2 total
Note reporting the Supreme Court of Canada's decision allowing the appeal regarding FLIR technology.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the police use of Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) aerial camera technology to detect heat emanating from a home constituted a search under section 8 of the Charter.
The Court found a serious breach of the accused's privacy rights, excluded the real evidence under section 24(2), and entered an acquittal.
A note appended to the decision indicates that the Supreme Court of Canada subsequently allowed an appeal of this judgment.
Warrantless use of thermal imaging to detect heat from a home does not violate section 8.
The RCMP used an airplane equipped with a Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) camera to overfly the accused's home without a warrant.
The FLIR image, which detected heat emanations consistent with a marijuana grow operation, was used to obtain a search warrant.
The accused argued the FLIR overflight violated his right against unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the use of FLIR technology did not violate s. 8, as the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the heat distribution patterns on the external surfaces of his home.
The appeal was allowed and the conviction restored.
