Although Justice Fish almost certainly went too far when he claimed that it is «difficult to imagine a search more intrusive, extensive or invasive of one's privacy than the search and seizure of a personal computer,» the fact remains that such a search represents a serious infringement of an individual's right to be secure against
unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter.
The case, Howlett v. Rose (No. 89 - 5383), concerns a high - school student's claim that school officials in Pinellas County, Fla., violated his Fourth Amendment protection against
unreasonable search and seizure when they searched his car without permission and suspended him after discovering alcohol in the automobile.
Dr. James will discuss challenges and suggestions for protecting the constitutional rights of students against
unreasonable search and seizure while maintaining a safe school environment.
The Court of Appeal applied the principle from R. v. Jarvis, 2002 SCC 73 to conclude that the CRA could not use its audit powers to prepare a criminal investigation, and that doing so was a violation of an accused person's right to be free from
unreasonable search and seizure pursuant to Section 8 of the Charter.
In the unanimous decision, the Court held that the text message search did not violate the Fourth Amendment's protections against
unreasonable search and seizure because it was legitimately work - related.
R. v. Mooswa (J.) 2012 SKQB 402 Civil Rights — Property — Search and seizure — Unreasonable search and seizure defined
R. v. Fearon, 2014 SCC 77 held that the police can search your phone as part of a search incident to arrest but they put rules in place so it does not violate your right to be free from
unreasonable search and seizure as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires.
They unjustifiably limit the right to be free of
unreasonable searches and seizures under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the right under s. 7 of the Charter not to be deprived of liberty otherwise than in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
As the law is written, the intelligence community can not use Section 702 programs to target Americans, who are protected by the Fourth Amendment's prohibition
on unreasonable searches and seizures.
Connie's passion for legal research and legal writing has produced innovative and effective legal memorandums and factums, that have been submitted to all levels of Courts, in the areas
of unreasonable search and seizure, arbitrary detention, the right to a fair trial, the right to counsel, unreasonable delay, and drinking and driving offences.
The question in this appeal is whether the guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure in s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can ever apply to such messages.
In this session Dr. James will discuss challenges and suggestions for protecting the constitutional rights of students against
unreasonable search and seizure while maintaining a safe school environment.
In a post here last week, E-Mail Not Protected by 4th Amendment, Judge Says, we discussed a federal judge's ruling that the Fourth Amendment's protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply to e-mail.
Obtained a directed verdict on all but one count of a complaint and a defendants» verdict on the remaining count for two Fairfield County police officers accused of false imprisonment,
unreasonable search and seizure pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, and malicious prosecution in a case brought by two elderly residents charged with animal cruelty.
The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously holds that the police did not violate an accused person's right to be free from
unreasonable search and seizure by seizing information discarded in residential garbage.
He acknowledged that he did not have standing to rely upon the breach of Guray's Charter rights but argued that the police violated his own right to be secure
against unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter when they read the text messages he sent to Guray.
Davis sought Supreme Court review after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in May that the failure to obtain a warrant did not violate Davis» right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
So as the owner of a corporation, or as a shareholder in one, Section 3 assures you that your property — including presumably the property of the corporation you own, or the property of the corporation from which you derive dividends — can not be subject to
unreasonable search and seizure, and can not be confiscated without due process.
It could, in fact, violate the Fourth Amendment, which of course protects Americans against «
unreasonable searches and seizures.»
Deputy attorney general James Cole defended the bulk collection of Americans» phone records as outside the scope of the fourth amendment's protections against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
For the sake of consistency, it would be grand if you would apply your absolutist approach to all the other Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights — especially those discussing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from
unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from self - incrimination, the right to legal counsel, due process, and the right to confront witnesses against you.
The most obvious rights lost by people convicted of a felony are the rights to vote, the right to bear arms, and to a degree, the right to be free of
unreasonable search and seizure.
A letter sitting in your home is covered by the Fourth Amendment protection against
unreasonable search and seizure, but that same letter in your Gmail, if sent and read over six months ago, is not afforded the same protection.
Some have held that the practice violates the Fourth Amendment protection against «
unreasonable searches and seizures.»