Moreover, this protected private sphere is undermined by both the fact of surveillance and the threat of intrusion. In R. v. Duarte, 1990 CanLII 150 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 30, at p. 44, La Forest J. eloquently recorded the dangers of permitting the state to intrude on private conversations at its discretion and how, if that were permitted, “there would be no meaningful residuum to our right to live our lives free from surveillance”. The effects of this intrusion would be severe. As noted by La Forest J., at p. 54, referring to the opinion of Harlan J., dissenting, in United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971), at pp. 787-788, such intrusion would “smother that spontaneity – reflected in frivolous, impetuous, sacrilegious, and defiant discourse – that liberates daily life.”
"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.alexsei.com.