Indy Companion
Jerkmate

Hidden Camera in Toronto AirBNB condo

farquhar

Active member
Jan 25, 2019
437
37
28
https://www.680news.com/2020/02/06/...eize-hidden-bedside-camera-from-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.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
10,158
216
63
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 I would think that the need for a warrant would be superceded by an indictable offence being committed on the premises.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.
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 24, 2004
9,986
102
63
https://www.680news.com/2020/02/06/...eize-hidden-bedside-camera-from-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? :bolt:
 

kherg007

Well-known member
May 3, 2014
4,193
511
113
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.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
24,315
263
83
https://www.680news.com/2020/02/06/...eize-hidden-bedside-camera-from-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.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
24,315
263
83
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.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
10,158
216
63
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.
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
7,543
163
63
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.
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
7,543
163
63
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.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
10,158
216
63
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)?
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
10,158
216
63
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.
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
7,543
163
63
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.


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.


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.



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.

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.
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
7,543
163
63
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.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
24,315
263
83
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.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
10,158
216
63
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?
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
10,158
216
63
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.
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
7,543
163
63
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.
 
Toronto Escorts