FIDS Analysis Report By: Jeremy Bieman R. v. Tessling
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
W. Tessling was charged with trafficking of drugs and possession of weapons.
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.
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
Implications? What is to be expected in the future? What constitutes “reasonable expectation of privacy”?