R v Spencer

Last updated
R v Spencer
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: 9 December 2013
Judgment: 13 June 2014
Full case nameMatthew David Spencer v Her Majesty The Queen
Citations 2014 SCC 43, [2014] 2 SCR 212.
Docket No.34644 [1]
Prior historyAPPEAL from R v. Spencer, 2011 SKCA 144 (25 November 2011), affirming in part and setting aside in part R v. Spencer, 2009 SKQB 341 (31 August 2009). Leave to appeal granted, Matthew David Spencer v. Her Majesty The Queen, 2013 CanLII 2395 (24 January 2013), Supreme Court (Canada)
RulingAppeal dismissed.
Holding
Users may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their Internet service provider subscriber information, as its disclosure will often identify users with intimate or sensitive activities carried out online with the expectation of anonymity.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Louis LeBel, Rosalie Abella, Marshall Rothstein, Thomas Cromwell, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Richard Wagner
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons byCromwell J

R v Spencer, 2014 SCC 43 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on informational privacy. The Court unanimously held that internet users were entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information held by Internet service providers. And as such, police attempts to access such data could be subject to section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Contents

At issue was whether the police could request subscriber information associated with an IP address from an Internet service provider without prior judicial authorisation, who could then voluntarily provide it. The Supreme Court ruled that the request for internet subscriber information infringed the Charter's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. [2]

Background

The appellant, Matthew David Spencer, used LimeWire to download child pornography onto a computer belonging to his sister, with whom he lived, and inadvertently shared it publicly. A member of the Saskatoon Police Service, using software to track worldwide child pornography file sharing, found Spencer's IP address among the results. Police investigators suspected the IP address to belong to a Shaw Communications customer in Saskatoon, although they did not know the identity or precise location of the customer to whom the IP address belonged. Without a production order or judicial authorization, police investigators made a written request to Shaw for the subscriber information linked to the IP address in question. Shaw voluntarily complied, turning over records including the name and address of the user associated with the IP address. The police used this information to lawfully obtain a search warrant for Spencer's sister's house, where they found several child pornography photos and videos. Spencer was arrested and charged with two criminal offences: possession of child pornography, contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code, and distribution of child pornography, contrary to section 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code. [3] [2]

The courts below

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Spencer was tried before the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan. At a pre-trial application, he argued that the way the police obtained his subscriber information was an unconstitutional search, violating section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On the merits of the charges, he argued that he did not knowingly share the child pornography because he did not know how LimeWire sharing worked. Spencer moved for the evidence to be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

In response, the Crown argued that Shaw's voluntary disclosure of Spencer's subscriber information was authorized by section 7(3)(c.1)(ii) of PIPEDA , which allows an organization to disclose personal information to a government institution that has "identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that the disclosure is requested for the purpose of... carrying out an investigation relating to the enforcement of any... law or gathering intelligence for the purpose of enforcing any... law". [4]

The trial judge dismissed Spencer's Charter application, finding that the police's request for Spencer's subscriber information was not a search for the purposes of section 8. [5]

At trial, the trial judge convicted Spencer of possession of child pornography. However, he acquitted Spencer of distribution of child pornography, holding that offence required some "positive step or action" to distribute the materials [6] and that the mens rea had not been established.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Spencer appealed the conviction on the possession charge to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, while the Crown appealed the acquittal on the distribution charge. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the possession conviction, agreeing with the trial judge that the way the police obtained the IP information was not an unreasonable search and did not violate the Charter. [7] The Court therefore dismissed Spencer's appeal on this charge.

On the second issue, the acquittal on the charge of distributing child pornography, the Court allowed the Crown appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had erred by holding that the offence required proof of a "positive step" to distribute the child pornography. The Court therefore set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial on the distribution charge. [8]

Spencer then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Judgment of the SCC

Cromwell J, writing for a unanimous Court, held that law enforcement's obtainment of Spencer's subscriber information was a search for the purposes of section 8. He found that Spencer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his subscriber information, a decision reached by weighing several factors previously identified in R v Tessling . And that the police request to access those records was unauthorized, and therefore unlawful and unconstitutional. In doing so he recognized a new component of informational privacy, as protected by the Charter, the concept of "privacy as anonymity". [2]

First, the Court took a "broad and functional approach" [9] by determining the subject matter of the search to be not merely Spencer's name and address but the identity of an Internet user. Second, the Court found that the nature of Spencer's privacy interest in subscriber information relating to a computer used privately was primarily an informational one, and set out three key elements of informational privacy: "privacy as secrecy", "privacy as control", and "privacy as anonymity". [10] The Court found anonymity to be particularly important in an online context, where subscriber information "may implicate privacy interests relating not simply to the person’s name or address but to his or her identity as the source, possessor or user of that information". [11] Although the Court did not recognize a right to absolute anonymity, noting that an individual's privacy interests and expectations vary in different circumstances. [12] It nonetheless held that the type of information sought (subscriber information) implicated a high degree of informational privacy interests, and that Spencer had an expectation of privacy in it. Third, citing those interests, the Court held that Spencer's expectation of privacy in his subscriber information was an objectively reasonable one. The Court dismissed the Crown's argument that the request for subscriber information was authorized by section 7(3)(c.1)(ii) of PIPEDA, which allows for disclosure to government institutions who identify their lawful authority to obtain such information. Stating that the existence of lawful authority itself depends on the existence of a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information. Thus PIPEDA was not determinative of the issue at hand.

The Court held that the police's search was not authorized by law, since it interpreted "lawful authority" in section 7(3)(c.1)(ii) to mean more than a "bare request by law enforcement". [13] The Court thus found the search unreasonable on the basis of the Collins test. Which states that warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable under section 8, unless it can be established that A) the search was authorized by law, B) the law itself was reasonable, and C) the search was conduced in a reasonable manner. In this case, since section 7(3)(c.1)(ii) did not even purport to authorize any searches (due to the Court's findings), the request was automatically unreasonable. Since the search warrant that led to Spencer's arrest was predicated entirely on the earlier unreasonable search of Spencer's subscriber information, there would not have been grounds to issue the warrant had the police acted lawfully. Thus the search of Spencer's sister's house was also unconstitutional, violating section 8 of the Charter.

However, the Court held that the evidence obtained during the search of Spencer's sister's house should not be excluded, on the basis of the Grant test. The state's conduct was deemed not to constitute "wilful or flagrant disregard of the Charter" [14] because the Saskatoon Police Service reasonably believed that the subscriber information request to Shaw was authorized by law. The impact of the Charter-infringing conduct on Spencer was serious, unmasking his anonymity and exposing his online choices. However, society's interest in the adjudication of the case, one involving serious offences with mandatory minimum prison sentences, on its merits outweighed any privacy infringement. [15]

The Court also agreed with the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal that the trial judge had erred by holding that the offence of distribution of child pornography required proof of a positive step. [16] [2]

Impact

The Supreme Court's decision was hailed as a landmark victory for privacy and anonymity, sending a "strong message on Internet privacy" [17] and holding definitively that law enforcement cannot use the section 7(3)(c.1)(ii) PIPEDA disclosure provision or the section 487.014 Criminal Code investigative power alone to compel ISPs to disclose a customer's subscriber information. [2]

Related Research Articles

Lawful interception (LI) refers to the facilities in telecommunications and telephone networks that allow law enforcement agencies with court orders or other legal authorization to selectively wiretap individual subscribers. Most countries require licensed telecommunications operators to provide their networks with Legal Interception gateways and nodes for the interception of communications. The interfaces of these gateways have been standardized by telecommunication standardization organizations. As with many law enforcement tools, LI systems may be subverted for illicit purposes.

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides those in Canada with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in pat-down, entering someone's property or surveillance.

<i>R v Sharpe</i> 2001 Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 is a constitutional rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The court balanced the societal interest to regulate child pornography against the right to freedom of expression possessed by the defendants under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; holding, that while general prohibition of child pornography was constitutional, there were some limits imposed by the Charter. The decision overturned a ruling by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

<i>R v Tessling</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Tessling [2004] 3 S.C.R. 432, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held that the use of thermal imaging by police in the course of an investigation of a suspect's property did not constitute a violation of the accused's right to a reasonable expectation of privacy under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>R v Wong</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Wong, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the evidence obtained by electronic video surveillance conducted without authorization. The Court held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room. This expectation does not depend on whether those persons were engaging in illegal activities. Therefore, individuals can expect that agents of the state will not engage in warrantless video surveillance. Electronic surveillance without authorization violates Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, for this particular case, the Supreme Court held that the police acted in good faith and had reasonable and probable ground to believe criminal activities were committed. The surveillance without authorization was a result of misunderstanding. Hence, acceptance of the surveillance as evidences will not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Privacy Act is the federal information-privacy legislation of Canada that came into effect on July 1, 1983. Administered by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Act sets out rules for how institutions of the Government of Canada collect, use, disclose, retain, and dispose of personal information of individuals.

<i>R v Belnavis</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Belnavis, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right against unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the backseat of a car.

South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976), elaborated on the community caretaking doctrine. Under the Fourth Amendment, "unreasonable" searches and seizures are forbidden. In addition to their law-enforcement duties, the police must engage in what the court has termed a community caretaking role, including such duties as removing obstructions from roadways to ensure the free flow of traffic. When the police act in this role, they may inventory cars they have seized without "unreasonably" searching those cars.

<i>R v Duarte</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Duarte, [1990] 1 SCR 30 is a leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to privacy under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court held that a warrantless and surreptitious video recording of private communications violated section 8. Consent of only one party to a conversation is insufficient to be reasonable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian privacy law</span> Privacy law in Canada

Canadian privacy law is derived from the common law, statutes of the Parliament of Canada and the various provincial legislatures, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Perhaps ironically, Canada's legal conceptualization of privacy, along with most modern legal Western conceptions of privacy, can be traced back to Warren and Brandeis’s "The Right to Privacy" published in the Harvard Law Review in 1890, Holvast states "Almost all authors on privacy start the discussion with the famous article 'The Right to Privacy' of Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis".

State v. Reid, 194 N.J. 386, 954 A.2d 503, was an American criminal court case in which the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that Internet service provider (ISP) subscribers have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the identifying information they provide to ISPs. This case has helped place New Jersey at the forefront of the states committed to providing their residents with broader privacy protections than those available under federal law.

<i>R v Grant</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9, section 10 and section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court created a number of factors to consider when determining whether a person had been detained for the purpose of sections 9 and 10 of the Charter. The Court also created a new test for determining whether evidence obtained by a Charter breach should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, replacing the Collins test.

<i>R v Harrison</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Harrison, 2009 SCC 34 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decision was a companion case of R v Grant, and applied the Supreme Court's new test to determine when evidence obtained from a Charter breach should be excluded.

<i>R v Kang-Brown</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Kang-Brown, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456, 2008 SCC 18, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police do not have the right to perform a sniffer-dog search of public spaces when such search is not specifically authorized by statute. In this case, a suspect's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") were violated when a police officer stopped him at a bus station and sniffer-dog searched his bag finding drugs in his possession.

<i>R v Patrick</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Patrick, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 579, 2009 SCC 17, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police have the right to take garbage bags placed for collection at edge of a property without warrant. In this case, the accused abandoned his privacy interest when he placed his garbage for collection at the rear of his property where it was accessible to any passing member of the public. His section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were not violated when a police officer seized bags of garbage at the rear of his property and used the contents of seized bags as evidence of criminal activity.

<i>R v AM</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v AM, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 569, 2008 SCC 19, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police do not have the right to perform a sniffer-dog search of public spaces when such search is not specifically authorized by statute. In this case, a student's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") were violated when a police officer sniffer-dog searched his unattended backpack in the gymnasium of his school finding drugs in his possession.

<i>R v Fearon</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Fearon, 2014 SCC 77 is a leading section 8 Canadian constitutional law case, concerning the constitutionality of warrantless law enforcement searches of the contents of a cell phone incident to arrest.

The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is well-recognised by the international human rights community. Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 incorporates this right into New Zealand law, stating that: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise." This right is routinely ignored by the State, which is able to exercise unlimited powers of search and seizure against private individuals. The only remedy is to seek to have whatever evidence may have been unreasonably obtained omitted from proceedings under the Evidence Act procedures which only apply to unreasonably obtained evidence. This means that in practice there is only limited protection against the use of unreasonably obtained evidence, but no protection against actual unreasonable search and seizure in New Zealand.

<i>R v Golden</i> Canadian legal decision

R v Golden, 2001 SCC 83 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on limitations to the power of police officers to perform strip searches. The Court held that the common law rule allowing police officers to perform warrantless searches incident to arrest must be limited in relation to strip searches, citing their heightened intrusiveness and impact on the Charter protected privacy interests of the accused.

<i>R v Stairs</i> Canadian legal decision

R v Stairs, 2022 SCC 11 is a constitutional rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court established new standards for searches of a person's home after they have been arrested. At issue in the case was whether the traditional common law power of Search Incident to Arrest, which allows police officers to engage in warrantless searches of lawfully arrested persons, was compliant with section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it related to searches of the home.

References

  1. ↑ SCC Case Information - Docket 34644 Supreme Court of Canada
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 R v Spencer, 2014 SCC 43, [2014] 2 SCR 212.
  3. ↑ Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 163.1.
  4. ↑ Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, SC 2000, c 5.
  5. ↑ R v Spencer, 2009 SKQB 341, paras 17, 18, 19.
  6. ↑ R v Spencer, 2011 SKCA 144, paras 49–50.
  7. ↑ R v Spencer, 2011 SKCA 144, para 47.
  8. ↑ R v Spencer, 2011 SKCA 144, paras 81, 95.
  9. ↑ SCC, par. 26
  10. ↑ SCC, par. 38
  11. ↑ SCC, par. 47
  12. ↑ SCC, par. 49
  13. ↑ SCC, par. 71
  14. ↑ R v Grant, par. 75
  15. ↑ SCC, par. 76–81
  16. ↑ SCC, par. 86
  17. ↑ Watkiss, Roger; Shung, Kaitlin (June 2014). "Canada's Supreme Court sends strong message on Internet privacy in R v Spencer". Norton Rose Fulbright. Archived from the original on January 28, 2019. Retrieved January 24, 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.