This is a copy of this thread for the canadian growers and ICMAG members that make up this community.... who may wish to discuss this article.
Supreme Court allows police to enlist electricity firm in grow-op case
Read more: http://www.canada.com/Supreme+Court+...#ixzz16DU5eySW
OTTAWA — Police did not overstep their powers when they asked a Calgary electricity company to effectively spy on one of its customers by installing a special tracking device to determine if he was growing marijuana, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Wednesday.
In a 7-2 decision, the court overturned an earlier ruling in the Alberta Court of Appeal, which had concluded that "co-opting" the power company to install a "digital recording ammeter" (DRA) amounted to spying on his home and breached the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.
"The DRA is a technique that reveals nothing about the intimate or core personal activities of the occupants," wrote Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps. "It reveals nothing but one particular piece of information: the consumption of electricity."
The ruling restores Daniel Gomboc's conviction for growing and selling pot.
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for third-party service providers to turn over information without police securing a judge's approval.
Calgary police, while investigating another matter in Gomboc's neighbourhood in 2004, detected the smell of a marijuana grow operation and noticed condensation on his windows and moisture pouring from ice-caked vents. Unlike other homes nearby, there was no snow on his roof.
The police then asked the local electricity company, Enmax, to install a DRA to obtain a detailed graph printout of five days of power consumption at Gomboc's home. The officers used the revealing information to obtain a search warrant.
Police seized 165 kilograms of bulk marijuana and another 206 grams of processed, bagged marijuana, and Gomboc was later convicted of growing and trafficking pot.
The ruling is in keeping with at least two other decisions in the Supreme Court dealing with police powers and privacy rights.
The court ruled last December that there's no right to privacy of your curbside garbage and, in 2004, the bench found that it is not unconstitutional for police to conduct aerial "infra-red" searches, using heat detectors to root out power consumption in a suspicious home.
In its 2009 decision siding with Gomboc, the Alberta appeal court ordered a new trial, ruling that the power utility should not have been "co-opted" by police to conduct "a form of surreptitious electric surveillance" of an individual.
"I expect that the reasonable, informed citizen would be gravely concerned, and would object to the state being allowed to use a utility to spy on a homeowner in this way," the appeal court said in a split 2-1 ruling.
The appeal court also concluded that tapping electrical meters is "more intrusive and more revealing" than using infra-red aerial surveillance because meters can zero in on hour-by-hour use. Marijuana is typically grown indoors using light cycles of 12-18 hours, the court said.
~~~~~~~
Do what's right mod... allow us mere peons to discuss the laws that affect us as growers!
Supreme Court allows police to enlist electricity firm in grow-op case
Read more: http://www.canada.com/Supreme+Court+...#ixzz16DU5eySW
OTTAWA — Police did not overstep their powers when they asked a Calgary electricity company to effectively spy on one of its customers by installing a special tracking device to determine if he was growing marijuana, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Wednesday.
In a 7-2 decision, the court overturned an earlier ruling in the Alberta Court of Appeal, which had concluded that "co-opting" the power company to install a "digital recording ammeter" (DRA) amounted to spying on his home and breached the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.
"The DRA is a technique that reveals nothing about the intimate or core personal activities of the occupants," wrote Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps. "It reveals nothing but one particular piece of information: the consumption of electricity."
The ruling restores Daniel Gomboc's conviction for growing and selling pot.
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for third-party service providers to turn over information without police securing a judge's approval.
Calgary police, while investigating another matter in Gomboc's neighbourhood in 2004, detected the smell of a marijuana grow operation and noticed condensation on his windows and moisture pouring from ice-caked vents. Unlike other homes nearby, there was no snow on his roof.
The police then asked the local electricity company, Enmax, to install a DRA to obtain a detailed graph printout of five days of power consumption at Gomboc's home. The officers used the revealing information to obtain a search warrant.
Police seized 165 kilograms of bulk marijuana and another 206 grams of processed, bagged marijuana, and Gomboc was later convicted of growing and trafficking pot.
The ruling is in keeping with at least two other decisions in the Supreme Court dealing with police powers and privacy rights.
The court ruled last December that there's no right to privacy of your curbside garbage and, in 2004, the bench found that it is not unconstitutional for police to conduct aerial "infra-red" searches, using heat detectors to root out power consumption in a suspicious home.
In its 2009 decision siding with Gomboc, the Alberta appeal court ordered a new trial, ruling that the power utility should not have been "co-opted" by police to conduct "a form of surreptitious electric surveillance" of an individual.
"I expect that the reasonable, informed citizen would be gravely concerned, and would object to the state being allowed to use a utility to spy on a homeowner in this way," the appeal court said in a split 2-1 ruling.
The appeal court also concluded that tapping electrical meters is "more intrusive and more revealing" than using infra-red aerial surveillance because meters can zero in on hour-by-hour use. Marijuana is typically grown indoors using light cycles of 12-18 hours, the court said.
~~~~~~~
Do what's right mod... allow us mere peons to discuss the laws that affect us as growers!
