1 / 7

R. v. Tessling

FIDS Analysis Report By: Jeremy Bieman. R. v. Tessling. Background Information. Facts:. RCMP began investigating Walter Tessling February 1999 Police checked Hydro usage to see if unusual amounts were being used, results were negative.

mariko
Télécharger la présentation

R. v. Tessling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FIDS Analysis Report By: Jeremy Bieman R. v. Tessling

  2. Background Information

  3. Facts: • RCMP began investigating Walter Tessling February 1999 • Police checked Hydro usage to see if unusual amounts were being used, results were negative • Apr 29, 1999 RCMP used a FLIR Scan to determine if a “grow op” was in place • RCMP obtained a warrant and searched the house finding guns, scales, bags and $15,000-$20,000 worth of marijuana Defn. FLIR: Forward Looking Infar-Red

  4. W. Tessling was charged with trafficking of drugs and possession of weapons.

  5. Were Rights Violated? • Were Tessling’s rights violated with the FLIR scan? • Section 8: Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

  6. Supreme Court of Canada • Decision: The rights were not violated by the FLIR scan. Reason: It was not a violation of the rights under Section 8 with reasonable expectation of privacy. VOTE: UNANIMOUS

  7. Implications? What is to be expected in the future? What constitutes “reasonable expectation of privacy”?

More Related