Criminal Code of Canada - section 184.2(2) - Application for authorization

section 184.2(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

This section outlines the requirements for making an application for interception of communications.

SECTION WORDING

184.2(2) An application for an authorization under this section shall be made by a peace officer, or a public officer who has been appointed or designated to administer or enforce any federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this or any other Act of Parliament, ex parte and in writing to a provincial court judge, a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit, which may be sworn on the information and belief of that peace officer or public officer or of any other peace officer or public officer, deposing to the following matters: (a) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament has been or will be committed; (b) the particulars of the offence; (c) the name of the person who has consented to the interception; (d) the period for which the authorization is requested; and (e) in the case of an application for an authorization where an authorization has previously been granted under this section or section 186, the particulars of the authorization.

EXPLANATION

Section 184.2(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the requirements for obtaining an authorization to intercept communications. This section requires that any application for such an authorization be made by a peace officer or public officer who is appointed or designated to enforce any federal or provincial law, including the Criminal Code. The application must be made ex parte, meaning that it is made without notice to the person whose communications are being intercepted. The application must be in writing and must be accompanied by an affidavit that contains information and belief of the peace officer or public officer, or any other peace officer or public officer, that meets the criteria outlined in parts (a) through (e) of this section. The affidavit must contain reasonable grounds to believe that an offence against any Act of Parliament has been or will be committed, the specific particulars of the offence, the name of the person who has consented to the interception, the period for which the authorization is requested, and, if applicable, information about a previous authorization. This section is part of the broader regime governing the interception of private communications in Canada. It seeks to balance the need for effective law enforcement with the rights of individuals to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. In order to obtain an authorization for the interception of communications, the police or other law enforcement agencies must meet a high standard of proof, ensuring that such interceptions are only authorized when necessary to prevent or investigate serious crimes.

COMMENTARY

Section 184.2(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the procedure that needs to be followed in order for interceptive devices to be legally used to collect private communications. Essentially, the section requires that an application for an authorization, or warrant, be made to a judge by a peace officer or designated public officer. The warrant is then subject to a number of requirements outlined in the section, which are designed to ensure that the warrant is only issued in circumstances where it is absolutely necessary and proportionate to do so. One of the key requirements for obtaining a warrant under Section 184.2(2) is that there must be reasonable grounds to believe that an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament has been or will be committed. This requirement ensures that a warrant cannot be approved simply because an investigating officer suspects that a crime has been committed; there must be credible and specific evidence to support the application. Another important aspect of the section is the requirement for an accompanying affidavit. The affidavit provides the judge with the information that justifies the issuing of the warrant. This enables the judge to assess the reliability and credibility of the information provided and to ensure that the requirements of the section have been met. The section also requires that the name of the person who has consented to the interception be provided. This ensures that the person who will be affected by the interception has given their consent and is aware that their communications may be monitored. The period for which the authorization is requested is also required, which provides a time limit for the use of the interceptive device. In addition, the section requires that if an authorization has previously been granted under Section 184.2(2) or Section 186, the details of the previous authorization must be provided. This ensures that the judge is aware of any previous interception of communication that may have occurred and prevents an individual from being subjected to prolonged or excessive surveillance. Overall, Section 184.2(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada sets out a clear and rigorous process for obtaining an authorization for the interception of private communications. This ensures that the privacy of individuals is protected while still allowing for law enforcement to carry out their duties in the investigation and prevention of crime. The section is an important safeguard against abusive or excessive use of interceptive devices and reinforces the fundamental principle that privacy is a right that is fundamental to a free and democratic society.

STRATEGY

Section 184.2(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the requirements for an application for an authorization for interception of communications. There are several strategic considerations to keep in mind when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code. Firstly, it is essential to ensure that the application is made ex parte, meaning that it is made without notifying the other parties involved. This is to prevent any potential destruction of evidence or interference with the investigation. The application should be made to a provincial court judge, a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction, or a judge as defined in section 552. Secondly, the application for authorization must be accompanied by an affidavit, which should set out the grounds for the belief that an offense has been or will be committed. The affidavit must also include details of the offense, the name of the person who has consented to the interception, the period for which the authorization is requested, and the particulars of any previous authorizations that have been granted. When considering strategies for dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, one approach is to ensure that all of the requirements are met to the letter of the law. This means ensuring that the affidavit is comprehensive and includes all of the necessary details. It also means ensuring that the application is made to the appropriate judge and that it is made ex parte. Another strategy that could be employed is to work closely with law enforcement agencies and other public officials to ensure that the application is strong and has the best chance of being granted. This could involve partnering with a reputable and experienced legal team with experience in this area. It is also worth considering the potential repercussions of intercepting communications. Interception, if not done correctly, can lead to legal and ethical issues and can potentially harm the reputation of individuals or organizations involved. It is crucial to consider the potential harm that can occur, and to only proceed with interception where it is necessary for the prosecution of an offense. Overall, the strategic considerations when dealing with Section 184.2(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada involve ensuring that all of the requirements are met, working closely with law enforcement agencies and public officials, and carefully considering the potential harm that can occur from interception of communications. By taking a strategic approach, individuals and organizations can navigate this challenging area of the law and ensure that justice is done.