INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section defines an agent of the state as a peace officer or someone acting with their authority.
SECTION WORDING
184.1(4) For the purposes of this section, "agent of the state" means (a) a peace officer; and (b) a person acting under the authority of, or in cooperation with, a peace officer.
EXPLANATION
Section 184.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada defines the term "agent of the state" for the purposes of Section 184.1. This section regulates the use of interception devices in order to protect the privacy rights of individuals. An "agent of the state" is someone who is authorized by the state to act on its behalf. This includes a peace officer, who is a member of a law enforcement agency such as the police. It also includes individuals who are acting under the authority of or in cooperation with a peace officer, such as a civilian employee of a police department who is assisting in an investigation. In the context of interception devices, the use of such devices is heavily regulated under Section 184.1 in order to protect individuals' privacy rights. Only "agents of the state" are authorized to use such devices, and even then, they must have a warrant or court order authorizing the use of the devices. The use of interception devices without proper authorization is a criminal offense. Overall, Section 184.1(4) plays an important role in protecting individuals' privacy rights by clearly defining who is authorized to use interception devices and under what circumstances.
COMMENTARY
Section 184.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada defines the term 'agent of the state' for the purposes of the provisions of the section which regulate the use of electronic surveillance. This is an important section of the Criminal Code as it limits the circumstances in which electronic surveillance can be conducted, and ensures that it is only carried out by authorized individuals. The definition of 'agent of the state' in this section encompasses two types of individuals: peace officers, and individuals acting under the authority of, or in cooperation with, a peace officer. This definition is intentionally broad to ensure that individuals who are acting on behalf of the state, regardless of their specific role or title, are subject to the provisions of the section. The inclusion of peace officers in this definition is not surprising, as peace officers are typically responsible for carrying out law enforcement activities on behalf of the state. They are authorized to conduct investigations, make arrests, and use force when necessary. As such, they have significant power and discretion, which means that they must be subject to strict legal safeguards to prevent abuse of their authority. The inclusion of individuals acting under the authority of, or in cooperation with, a peace officer is an important addition to this definition. It recognizes that individuals who work alongside peace officers, such as civilian employees of law enforcement agencies, may also have access to sensitive information and be involved in law enforcement activities. These individuals are not peace officers themselves, but they are still acting on behalf of the state and must be subject to the same restrictions as peace officers when it comes to electronic surveillance. This definition is particularly important in the context of electronic surveillance, as the use of these techniques can be highly intrusive and can potentially violate individuals' privacy rights. The section ensures that electronic surveillance can only be carried out by authorized individuals, who are subject to strict legal requirements regarding the use of these techniques. This is essential to ensure that individuals' privacy rights are protected, and that electronic surveillance is only used in situations where it is necessary and proportionate. Overall, Section 184.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a clear and comprehensive definition of the term 'agent of the state' for the purposes of the use of electronic surveillance. It ensures that individuals who are acting on behalf of the state, regardless of their specific role or title, are subject to strict legal requirements when it comes to the use of these techniques. By doing so, it helps to protect individuals' privacy rights and ensure that electronic surveillance is only used in appropriate circumstances.
STRATEGY
Section 184.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the definition of agent of the state" for the purpose of the section which deals with interception of private communication. A strategic consideration when dealing with this section is to ensure that all activities undertaken by law enforcement are in compliance with the law of the land. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to privacy, and any violation of this right could potentially expose law enforcement agencies to legal challenges. One strategy that could be employed by law enforcement agencies is communication and collaboration with legal experts to ensure that any interception of private communication is justified and lawful. This may involve obtaining relevant judicial orders such as a wiretap authorization, which requires the approval of a judge before interception of communication is allowed. This strategy would help law enforcement agencies to ensure that they are acting in compliance with the law and within the limits of their powers. Another strategy that could be employed by law enforcement agencies is to enhance their operational guidelines regarding the interception of private communication. This would involve providing adequate training to officers who may be involved in such activities and ensuring that there are clear guidelines on when and how communication can be intercepted. Additionally, the guidelines should also specify the type of communication that can be intercepted, the duration of interception, and the process for destroying unused or irrelevant intercepted communication. A third strategy for law enforcement agencies seeking to comply with Section 184.1(4) is to collaborate with technology vendors to ensure that communication interception tools and techniques are lawful and effective. This may involve the development of legal interception solutions that comply with specific legal requirements. Such technologies may be used to facilitate real-time communication monitoring and provide advanced analysis capabilities that enable law enforcement agencies to deliver comprehensive insights into communication transactions. In conclusion, law enforcement agencies need to ensure that they comply with the law when intercepting private communication. This involves understanding the legal requirements, collaborating with legal experts and technology vendors, and developing operational guidelines and best practices. By employing these strategies, law enforcement agencies can ensure that they effectively operate within the framework of the law and maintain the trust of citizens.