Supreme Court Rules Wiretap Order Necessary to Seize Text Messages

This article was last updated on April 16, 2022

Canada: Oye! Times readers Get FREE $30 to spend on Amazon, Walmart…
USA: Oye! Times readers Get FREE $30 to spend on Amazon, Walmart…

The Supreme Court of Canada has announced a  decision declaring that police should acquire a wiretap order for seizing text messages from wireless providers. The Supreme Court ruling written by Justice, Rosalie Silberman Abella, and supported by two more judges, stated that “text messaging is, in essence, an electronic conversation. Technical differences inherent in new technology should not determine the scope of protection afforded to private communications.” The remaining two judges dissented the ruling.

This decision has upended a previous lower court ruling against Telus Communications, asking it to supply copies of two of its customers’ text messages in lieu of a general warrant provided by police in Owen Sound, Ont. The phone provider, Telus, appealed the ruling and argued that seizing the messages would constitute “interception” of the communication and hence shall require a wiretap warrant. In general, a wiretap warrant is more complicated to acquire than a general warrant, due to several special privacy provisions in the Criminal Code protecting private communications.

The ruling of Abella explained that the only practical difference between text messaging and traditional voice communications is the transmission process. She wrote that “this distinction should not take text messages outside the protection to which private communications are entitled.” On the contrary, one of the two dissenting judges, Justice Thomas Albert Cromwell, admitted that even though there is “no doubt” that text messages are private communications, but his conclusion was that the investigative technique in this case was not an interception of private communications.