加国政治 安大略法官裁定警方无权从Airbnb公寓中扣押隐藏的床头摄像头

[哈法]

环球邮报报道：
安大略省法官裁定，警察无权进入出租给Airbnb客人的公寓，后者发现该摄像机藏在指向床头的时钟中。
该裁定有效地结束了多伦多共管公寓业主Michael Chow的偷窥起诉。他曾辩称，即使受害的客人邀请了一名警察，警察进入公寓没有搜查令就没收了摄像机，侵犯了他的权利。
安省法院法官约瑟夫·博瓦尔德（Joseph Bovard）在决定中说：“警察不仅通过无证进入和搜查公寓，侵犯了周先生的权利，而且还通过没收并搜查其财产继续侵犯他的权利。” “接受以这种方式获得的证据会使司法行政受到声名狼藉。”
此案发生于2018年9月，当时罗伯特·沃伦伯格（Robert Wallenberg）在多伦多参加国际电影节时从共管公寓业主Michael Chow租赁了市中心的Airbnb公寓10天。发现隐藏的摄像机后，沃伦伯格联系了Airbnb，Airbnb建议他去一家酒店并报警。
法庭记录显示，沃伦伯格让警官刘易斯进入公寓，并给他看了时钟摄像机。在调查警员的建议下，刘易斯（Lewis）没收了时钟照相机，并将其放在警察局的财产储物柜中。另一名警官随后简短地检查了摄像机，然后申请搜查令以搜查该设备。
通到查看在卧室中从事各种活动的人的视频，其中包括一名男子在床上自慰，其他男子（包括周氏）处于赤裸状态后，警察指控周氏偷窥。
在庭审中，周先生主张排除录像证据，理由是警察没有搜查令而搜查和扣押侵犯了他的权利。
警官刘易斯作证说，在进入公寓之前，他没有试图联系周。他说，他相信应沃伦伯格的邀请进入公寓是有道理的，因为Airbnb的客人拥有公寓的钥匙和临时所有权。他说，他是在调查警员的建议下扣押该装置的，以保存潜在的证据。
法官博瓦尔德（Bovard）在分析中说，在决定警察是否违反周氏的宪章权利以进行不合理的搜查和扣押时，一个关键问题是房主是否对公寓单位的隐私有合理的期望。 Bovard得出结论认为，Chow确实做到了，有证据表明他是该公寓的唯一所有者，公寓里装满了他的所有财产，他有时会自己使用。
“在这种情况下，周先生对公寓的隐私有一个主观的期望，”鲍瓦尔德总结说。 “周先生对时钟摄像机和SD存储卡的内容有合理的隐私期望。”
法官还驳回了起诉方的论点，即周先生将自己的公寓出租给瓦伦贝格，从而破坏了他自己的隐私期望。
法官博瓦尔德说：“无论住客沃伦贝格先生对公寓有什么权利，他都不可能免去周先生在公寓及其内饰中的隐私权。”
法官还得出结论，该警官对可能的犯罪活动的怀疑，并没有赋予他没收时钟摄像机或允许警察未经逮捕令对其进行检查的权利。鲍瓦尔德说，他意识到排除证据会破坏控方的案子，但鉴于累积的违反宪章的规定，他还是必须这样裁定。

Police had no right to seize hidden bedside camera from Airbnb condo, Ontario judge rules

The decision effectively ended the voyeurism prosecution of the Toronto condo owner

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[哈法]

有兴趣看英文的，这是英文全文：
A police officer had no right to enter a condo rented to an Airbnb guest who found a video camera hidden in a clock pointed at the bed, an Ontario judge has ruled.

The decision effectively ended the voyeurism prosecution of the Toronto condo owner, Michael Chow. He had argued police had breached his rights by going into the apartment and seizing the camera without a warrant, even though the aggrieved guest had invited an officer in.

“The police not only breached Mr. Chow’s rights by entering and searching the apartment without a warrant, but they continued to breach his rights by seizing his property and searching it,” Ontario court judge Joseph Bovard said in the decision. “Admitting evidence that was obtained in such a manner would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”

The case arose in September 2018 when Robert Wallenberg, in town for the Toronto International Film Festival, rented the downtown Airbnb apartment from Chow for 10 days. After discovering the hidden camera, Wallenberg contacted Airbnb, which advised him to go to a hotel and call police.

Court records show Wallenberg let the officer, identified as Const. Lewis, into the apartment and showed him the clock-camera. On advice of a detective, Lewis seized the gadget and placed it in a property locker at the police station. Another officer later inspected the camera briefly, then applied for a warrant to search the device.

After finding stored video of people engaged in various activities in the bedroom, including one man masturbating on the bed and others, including Chow, in various states of undress, police charged the owner with voyeurism.

At trial, Chow argued for exclusion of the video evidence on the basis that police violated his rights with the warrantless search and seizure.

Lewis testified he made no attempt to contact Chow before entering the condo. He said he believed he was justified in going in at Wallenberg’s invitation because the Airbnb guest had the key and temporary ownership of the unit. He said he seized the device on the advice of the detective to preserve potential evidence.

In his analysis, Bovard said a key issue in deciding whether police had breached Chow’s charter right against unreasonable search and seizure was whether the owner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the condo unit. Bovard concluded Chow did, given evidence that he was the sole owner of the apartment, it was filled with his possessions, and he used it himself at times.

“In these circumstances, Mr. Chow had a subjective expectation of privacy in the apartment,” Bovard concluded. “Mr. Chow had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the clock-camera and in the contents of the SD memory card.”

The judge also rejected prosecution arguments that by renting out his condo to Wallenberg, Chow had undermined his own privacy expectations.

“Whatever rights Mr. Wallenberg had over the apartment, he could not waive Mr. Chow’s privacy rights in the apartment and its contents,” Bovard said.

The judge also concluded the officer’s suspicion of possible criminal activity did not give him the right to seize the clock-camera or allow police to inspect it without a warrant. Bovard said he realized that excluding the evidence would gut the prosecution’s case, but said he had to do so anyway given the cumulative charter violations.

 

[tengys2010]

程序正义，虽然一时有问题，但是可以弥补。有必要。没有的话后患无穷