The applicants, facing charges related to methamphetamine production, brought pre-trial motions to exclude evidence obtained from search warrants and covert video surveillance.
The police had installed a surveillance camera on a neighbouring building to monitor the rear parking lot of a commercial property suspected to be a meth lab.
The court held that the applicants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the commercial parking lot, and thus no warrant was required for the video surveillance.
The court also upheld the validity of the search warrants and found that the dynamic 'no-knock' entry into the residence was justified by safety and evidence preservation concerns.
The applications were dismissed.
