On Thursday, a Brampton judge pulled the plug on a police Production Order (a form of search warrant) compelling Rogers and Telus to turn over the name, address and billing information of thousands of customers. Police were working to develop leads that might lead to arrests in a series of jewelry store heists.
By comparing cellphone records for every subscriber at particular dates and times within a geographic area, police hoped the so-called “tower dump” would help them pull the needle out of a telecommunications haystack and find their thieves. If along the way that meant combing through the personal confidential information of 40,000 innocent folks, the schoolyard no harm, no foul rule could apply.
Not so, said the court.
Justice John Sproat took a dim view of the progressive massive expansion of investigative power such Production Orders have created. In a few short years we have gone from an era where call-detail searches targeted a handful of phones to a time where, in 2013 alone, Rogers handed over 13,800 files to police in response to law enforcement requests.
The court’s new guidelines require police to adhere to a principle of minimal intrusiveness. Collect the minimal data required to hone in on your suspect. Then, as the field of potential perpetrators narrows, police can make a second visit to a judge requesting a more sensitive level of confidential information.
Are these new guidelines going to make life more difficult for police? Undoubtedly, but such is the trade-off for living in a society where the privacy interests of the many aren’t sacrificed on the altar of punishing the few.
While tower dumps seem on the surface to be a pile of innocuous information, they can also contain a treasure trove of intensely personal data such as who you called, who called you, and your location at the time of a call. Oh, and your credit card number.
Clearly 40,000 cellphone subscribers had done nothing wrong, but can you blame them for having plenty to hide?
— Ed Prutschi is a defence lawyer.
twitter.com/prutschi
Cellphone users have plenty to hide - and rightly so | Guest Column | Toronto &
 
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
They tried to violate cellphone customers charter rights but did not succeed. It's a relief to me that the police can't do anything that they want to, all of the time for their own reasons. It's too much of a stretch to say that they work for us as they really work for the Crown but so does the judiciary that shut them down this time.
 
spaminator

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,867
3,042
113
CDNBear said:
Thanks Spammy.
Click to expand...
 
IdRatherBeSkiing

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,617
2,365
113
Toronto, ON
Curious Cdn said:
They tried to violate cellphone customers charter rights but did not succeed. It's a relief to me that the police can't do anything that they want to, all of the time for their own reasons. It's too much of a stretch to say that they work for us as they really work for the Crown but so does the judiciary that shut them down this time.
Click to expand...

If it is needed, it can be explained to a judge and a warrant issued. That process at least means they have some sort of concrete evidence and not just going on a witch hunt.

CDNBear said:
Geeze, I put ... at the end. I really just got tired of typing, lol.
Click to expand...

I am sure there is still some little community in Peel that has been missed and therefore slighted.
 
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
IdRatherBeSkiing said:
If it is needed, it can be explained to a judge and a warrant issued. That process at least means they have some sort of concrete evidence and not just going on a witch hunt.



I am sure there is still some little community in Peel that has been missed and therefore slighted.
Click to expand...

Caledon!!! The horsey crowd in Caledon !!!
 
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
Back in the Mike Harris days, when they were forcing shotgun weddings of various governments like the Amalgamated Toronto, I was wondering if they were going to combine Peel and neighbouring Halton (where I live). They are quite similar places, although Halton has fewer "recent" immigrants (just about everybody is an immigrant) and politically, it is a bit more Conservative. Anyway, whether it was contemplated or not (I'm sure that it was), they pulled up short of creating Halton-Peel as it would have been the fourth largest city in Canada and the tenth largest government in the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom