No Privacy In Trash, Supreme Court Holds
Even when it's sitting on your property awaiting
collection, garbage - and the private information it contains - may
be vulnerable to police and public scrutiny
R. v. Patrick
Supreme Court of Canada, 2009 SCC 17 (April 9,
2009)
This Supreme Court of Canada ruling, which arose in the context of a
criminal drug prosecution, underscores the importance of careful
disposal of documents containing confidential information or other
information that could potentially be embarrassing or damaging to
your company's interests. The essence of the Court's ruling
is that waste left for disposal "at the curb" - and the
information it contains - is fair game for police search and
seizure, and arguably for perusal by reporters or members of the
general public as well. Even where trash is left for pick up on
your own private property, it can be vulnerable if it can easily be
reached from public property. The lesson is never to dispose of
sensitive material by leaving it for pick-up on the periphery of
one's property. Lockable bins, fencing, signage and other
indicia of an intention to maintain control of refuse until it can
be securely transferred into disposal vehicles are key to keeping
your trash out of the hands of those who would recycle it into a
gold mine of information about your business.
Background
The appellant had been charged with drug offences after the
Calgary police, in the course of an investigation, opened garbage
bags he had left for collection in an uncovered curbside bin and
examined their contents. These allegedly included residue of
illegal drugs as well as other items that were obviously related to
the ecstasy lab that the appellant was subsequently convicted of
running from his house. Throughout the proceedings in the lower
courts, the appellant's counsel focused on the
constitutionality of the warrantless search and seizure of the
garbage bags, which were on the appellant's property when the
police reached over the lot line and took them. The Alberta Court
of Appeal held, over a strong dissent by Madam Justice Conrad, that
the appellant had relinquished control over the items in the bags
and, by implication, had no expectation that they would remain
private. It also held that the items were not the sort of thing to
which s. 8 privacy rights extend (this aspect of the ruling was
rejected by the Supreme Court, which recognized the potential
informational value of almost any form of waste and stated that the
fact that material has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial