R v Reeves

R. v. Reeves

2018 SCC 56
Supreme Court of Canada — Karakatsanis J. (majority), Moldaver J. and Côté J. (concurring) | December 13, 2018

Background

Thomas Reeves shared a home with his common-law spouse Nicole Gravelle. After domestic assault charges and a no-contact order, Gravelle contacted police reporting she'd found child pornography on their shared computer. A police officer arrived without a warrant, and Gravelle signed a consent form allowing him to take the computer from the basement. The officer admitted he sought consent because he didn't believe he had reasonable grounds for a warrant.

Police held the computer for over four months without searching it, failing to report the seizure to a justice as required by s. 489.1 of the Criminal Code. When they finally got a search warrant, they found 140 images and 22 videos of child pornography. Reeves was charged with possession and accessing child pornography, but argued his Charter s. 8 rights were violated.

Issues

1. Can police lawfully seize a shared computer from a home with only one co-owner's consent?
2. Does the third-party consent doctrine from Cole apply to shared property?
3. Should the evidence be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter?

The Shared Computer Seizure

The Supreme Court ruled that Reeves had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the shared computer, despite joint ownership. The majority rejected the "third-party consent" approach, holding that one person cannot waive another's Charter rights — even when they share property. Justice Karakatsanis emphasized that when you share a computer with family, you accept the risk they might access your data or even tell police about it, but not the risk that they can authorize police to physically seize the device.

The Court distinguished between the "tattletale risk" (someone telling police what they found) and the seizure risk (someone consenting to police taking shared property). The warrantless seizure violated Reeves' s. 8 rights because his spouse's consent couldn't override his constitutional protections. The Court noted this rule protects low-income individuals who are more likely to share computers.

Multiple Charter Breaches

Beyond the unlawful seizure, police committed several additional violations: they failed to report the seizure to a justice "as soon as practicable" under s. 489.1, detained the computer beyond the three-month limit in s. 490(2), and obtained the eventual search warrant through a "goal-oriented, misleading" affidavit that should never have been granted. The Court found these multiple serious breaches undermined public confidence in the rule of law.

Key Takeaway

Your roommate, spouse, or family member cannot give police permission to seize shared property — you both have Charter rights that must be respected.

This ruling strengthens privacy protections in shared living situations and confirms that police need proper grounds and warrants, not just consent from one co-owner, when seizing computers and other shared devices.