This appeal addressed whether a place-search warrant, which did not specifically authorize computer or cellphone searches, permitted police to search digital devices found on site.
The Court held that while the warrant validly authorized a search for occupancy and ownership documents, it did not authorize digital-device searches absent specific prior judicial authorization.
Computers were treated as raising distinct and heightened privacy concerns under section 8, requiring targeted authorization before data searches.
Despite the breach, the Court admitted the challenged evidence under section 24(2), citing the then-uncertain legal landscape, otherwise reasonable police conduct, and strong societal interest in adjudicating serious drug charges on their merits.
The appeal was dismissed and the new-trial order upheld.
