Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 24 of 25

Thread: Hidden Camera in Toronto AirBNB condo

  1. #1

    Hidden Camera in Toronto AirBNB condo

    https://www.680news.com/2020/02/06/p...-airbnb-condo/

    An AirBNB was rented downtown for TIFF in 2018. The owner had a hidden camera in the bedroom that was discovered by his guest. AirBNB advised the guest to call the police. The guest let the police into the AirBNB to remove the camera, where it was taken to the station and placed into an evidence locker. The camera contained footage of AirBNB guests in various states of undress, and at least one guest was masturbating. The police charged the condo owner with voyeurism

    The Court says that since the police failed to obtain a warrant prior to entering the condo, it was an unlawful search and seizure; in the opinion of the Judge, the Charter violation is egregious enough that allowing the camera as evidence in trial would bring the justice system into disrepute; therefore, the evidence is excluded and the case will most likely be dismissed.

  2. #2
    That's an interesting case. The victim(guest) brought the cops into the unit. I would think that the need for a warrant would be superceded by an indictable offence being committed on the premises. And that's just the first issue. I think that the Crown should appeal to clarify this.
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by farquhar View Post
    https://www.680news.com/2020/02/06/p...-airbnb-condo/

    An AirBNB was rented downtown for TIFF in 2018. The owner had a hidden camera in the bedroom that was discovered by his guest. AirBNB advised the guest to call the police. The guest let the police into the AirBNB to remove the camera, where it was taken to the station and placed into an evidence locker. The camera contained footage of AirBNB guests in various states of undress, and at least one guest was masturbating. The police charged the condo owner with voyeurism

    The Court says that since the police failed to obtain a warrant prior to entering the condo, it was an unlawful search and seizure; in the opinion of the Judge, the Charter violation is egregious enough that allowing the camera as evidence in trial would bring the justice system into disrepute; therefore, the evidence is excluded and the case will most likely be dismissed.
    I would've thought many. I mean, if you're not having sex with someone in a rented room, don't you masturbate? Or is that just me?

  4. #4
    I say after every thread - which someone talks about getting an airbnb in Toronto and hosting an outcall - that one has to beware of cameras. I rest my case, m'lud.

  5. #5
    Official Cyclops Wrangler
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Hanging out with the One-Eyed Monster.
    Posts
    22,971
    Quote Originally Posted by farquhar View Post
    https://www.680news.com/2020/02/06/p...-airbnb-condo/

    An AirBNB was rented downtown for TIFF in 2018. The owner had a hidden camera in the bedroom that was discovered by his guest. AirBNB advised the guest to call the police. The guest let the police into the AirBNB to remove the camera, where it was taken to the station and placed into an evidence locker. The camera contained footage of AirBNB guests in various states of undress, and at least one guest was masturbating. The police charged the condo owner with voyeurism

    The Court says that since the police failed to obtain a warrant prior to entering the condo, it was an unlawful search and seizure; in the opinion of the Judge, the Charter violation is egregious enough that allowing the camera as evidence in trial would bring the justice system into disrepute; therefore, the evidence is excluded and the case will most likely be dismissed.
    Seems odd, as the guest was legally in possession of the condo at the time and therefore had authority to allow entry.

    The only thing I can guess is that there was a locked closet or crawlspace in the condo to which the guest had no access and which was the exclusive preserve of the owner. It's arguable that the cops needed a warrant to access non-accessible parts of the condo.

  6. #6
    Official Cyclops Wrangler
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Hanging out with the One-Eyed Monster.
    Posts
    22,971
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    That's an interesting case. The victim(guest) brought the cops into the unit. I would think that the need for a warrant would be superceded by an indictable offence being committed on the premises. And that's just the first issue. I think that the Crown should appeal to clarify this.
    So, genius..... If someone is committing the indictable offence of possessing narcotics in a locked, private space, the cops don't need a warrant to break the lock, enter and search?

    I don't need you to try and answer this.

  7. #7
    Incalls?

    Outcalls?

  8. #8
    Hopefully this guy doesn't get off

    Brampton man offering free massages on social media charged with voyeurism
    https://www.cp24.com/news/brampton-m...rism-1.4786353

  9. #9
    Missing since AD 393
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    On the slopes of Mount Parnassus, Greece
    Posts
    5,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlemagne View Post
    Hopefully this guy doesn't get off

    Brampton man offering free massages on social media charged with voyeurism
    https://www.cp24.com/news/brampton-m...rism-1.4786353
    What an age we live in........

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by oagre View Post
    So, genius..... If someone is committing the indictable offence of possessing narcotics in a locked, private space, the cops don't need a warrant to break the lock, enter and search?

    I don't need you to try and answer this.
    This instance has nothing to do with your example. Beyond that, I don't have the desire and you don't have the brains for this conversation.
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by oagre View Post
    Seems odd, as the guest was legally in possession of the condo at the time and therefore had authority to allow entry.

    The only thing I can guess is that there was a locked closet or crawlspace in the condo to which the guest had no access and which was the exclusive preserve of the owner. It's arguable that the cops needed a warrant to access non-accessible parts of the condo.

    I can see the argument that the owner/accused is also normally (if infrequently) resident in the home. Therefore he has an expectation of privacy in his bedroom that the tenant could not waive.
    ... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.

    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    That's an interesting case. The victim(guest) brought the cops into the unit. I would think that the need for a warrant would be superceded by an indictable offence being committed on the premises. And that's just the first issue. I think that the Crown should appeal to clarify this.

    Even if a murder were committed, a search warrant would be required to seize and or view footage of any security camera within a residence where anyone resident would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    If the cop was worried about the camera being removed or tampered with, access to the "crime scene" would be restricted until a warrant was issued.

    Your premise that once a crime has been committed, that the police have carte blanche to enter, search, seize and look anywhere they want is incorrect.

    Sure, if there was some exigent circumstance that required immediate access and viewing of the video to find the guy who just kidnapped someone, then that is a different case.
    ... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.

    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by SchlongConery View Post
    I can see the argument that the owner/accused is also normally (if infrequently) resident in the home. Therefore he has an expectation of privacy in his bedroom that the tenant could not waive.
    Does the peeping owner of the hotel have an expectation of privacy? Or a land lord of a basement apartment? Obviously not. Why doesn't this apply to airBandb? It could easily be argued that while the unit is being occupied under the airBandb contract, the same rules should apply. What if it is not the owner's primary residence(as it is often the case)?
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by SchlongConery View Post
    Even if a murder were committed, a search warrant would be required to seize and or view footage of any security camera within a residence where anyone resident would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    If the cop was worried about the camera being removed or tampered with, access to the "crime scene" would be restricted until a warrant was issued.

    Your premise that once a crime has been committed, that the police have carte blanche to enter, search, seize and look anywhere they want is incorrect.

    Sure, if there was some exigent circumstance that required immediate access and viewing of the video to find the guy who just kidnapped someone, then that is a different case.
    That's not what I said. I said "the indictable offence BEING committed". As in "the cop kicked in the door after he heard a shot, inside". There's no need for a warrant in such situations. This is not as drastic, obviously, but the principle is similar. I'm pretty sure that's why the cop entered the unit, not to mention that the victim invited him inside.
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    Does the peeping owner of the hotel have an expectation of privacy?
    No. He is a hotelier, and is not renting his own bedroom. He has no expectation of personal privacy in the rooms he rents.


    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    Or a land lord of a basement apartment? Obviously not.
    You answered your own question. The landlord does not reside in the basement apartment so has no expectation of privacy.


    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    Why doesn't this apply to airBandb?
    It might if the unit was not a regular resident of the unit. In this particular case, and with the facts of this particular case, the accused was actually renting out his own principle residence and therefore had a reasonable expectation of privacy and security against State searching of his residence and personal items (including the camera) without a Search Warrant.



    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    It could easily be argued that while the unit is being occupied under the airBandb contract, the same rules should apply.
    You can argue anything you want. Maybe you are smarter and make better arguments than the Crown Attorney. But from my reading of hundreds of your specious arguments in the Politics section, I think . the only one convinced is you.

    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    What if it is not the owner's primary residence(as it is often the case)?
    Then the facts are different than this case. In this case, it was the primary residence of the accused and he regularly lived there. His personal items, clothes etc were in the apartment.


    Having said all that.... I think the accused is a pervert dirtbag. I think the victim would have a great civil case where the rules of evidence aare not constrained by the Charter's rights applicable when the State is a party to the proceeding.
    ... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.

    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    That's not what I said. I said "the indictable offence BEING committed". As in "the cop kicked in the door after he heard a shot, inside". There's no need for a warrant in such situations. This is not as drastic, obviously, but the principle is similar. I'm pretty sure that's why the cop entered the unit, not to mention that the victim invited him inside.

    After the cop kicked the door in after hearing a shot, and finding the dead body, the cop cannot seize a laptop computer (or hidden video camera) and view the contents without a warrant. Unless he thinks there are exigent circumstances that require his immediate search of the device to protect someone in imminent danger f physical harm ,or the evidence being destroyed before he can get a Search Warrant.
    ... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.

    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

  17. #17
    Official Cyclops Wrangler
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Hanging out with the One-Eyed Monster.
    Posts
    22,971
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    That's not what I said. I said "the indictable offence BEING committed". As in "the cop kicked in the door after he heard a shot, inside". There's no need for a warrant in such situations. This is not as drastic, obviously, but the principle is similar. I'm pretty sure that's why the cop entered the unit, not to mention that the victim invited him inside.
    But look, a dealer who possesses a stash of fentanyl is committing an indictable offence just as much as a murderer who is strangling his victim. You're confusing the commission of an offence with an exigent circumstance where the officer has to force entry to save the victim.

    And if you don't want to argue with me who's an "idiot" despite being an attorney, argue with Schlong who will tell you the same thing I would.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by SchlongConery View Post
    After the cop kicked the door in after hearing a shot, and finding the dead body, the cop cannot seize a laptop computer (or hidden video camera) and view the contents without a warrant. Unless he thinks there are exigent circumstances that require his immediate search of the device to protect someone in imminent danger f physical harm ,or the evidence being destroyed before he can get a Search Warrant.
    But he can seize the gun, can't he?
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by SchlongConery View Post




    You can argue anything you want. Maybe you are smarter and make better arguments than the Crown Attorney. But from my reading of hundreds of your specious arguments in the Politics section, I think . the only one convinced
    Lawyers are notorious for being lazy and stupid.
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    But he can seize the gun, can't he?

    Not only can they seize the gun (Evidence), they MUST secure the gun as a matter of public safety.
    ... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.

    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by SchlongConery View Post
    Not only can they seize the gun (Evidence), they MUST secure the gun as a matter of public safety.
    And that's your answer.
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    And that's your answer.

    LOL!

    No, that is your answer.

    Like in Politics, you seek out any confirmation to your bias to prove to others you were right from the beginning. No matter how remote or irrelevant you dream up. In this case, you draw your legal presumptions from too many episodes of US TV crime drama.

    Obviously, oagre has more legal knowledge and courtroom experience than you. He is a highly experienced lawyer. Yet, you claim he "does not have the brains for this conversation".

    And by my rudimentary analysis of the facts as presented, it seems that I have some knowledge of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    The notoriously "lazy and stupid" defence lawyer seemed to recognize and (successfully) argue a Charter breach.

    The Judge's analysis and decision seems to be well founded.

    That leaves you... and possibly Big Sleazy (if he drops by) who are too smart for everyone else.
    ... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.

    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by SchlongConery View Post
    LOL!

    No, that is your answer.

    Like in Politics, you seek out any confirmation to your bias to prove to others you were right from the beginning. No matter how remote or irrelevant you dream up. In this case, you draw your legal presumptions from too many episodes of US TV crime drama.

    Obviously, oagre has more legal knowledge and courtroom experience than you. He is a highly experienced lawyer. Yet, you claim he "does not have the brains for this conversation".

    And by my rudimentary analysis of the facts as presented, it seems that I have some knowledge of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    The notoriously "lazy and stupid" defence lawyer seemed to recognize and (successfully) argue a Charter breach.

    The Judge's analysis and decision seems to be well founded.

    That leaves you... and possibly Big Sleazy (if he drops by) who are too smart for everyone else.
    I was willing to entertain a reasonable conversation because it's an interesting case involving a new entity, if you would refer yourself to my original post, unfortunately the alleged brilliance and competence begins and ends with personal shots. So, yeah. Lazy and stupid is all you deserve and probably the limit of your understanding.
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    I was willing to entertain a reasonable conversation because it's an interesting case involving a new entity, if you would refer yourself to my original post, unfortunately the alleged brilliance and competence begins and ends with personal shots. So, yeah. Lazy and stupid is all you deserve and probably the limit of your understanding.

    Sorry for the ad hominem.

    From your posts (including this one I am replying to) I just thought that mutual personal insults were required in discussions with you.
    ... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.

    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •