I find that the search of the accused’s cell phone was not a lawful search. The accused’s interest in being left alone was not outweighed by the goals of law enforcement (Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2. S.C.R. 145). Constable Munro was waiting for the authorization to search, including the authorization to search the cell phone. There was no evidence of a danger of remote wiping, and no evidence to indicate the phone was password protected and would lock. There was no evidence that if it did lock, it would be difficult for the tech crime unit to crack. The only evidence indicated that the phone was not locked. The reason for the search was not objectively reasonable. The search was not linked to the particular circumstances of the arrest of the accused.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.