can police seize your video helmet cam?? | GTAMotorcycle.com

can police seize your video helmet cam??

chistet

Well-known member
Site Supporter
theres a video kicking around of a policeman pulling over a biker and demanding the rider turn over his video camera.

please,i dont want a discussion on the pros/cons of that video.

In Ontario, under what circumstances can police seize your camera or review the video on it.
Can you refuse?...under what circumstances and what happens if you don't voluntarily hand it over ?
do you get it back? what if there is non biking related private stuff on the camera?? do they have the right to just look at your stuff?


can you be charged for behaviour previously recorded in videos on the camera?
.i.e can u claim your buddy was wearing the helmet cam a few days ago or something?

cargo
 
Warrant signed by a JP/Judge only.
 
They could ask you for it at anytime.. and if you voluntarily hand it over they can do whatever they want with it. If you refuse.. then as Macs said above a warrant would be required to force you to hand it over.

However.. and someone might correct me here if i`m wrong. I`m not lawyer, but I believe if you are being arrested or charged with something (dangerous driving included as it`s a criminal code violation??) then anything on you or in your vehicle can be searched without a warrant.


As per the question about whether or not you can be charged based on a past action seen on the video.. YES.
 
Last edited:
in the interest of avoiding duplication. I believe this was addressed in a different thread. I can't dig this up right now but I do recall explaining this at some point.
 
it you refuse and demand they get a warrant, can they detain you?

if you delete the video file before they can get a warrant, can they arrest you for obstruction?
 
it you refuse and demand they get a warrant, can they detain you?

if you delete the video file before they can get a warrant, can they arrest you for obstruction?

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer.

If you weren't committing an arrestable offence, I don't believe they can detain you and wait for the amount of time it would take to get a warrant (days).

The one time an officer (Durham rookie) was deadset on illegally searching my friend's car, I just said "Pursuant to section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms we do not in any sense or form authorize you to search our persons or vehicle. I would also like to remind you we have committed no crime that would authorize you to do so by law." He backed off pretty quick after that, wrote my buddy the ticket for 26 over and sent us on our way.

Yes, but they would have to prove in court that the file ever existed. For example, (and I don't condone breaking the law) you could say during a traffic stop that the device isn't recording despite being on your person even if it was, then if they got hold of the memory card some time later, there would be no proof a file ever existed.

*Edit: I do remember when I was doing a case brief that there is precedent that search of a vehicle is not considered unreasonable under section 8, but during a traffic stop I doubt ever officer is well versed enough to argue it with you. Searching INSIDE of anything within the vehicle IS considered unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
On a technical point, rather than a legal one, don't think that just because you 'deleted' a file that it's actually gone. You could be in for a rather rude awakening, when they actually use you 'deleted' file to prove obstruction.
 
Without arresting the individual under the Criminal Code (carless driving does not count, Dangerous driving does), or with having a warrant to specifically seize the video, no police officer, regardless of any argument they make to you, can force you to hand over the video device.

As for search and seizure - it can be construed that visually searching your vehicle from the exterior (using a flashlight and peering through the windows extensively) is an illigal search.

As for being detained, this means as little as being instructed to remain, or even so little as where you cannot leave the area without permission from the officer. If the officer states "you are free to go" or something to that effect, he is acknowledging that he was detaining you. If the officer insists that you stay put, asking him what charge he is laying, and that in order to stop you from leaving at your own will, he will have to arrest and charge you. The officer "Can" charge you with a BS charge, take you downtown, and later release you after withdrawing the charge, but this can be a pain the arse (bike gets towed etc etc), but you will have a lovely case for your civil lawyer against the Police Service.

It largely comes down to how far you are willing to go, and what you want to do. Most Police are well trained in how to threaten incarceration and all that comes with it, to meet their desired result, and we as lemmings, desire just to be left alone, and might compromise our own rights by being "helpful" or "assisting" to the police and volunteering information or property simply to be released from being detained, even if on the side of the road.
 
Disclaimer: Not a lawyer.

If you weren't committing an arrestable offence, I don't believe they can detain you and wait for the amount of time it would take to get a warrant (days).

The one time an officer (Durham rookie) was deadset on illegally searching my friend's car, I just said "Pursuant to section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms we do not in any sense or form authorize you to search our persons or vehicle. I would also like to remind you we have committed no crime that would authorize you to do so by law." He backed off pretty quick after that, wrote my buddy the ticket for 26 over and sent us on our way.

Yes, but they would have to prove in court that the file ever existed. For example, (and I don't condone breaking the law) you could say during a traffic stop that the device isn't recording despite being on your person even if it was, then if they got hold of the memory card some time later, there would be no proof a file ever existed.

*Edit: I do remember when I was doing a case brief that there is precedent that search of a vehicle is not considered unreasonable under section 8, but during a traffic stop I doubt ever officer is well versed enough to argue it with you. Searching INSIDE of anything within the vehicle IS considered unreasonable.

It depends upon whether inclusion or exclusion of evidence so found would result bringing the administration of justice into greater disrepute. See the findings here:

http://canlii.ca/t/21wq6

As for search and seizure - it can be construed that visually searching your vehicle from the exterior (using a flashlight and peering through the windows extensively) is an illigal search.

Things that are plainly visible from outside would fall under a 'plain sight' exclusion. If it could be seen from the outside, then it is highly unlikely that such evidence would be excluded and, once seen, a search can then legally be performed.
 
Last edited:
There was a recent case where a laptop was in a car. The driver was arrested and a search warrant obtained for the car. The police then searched the contents of the laptop. The judge ruled the evidence on the laptop inadmissable as there was a higher expectation of privacy for a computer than for other typical things that might be sitting in the rear seat. The cops were chastised because the judge felt they should have known that.

You don't have to provide evidence against yourself of consent to a search of your belongings. Arresting you doesn't give them powers of search other than to ensure you aren't carrying concealed weapons or contraband. That's you, not your vehicle, as I understand it. IF they want to search your belongings they'll need a warrant.

BUT, trying to argue your rights to a cop at the side of the road is not always a wise idea. If you're being questioned, be close mouthed until you know where things are going. Be polite but volunteer little information that could be incriminating. Cooperate but do not give consent to searches. And if you get arrested shut the hell up and talk to a lawyer as soon as possible.

If your stuff gets seized or searched without a warrant let your lawyer argue the issue and have the evidence tossed and your belongings returned. Eventually...

I'm reminded of a tmie I took hold of a teenager's arm and wouldn't let go. He had been throwing rocks at my elderly neighbour. The whole time I'm holding onto him he's screaming "this is assault, you can't do this". I explained to him that his understanding of reality was obviously different from mine - I was doing it. Obviously I "could". The point he wanted to make was that I shouldn't. Which he was also wrong about. I was detaining a suspect in the comition of an offense and was well within my rights to use that level of force.
 
Last edited:
In Ontario, under what circumstances can police seize your camera or review the video on it.
Can you refuse?...under what circumstances and what happens if you don't voluntarily hand it over ?
do you get it back? what if there is non biking related private stuff on the camera?? do they have the right to just look at your stuff?

can you be charged for behaviour previously recorded in videos on the camera?


cargo

If police have reasonable and probable grounds (not just suspect) that your camera has evidence of an offense and you are under arrest then they can seize it (so long as the search to recover it was lawful) however they will require a warrant to look at the data within it.

If police have reasonable and probable grounds that the camera contains evidence of an offense and you're not under arrest they can ask you for it and you can refuse at which time they'll need to obtain a warrant if they want it. HOWEVER, if they believe that you'll destroy the evidence or will be a problem to locate (and a couple other obscure reasons) then they can seize the camera to preserve the evidence and will still need that warrant to look at the data within it.

If, once the data has been obtained legally, they discover evidence against you, then yes that could be used against you.

To clear up a few of the replies (that don't directly get cleared by the above);

if you are being arrested or charged with something (dangerous driving included as it`s a criminal code violation??) then anything on you or in your vehicle can be searched without a warrant.

You will be searched for weapons and evidence. The car can be as well however there are limitations such as where is reasonable for whatever evidence is being searched for. It gets situational dependent but as an simple example; if you're under arrest for just having robbed someone then you can expect that your car will get a thorough search for disguises, weapons, etc... used in the offense and the property that was stolen. If you get yourself arrested for being out past a criminal curfew then only the area immediately around you can be searched.

it you refuse and demand they get a warrant, can they detain you?

if you delete the video file before they can get a warrant, can they arrest you for obstruction?

As mentioned; if you're not the subject of the investigation then they could just seize the camera and send you on your way, if the conditions re; destruction and location are present.

If they can prove the evidence was destroyed by you, you could be charged.

Searching INSIDE of anything within the vehicle IS considered unreasonable.

Too vague. Searching inside the box inside the arm rest after the driver is arrested is reasonable, depending on the crime.

Without arresting the individual under the Criminal Code or with having a warrant to specifically seize the video, no police officer, regardless of any argument they make to you, can force you to hand over the video device.

Not true, as already stated.

As for search and seizure - it can be construed that visually searching your vehicle from the exterior (using a flashlight and peering through the windows extensively) is an illigal search.

As mentioned, it's called "plain view" and is legal.

As for being detained, this means as little as being instructed to remain, or even so little as where you cannot leave the area without permission from the officer. If the officer states "you are free to go" or something to that effect, he is acknowledging that he was detaining you. If the officer insists that you stay put, asking him what charge he is laying, and that in order to stop you from leaving at your own will, he will have to arrest and charge you. The officer "Can" charge you with a BS charge, take you downtown, and later release you after withdrawing the charge, but this can be a pain the arse (bike gets towed etc etc), but you will have a lovely case for your civil lawyer against the Police Service.

It largely comes down to how far you are willing to go, and what you want to do. Most Police are well trained in how to threaten incarceration and all that comes with it, to meet their desired result, and we as lemmings, desire just to be left alone, and might compromise our own rights by being "helpful" or "assisting" to the police and volunteering information or property simply to be released from being detained, even if on the side of the road.

Detention is different from arrest. There is lots of case law on this but to give a simple answer to a complex situation, detention allows an officer who believes that a person is involved in crime that has occurred in the area but does not yet have the grounds to arrest can detain that person while further investigation is ongoing (either by that officer or another). A weapon pat down may be available but the officer would have to articulate his reasons for doing it.
 
There was a recent case where a laptop was in a car. The driver was arrested and a search warrant obtained for the car. The police then searched the contents of the laptop. The judge ruled the evidence on the laptop inadmissable as there was a higher expectation of privacy for a computer than for other typical things that might be sitting in the rear seat. The cops were chastised because the judge felt they should have known that.

You don't have to provide evidence against yourself of consent to a search of your belongings. Arresting you doesn't give them powers of search other than to ensure you aren't carrying concealed weapons or contraband. That's you, not your vehicle, as I understand it. IF they want to search your belongings they'll need a warrant.

If the laptop case is the one I'm thinking of, the search took place during a time when it was legal to do so (although questions as to if that was going to change were on the radar) and the ruling you speak of was after the change in legality had been written into case law by a higher court. Some argue that the judge erred in that ruling. Today, certainly, a search of the data on any electronic device requires its own warrant.

As for the vehicle search, I already covered it.
 
If police have reasonable and probable grounds (not just suspect) that your camera has evidence of an offense and you are under arrest then they can seize it (so long as the search to recover it was lawful) however they will require a warrant to look at the data within it.

This is interesting.. it's not something I care about personally, as I don't hold onto my 'rights' as some do. If I have nothing to hide, I'd gladly hand over whatever the officer asks for if it helps them. But lets assume for a minute I didn't want to give it up. based on your statement above.. how do we ascertain that the officer has reasonable and probable grounds on the side of the road? and who decides? Is the advice then just to always hand it over and contact your lawyer to determine if the seizure was legal after the fact?

You will be searched for weapons and evidence. The car can be as well however there are limitations such as where is reasonable for whatever evidence is being searched for. It gets situational dependent but as an simple example; if you're under arrest for just having robbed someone then you can expect that your car will get a thorough search for disguises, weapons, etc... used in the offense and the property that was stolen. If you get yourself arrested for being out past a criminal curfew then only the area immediately around you can be searched.

Just for my own understanding.. lets say the crime you are being arrested for is dangerous driving, or lets kick it up a notch.. vehicular manslaughter. Upon your arrest the officer observes a go-pro mounted on your dash with has no doubt just recorded the crime. In this case it would be reasonable that said video be seized as evidence in this crime, just as finding a ski mask in the car would be reasonable if the charge was bank robbery would it not?
 
regarding evidence of a criminal offence from a seized video camera containing video taken at an earlier time.

My helmet cam field of view does not include my bike, gloves or anything that would prove i was the rider that had taken the earlier videos.

id like to think that they couldnt prove it was me (speeding, careless driving for example) and not my buddy who had "borrowed"my camera for his bike

not that id ever speed or drive carelessly

am i correct here?
 
regarding evidence of a criminal offence from a seized video camera containing video taken at an earlier time.

My helmet cam field of view does not include my bike, gloves or anything that would prove i was the rider that had taken the earlier videos.

id like to think that they couldnt prove it was me (speeding, careless driving for example) and not my buddy who had "borrowed"my camera for his bike

not that id ever speed or drive carelessly

am i correct here?

This likely isn't the case, as our legal system often favors protecting the criminals in instances like these... but in a common sense society the answer to this would be it's you unless you tell us who it was..
 
This is interesting.. it's not something I care about personally, as I don't hold onto my 'rights' as some do. If I have nothing to hide, I'd gladly hand over whatever the officer asks for if it helps them. But lets assume for a minute I didn't want to give it up. based on your statement above.. how do we ascertain that the officer has reasonable and probable grounds on the side of the road? and who decides? Is the advice then just to always hand it over and contact your lawyer to determine if the seizure was legal after the fact?

If you don't want to give it up and aren't under arrest where the camera is evidence, then you can refuse to give it up. If the officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that the camera contains evidence then he needs a warrant to seize it where he will have to articulate those grounds to a Justice of the Peace. However if he also can articulate that he believes that you will likely destroy the evidence or prove hard to locate at a later date then he can seize the camera without warrant then apply for the warrant to view the contents where he will have to articulate all of his grounds (including those to seize without warrant) to the Justice of the Peace. In either event, it's the Justice who determines if reasonable and probable grounds existed.

Just for my own understanding.. lets say the crime you are being arrested for is dangerous driving, or lets kick it up a notch.. vehicular manslaughter. Upon your arrest the officer observes a go-pro mounted on your dash with has no doubt just recorded the crime. In this case it would be reasonable that said video be seized as evidence in this crime, just as finding a ski mask in the car would be reasonable if the charge was bank robbery would it not?

Yes, the camera is plain view and it would be reasonable to believe that it recorded the event therefore it can be seized as evidence, however in order to access the data in the Go-Pro he'd need a warrant. The officer couldn't watch the video then apply for the warrant knowing that it had captured the event. The only way that an officer could search the device without warrant would be to determine ownership, ie; "That's not my phone" but then images of you are found on it, or your home # is listed under "Home", etc...
 
Last edited:
If the laptop case is the one I'm thinking of, the search took place during a time when it was legal to do so (although questions as to if that was going to change were on the radar) and the ruling you speak of was after the change in legality had been written into case law by a higher court. Some argue that the judge erred in that ruling. Today, certainly, a search of the data on any electronic device requires its own warrant.

As for the vehicle search, I already covered it.

You are thinking of the same case. I was using it more as an example that you can't just seize and examine everything. In that particular case I agree that the investigating officers acted correctly as they understood the rules at the time. Upon reflection, I may have overstated the "chastising" element.

I do want to thank you for well thought out, comprehensive and informative posts on this. That took some work. Thanks.
 
If you don't want to give it up and aren't under arrest where the camera is evidence, then you can refuse to give it up. If the officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that the camera contains evidence then he needs a warrant to seize it where he will have to articulate those grounds to a Justice of the Peace. However if he also can articulate that he believes that you will likely destroy the evidence or prove hard to locate at a later date then he can seize the camera without warrant then apply for the warrant to view the contents where he will have to articulate all of his grounds (including those to seize without warrant) to the Justice of the Peace. In either event, it's the Justice who determines if reasonable and probable grounds existed.

I guess this is where I am having trouble.. on the side of the road, the officer is going to ask for it.. you say no. He says well I have grounds because this that and the other, and I think you might destroy it so I'm taking it now.. Yes I know he then has to argue his case to the JP, but in the moment at the side of the road, when he says this.. are you then to give it to him? and if you did and he was bluffing but now you've basically waived you right by handing it over? Or should you continue to refuse until he forcibly takes it from you so you can assert that you didn't consent?

Again.. personally I would give it up the first time he asked.. nothing to hide, here you go.. hope it helps you. But I find it very interesting.. I like things black and white. Either they can take it or they can't.. I have trouble wrapping my head around they can't except for sometimes they can, and they decide when.. seems like you almost need a 24 hour lawyer hot line you can call from the car and say "I'm on the side of the road.. the officer says I have to give him my camera... what do I do?"
 
You are thinking of the same case. I was using it more as an example that you can't just seize and examine everything. In that particular case I agree that the investigating officers acted correctly as they understood the rules at the time. Upon reflection, I may have overstated the "chastising" element.

I do want to thank you for well thought out, comprehensive and informative posts on this. That took some work. Thanks.

I don't think you overstated the "chastising" element... as I understand it, the judge did exactly that! Due to the severity of the charges in question, and that the "writing was on the wall" that the law may soon change, I find myself conflicted on the issue; I think that the officers should have played safe and obtained a separate warrant however, what they did wasn't wrong at the time and the judge should have allowed the search into evidence.

And you're welcome.
 
Last edited:
I guess this is where I am having trouble.. on the side of the road, the officer is going to ask for it.. you say no. He says well I have grounds because this that and the other, and I think you might destroy it so I'm taking it now.. Yes I know he then has to argue his case to the JP, but in the moment at the side of the road, when he says this.. are you then to give it to him? and if you did and he was bluffing but now you've basically waived you right by handing it over? Or should you continue to refuse until he forcibly takes it from you so you can assert that you didn't consent?

Again.. personally I would give it up the first time he asked.. nothing to hide, here you go.. hope it helps you. But I find it very interesting.. I like things black and white. Either they can take it or they can't.. I have trouble wrapping my head around they can't except for sometimes they can, and they decide when.. seems like you almost need a 24 hour lawyer hot line you can call from the car and say "I'm on the side of the road.. the officer says I have to give him my camera... what do I do?"

I would think that any officer taking ownership of a camera from a willing person would want to have that little tidbit recorded, at the very least, in his notebook, and SIGNED BY YOU. A form of some sort is available in some (all?) jurisdictions that would also allow for this. Either form could work as a receipt for you. The officer wouldn't want that to come back on him if you changed your mind and come trial said that the camera was seized from you against your will.

If the camera is seized, well then your signature isn't required, but some articulation is.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom