Privacy Digest

News that can impact your privacy.
Login/Register
  • Create new account
  • Request new password
Home Blogs MacRonin's blog
  • FAQ
  • Wishlists
  • Contact
  • Categories/RSS

Bookmark Us

Bookmark Privacy Digest 
Bookmark This Page 

RSS Feed + Site Map

Syndicate content
more

Advertisements

GPS Tracking
Search By Phone Number
Hosting
Home Security Systems Toronto
Mercedes-Benz Luxury Cars News
Disk Encryption
spy camera

Popular content

Last viewed:

  • SCO Chairman Fights to Ban Open Wireless Networks
  • MIT Student Plans to Take on RIAA
  • Action Alert: Stop the National ID Expansion!
  • CDT, EFF and PK File Brief in Ringtones Case
  • WikiLeaks Posts More Prison Docs -- This One from Iraq Prison
  • Repeal REAL ID Petition Drive Gears Up for Fourth of July
  • Illegal Government Surveillance: It's Not Just For Foreigners

tags in Topics

Activists Alert Companies Congress Copyright Court (US) Databases Data Mining Editorial EFF Entertainment Exploits Fourth Amendment Government Hmmm ID Infrastructure Law Enforcement Laws Politics Privacy Remember Reports Rights Security Software Spin Zone Surveillance Telecommunications Tracking
more tags

Performancing Metrics Blog Statistics
EatonWeb Blog Directory
Listed on BlogShares
View blog authority
Congressional Research
Broadcast Flag

Privacy right extends to drugs in luggage: judge

Submitted by MacRonin on December 4, 2008 - 11:03am.
  • Canada
  • Court
  • Government
  • Hmmm
  • Law Enforcement
  • Privacy

Privacy right extends to drugs in luggage: judge: Via St. John's Telegram of The National Post Company

ST. JOHN'S, N.L. -- Socks, undies and a toothbrush aren't the only things considered private when checking luggage at the airport. So are illegal drugs and wads of cash, according to a ruling by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland.

A judge in St. John's, Newfoundland recently decided that a man found with 14 grams of cocaine, 62 ecstasy pills and $11,000 in cash had an expectation of privacy when he checked his luggage prior to a flight in 2006.

The ruling means the man can continue his legal battle to have the evidence against him thrown out.

Brian Crisby, of Eastport, N.L. is charged with possession of ecstasy and cocaine for the purposes of trafficking. On Nov. 24, 2006, a police dog detected the drugs in Mr. Crisby's checked baggage in St. John's after his flight from Fort McMurray, Alta. Police were acting on a tip.

Mr. Crisby's lawyer, Mark Rogers, is trying to have the drugs and cash thrown out as evidence by arguing that the seizure was a violation of Mr. Crisby's charter right against unlawful search and seizure.

Mr. Rogers' first step is to prove that Crisby had an expectation of privacy over the contents of his luggage when he checked his bags in Fort McMurray.

Crown prosecutors argued Mr. Crisby gave up all his privacy rights when he voluntarily checked his baggage, because he knew air travel is subject to strict controls, including security screening.

The problem with that, Justice Robert Hall ruled, is that airport security laws are designed to protect travellers against weapons and explosives, not to catch illegal drugs. He described the Crown's argument as an "incremental intrusion upon privacy rights."

"Obviously, searching or screening the accused's bags for the presence of drugs does not fit into the category of purposes for which screening was authorized," wrote Mr. Hall.

"I conclude that Brian Crisby had a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the contents of his luggage, save and except for searches by [airport] personnel for items that could be used to jeopardize the security of an aerodrome or aircraft. The drugs and money found in his baggage, which are the subject of this proceeding, are not such items and thus Brian Crisby had a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Mr. Rogers described the win as clearing the first hurdle toward having the charges dropped.

"That's our ultimate goal," said Rogers.

"The charter application we've filed is to exclude evidence. [If successful], the Crown would decide if they are to proceed without that evidence, but I highly doubt that they would."

The case is expected back in court in January.

Read Original Article (Via St. John's Telegram of The National Post Company.)


Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious Delicious
  • Digg Digg
  • Reddit Reddit
  • Google Google
  • Yahoo Yahoo
  • Technorati Technorati
  • MacRonin's blog
  • Add new comment

Recent blog posts

  • A Remedy for Every Wrong? Why We Need a Consistent Privacy Act
  • Give Me My Health Data!
  • CDT, EFF and PK File Brief in Ringtones Case
  • Pirate Bay 2.0: Pay Pirates to Become Consumers
  • Judge Acquits Lori Drew in Cyberbullying Case, Overrules Jury
  • Apple patching serious SMS vulnerability on iPhone
  • Enter the Advertisers - self-regulatory principles ?
  • Out of business, Clear may sell customer data
  • TSA asked to ensure safety of customer data after Clear closing
  • Several Facts about Google and HTTPS
more
Compilation © Copyright 1997-2009 Paul Hardwick, with Web Hosting provided by MacRonin.com.