R v Vu

R. v. Vu

2013 SCC 60, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 657
Supreme Court of Canada — Cromwell J. (unanimous) | November 7, 2013

Background

Thanh Long Vu was charged with marijuana production, possession for trafficking, and theft of electricity after police executed a search warrant at a Langley residence. BC Hydro had tipped off police that electricity was being diverted at the property. The police obtained a warrant to search for evidence of electricity theft, including "documentation identifying the owners and/or occupants of the residence." During the search, officers found a marijuana grow-op in the basement, plus two computers and a cellular phone in the living room.

Here's the problem: while the warrant mentioned searching for "computer generated notes," it didn't specifically authorize searching the actual computers. Police searched them anyway, finding MSN chat logs, Facebook accounts, photos, and other evidence linking Vu to the residence. The trial judge ruled this violated Vu's Charter rights and excluded most of the evidence, leading to acquittals on the drug charges.

Issues

1. Did the search warrant properly authorize searching for ownership/occupancy documents?
2. Did the warrant authorize police to search the computers and cellular phone?
3. Should the evidence obtained from the computer searches be excluded?

The Digital Privacy Revolution

The Supreme Court made legal history by ruling that computers require specific, prior authorization before police can search them — even when found during an otherwise lawful search. Justice Cromwell explained that computers are fundamentally different from traditional "receptacles" like filing cabinets or drawers. They store massive amounts of personal information (a single terabyte can hold a million books), automatically generate data users don't know about, retain "deleted" files, and can access information stored anywhere in the world through internet connections.

The Court rejected the traditional rule that if police can search a place, they can search any containers found there. For computers, that assumption "simply cannot apply." Instead, police must specifically ask the authorizing justice for permission to search computers, explaining why they believe computers will contain the evidence they're seeking. If police find an unexpected computer during a search, they can seize it to preserve evidence, but they need a separate warrant to actually search its contents.

The Evidence Ruling

Despite finding the computer searches violated Vu's Charter rights, the Supreme Court ruled the evidence should not be excluded. The Court found the Charter breach wasn't serious because: the law was unclear at the time, police acted in good faith believing they had authority, and the search didn't go beyond what the warrant authorized. The reliable evidence was important for adjudicating serious drug trafficking charges.

Key Takeaway

This decision permanently changed digital privacy rights in Canada — police now need explicit warrant authorization before searching any computer or smartphone.

While this case dealt with Criminal Code charges, the principles apply to all police searches. If you're facing charges where police searched your devices without specific authorization, R. v. Vu may be your strongest Charter argument — though courts will consider whether excluding the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.