Analysis Of Cellphone And Gps Tracking Admissibility
1. Overview: Cellphone and GPS Tracking Evidence
Cellphone and GPS tracking refers to using technological data to determine a suspect’s location, movements, and communications. This includes:
Cell tower pings – Approximate location based on which cell tower a phone connects to.
GPS data – Location from apps, navigation devices, or devices in vehicles.
Historical location records – Stored by service providers.
Real-time tracking – Using warrants to monitor movements.
Legal Issues:
Privacy concerns under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (protection against unreasonable search and seizure).
Whether tracking constitutes a search, requiring a warrant or judicial authorization.
Admissibility depends on Charter compliance and reliability of data.
2. Legal Principles
s. 8 Charter Protection – Lawful tracking requires reasonable expectation of privacy.
Warrant Requirement – Generally, a judicial authorization is required before accessing tracking data.
Exclusion of Evidence – Evidence obtained in violation of Charter rights may be excluded under s. 24(2) if it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Reliability and Accuracy – Courts examine whether GPS or cellphone data is accurate and trustworthy.
3. Case Law Analysis
Case 1: R v. TELUS Communications Co., 2013 BCSC 1546
Facts:
Police sought cellphone subscriber records and location data from TELUS without a warrant.
Data included historical location information.
Outcome:
Court emphasized s. 8 Charter rights.
Ordered judicial authorization for disclosure, stating access without a warrant was a violation of privacy.
Significance:
Reinforced that cellphone tracking constitutes a search, even for historical location data.
Warrants are generally required before accessing telecom records.
Case 2: R v. Spencer, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 212
Facts:
Police obtained subscriber information from an Internet Service Provider to identify the owner of an IP address without a warrant.
Outcome:
SCC ruled unreasonable search under s. 8, because individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information.
Significance:
Extended privacy protections to digital and electronic data, forming a foundation for GPS/cellphone tracking cases.
Case 3: R v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60
Facts:
Police conducted a search of a cellphone seized during an arrest.
Question whether police needed a warrant to access all contents of the device.
Outcome:
SCC held that cellphones contain highly sensitive personal information.
Accessing data without a warrant is a s. 8 violation, unless exigent circumstances exist.
Significance:
Reinforced that cellphone data is highly private, including GPS and location history.
Warrants or consent are generally required for tracking or accessing data.
Case 4: R v. Cole, 2012 SCC 53
Facts:
Teacher’s work laptop searched by employer; police then obtained information.
Issue: whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in workplace devices.
Outcome:
SCC recognized personal information stored on electronic devices has privacy protection.
Tracking and searches require careful analysis of expectation of privacy and employer consent.
Significance:
Extended privacy rights to electronic devices, relevant for GPS/cellphone data.
Case 5: R v. Fearon, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 621
Facts:
Police searched a cellphone seized incident to arrest.
Did not obtain a warrant.
Outcome:
SCC allowed limited search of phone incident to arrest but accessing all data without warrant is not permitted.
GPS/location apps included in scope of sensitive personal information.
Significance:
Distinguishes between incident-to-arrest searches and tracking that requires judicial authorization.
Highlights limits on warrantless cellphone access.
Case 6: R v. Marakah, 2017 SCC 59
Facts:
SMS messages obtained from a service provider without warrant.
Questioned whether phone content stored with a third-party provider retains s. 8 protection.
Outcome:
SCC held that messages and location data stored remotely are protected under s. 8.
Evidence obtained without proper authorization is subject to exclusion.
Significance:
Establishes that cellphone and GPS tracking data, even with third-party providers, are protected.
Case 7: R v. Telus Mobility (Re Ontario Police Requests), 2013
Facts:
Police requested historical cellphone location data to track suspect movements.
Outcome:
Court held historical tracking constitutes a search, requiring judicial authorization.
Emphasized proportionality and privacy safeguards.
Significance:
Sets precedent for warrant requirement for both real-time and historical GPS/cellphone tracking.
4. Key Principles Derived from Case Law
| Principle | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Reasonable expectation of privacy | Individuals have privacy in cellphone location and GPS data | R v. Spencer, R v. Vu, R v. Marakah |
| Warrant generally required | Accessing tracking data without authorization violates s. 8 | R v. TELUS, R v. Fearon |
| Limited exception for exigent circumstances | Immediate threats may allow warrantless tracking | R v. Fearon |
| Digital data is highly personal | Location, communications, apps are private | R v. Vu, R v. Cole |
| Third-party storage does not remove protection | Data with ISPs or telecoms still protected | R v. Marakah |
| Historical vs. real-time tracking | Both require judicial oversight | R v. TELUS, Telus Mobility case |
5. Analysis of Effectiveness and Admissibility
Effectiveness:
Courts protect privacy rights while allowing evidence collection if proper authorization is obtained.
Clear guidelines improve investigative predictability.
Challenges:
Determining expectation of privacy in modern devices.
Balancing investigative efficiency with Charter protections.
Technological sophistication may outpace legal frameworks.
Admissibility:
Evidence obtained with judicial authorization is generally admissible.
Evidence obtained without authorization may be excluded under s. 24(2).
Reliability of GPS/cell data is also reviewed by the court before admission.
6. Conclusion
Cellphone and GPS tracking data are highly protected under s. 8 Charter rights.
Warrants or judicial authorization are generally required, except in narrowly defined exigent circumstances.
Canadian courts have clarified that both historical and real-time data, even if held by third parties, are protected, and violations can lead to evidence exclusion.
Case law demonstrates a consistent emphasis on balancing law enforcement needs with privacy protections, making tracking evidence admissibility conditional, not automatic.
RELATED Blog
comments