Pubdate: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 Source: Ottawa Sun (CN ON) Copyright: 2010 Canoe Limited Partnership Contact: http://www.ottawasun.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/329 Author: Alan Shanoff Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Marijuana - Canada) COPS DON'T NEED WARRANT TO LOOK AT OUR HYDRO BILLS Chalk up another victory in the war against drugs. Last week our highest court ruled the use of electricity-consumption data from a Calgary power supplier obtained without a search warrant did not constitute a violation of the Charter privacy right to be free from unreasonable searches. The immediate result of this ruling is the conviction of Daniel James Gomboc of Calgary on charges of producing marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. Police suspected a grow-op in Gomboc's home after receiving an anonymous tip, speaking with neighbours, and conducting surveillance of the house. Thinking they didn't have enough evidence to obtain a search warrant, police sought information from the local electricity supplier, Enmax. They received information showing cyclical patterns of electricity use indicative of a grow-op of some sort. Armed with this information, police sought and obtained a search warrant permitting the search of Gomboc's home -- which in turn led to the seizure of 165 kg of bulk marijuana and 206 grams of processed marijuana. The question for the Supreme Court of Canada was simple: Should police have obtained prior judicial authorization allowing it to obtain data on Gomboc's energy consumption. The answer to this question turns on whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the consumption data. The Supremes ruled 7-2 there was no reasonable expectation of privacy, but they came to this conclusion in an odd fashion. Four judges ruled there could be no reasonable expectation of privacy, as the consumption data does not reveal any "intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choices" of any occupant and Gomboc didn't tell Enmax he wanted his consumption data kept private. Three judges based their ruling solely on the fact that Gomboc could have, but did not, advise Enmax he did not wish to have his consumption data released to the police. The remaining two judges dissented on the basis the consumption data was capable of predicting or revealing personal information thereby resulting in a reasonable expectation of privacy. So, while Gomboc has taken one for the team, so to speak, his conviction has provided others with a valuable piece of information: Contact your electricity provider, and indeed any third party who provides services to your home, and specifically request they do not provide any information to anybody concerning your account or your consumption of services. Had Gomboc done this, he'd have had the two dissenting judges in his corner plus the three other judges who based their decision on the lack of this request. He'd have had a five-to-four majority ruling the provision of the information by Enmax was wrongful because police ought to have obtained prior judicial authority. But sending your utility provider a written request not to disclose might not always work. Alberta law provides electricity customers with the right to request their customer information not be provided to police. Laws may change, they vary in other provinces and a customer's request won't prevent police from seeking a search warrant. Our marijuana laws don't make much sense. We spend far too much money enforcing silly marijuana laws. Having said that, marijuana grow-ops hidden in homes in residential areas are illegal, can present a danger and should be closed down. Allowing the police to easily access electricity records so as to better deal with this problem makes sense to me -- whether or not you don't want your electricity provider to give information to the police without a warrant. What I really worry about is who has access to smart meter data and what personal information can be gleaned from that data. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake