INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
A peace officer can use a written statement instead of swearing an oath if using telecommunication.
SECTION WORDING
487.1(3.1) A peace officer who uses a means of telecommunication referred to in subsection (2.1) may, instead of swearing an oath, make a statement in writing stating that all matters contained in the information are true to his or her knowledge and belief and such a statement is deemed to be a statement made under oath.
EXPLANATION
Section 487.1(3.1) of the Canadian Criminal Code deals with the use of electronic communication technology in the process of obtaining a search warrant. The section allows a peace officer, who is seeking the warrant, to use a means of telecommunication, such as email, to forward the affidavit to a judicial officer for authorization. This is an important development in the Criminal Code because it simplifies the process of obtaining a search warrant and streamlines the process of seeking judicial approval for a search. In the past, police officers had to submit documents more formally, requiring a sworn oath before a judge could grant a warrant. This process was often time-consuming and cumbersome, especially in urgent situations where prompt action was required. Under section 487.1(3.1), the peace officer does not have to swear an oath in person before a judge. Instead, they can make a statement in writing that attests to the truth of the information contained in the affidavit. This statement is deemed to be a statement made under oath, which means it carries the same weight and legal significance as if the officer swore it in an in-person hearing. This section provides a practical solution for obtaining search warrants more quickly and efficiently. It also ensures that the information provided by the officer is reliable and trustworthy, as they must attest to its accuracy in writing under penalty of perjury. Overall, section 487.1(3.1) is an important innovation in the Criminal Code that reflects the modern reality of communication technology and helps police in their investigative work.
COMMENTARY
Section 487.1(3.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that allows for a peace officer to use a means of telecommunication and make a statement in writing, instead of swearing an oath. The statement made is deemed to be made under oath, and the purpose of this provision is to make the process of gathering evidence and taking statements from witnesses or suspects more efficient and reliable. The use of a means of telecommunication such as video conferencing, email, or telephone, enables officers to communicate with individuals who may be located far away or who are unable to come to the police station. This provision is particularly useful in situations where an officer needs to take an urgent statement from a witness or a suspect who is in another location, and time is of the essence. By allowing an officer to make a statement in writing, instead of swearing an oath, this provision simplifies the process of taking statements. It removes the need for the officer to physically meet the witness or the suspect and also eliminates the need for the individual to travel to the police station. This not only saves time and resources but also reduces the stress placed on the individual who may already be going through a difficult time. Moreover, the provision also ensures that the statement made by the officer is as reliable and trustworthy as one made under oath. By requiring the officer to attest that all the matters contained in the information are true to their knowledge and belief, the provision eliminates the risk of the officer making a false statement. The officer has a legal obligation to provide accurate and truthful information, and any breach of this can result in serious consequences. Furthermore, the provision ensures that the statement made is admissible in court. The statement made by the officer is considered to be made under oath, and therefore, it has the same legal weight as a formal statement made in a court of law. This ensures that the statement made by the officer can be used as evidence in any court case, thus increasing the chances of a conviction. It is important to note that while this provision is useful, it is not a replacement for in-person statements or sworn testimony. In cases where the authenticity or accuracy of the statement is in question, the statement made via telecommunication may be viewed as less reliable than one made in person. Therefore, this provision should only be used in situations where the physical presence of the witness or suspect is not possible or practical. In conclusion, 487.1(3.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that allows for the use of telecommunication to gather evidence and take statements. It is a useful tool for officers in situations where time is of the essence, and it provides a reliable and admissible statement. However, it should only be used in situations where an in-person statement is not possible or practical.
STRATEGY
Section 487.1(3.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada presents significant strategic considerations when dealing with electronic surveillance. The section allows peace officers to use means of telecommunication to gather information without physically being present at the location under surveillance. In essence, this provision enables law enforcement to gather evidence without being detected or alerting the suspect. However, there are some strategic considerations that need to be taken into account when utilizing this provision in order to avoid legal complications and maximize its effectiveness. One critical strategy is to ensure that the means of communication used for surveillance are lawful. This means that the mode of surveillance must conform to the legal guidelines stipulated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For instance, the communication should not violate the privacy rights of the suspect or any other person who might be in the vicinity. The evidence obtained through such surveillance must also meet the admissibility criteria, especially regarding the right to counsel and the principle against self-incrimination. Another critical tactic is to ensure that evidence gathered through electronic surveillance is credible. This implies that the evidence gathered must be reliable and trustworthy. In particular, the authentication of electronic communications is vital for their admissibility. For instance, when using electronic evidence, such as emails, chat messages, or texts, it's essential to ensure that there is a reliable trail of authentication, such as IP addresses, tracking numbers, and timestamps. Maintaining the integrity of the evidence is another key strategic consideration. It's critical to ensure that data collected through telecommunication is not tampered with, altered, or misplaced. In particular, investigators must ensure that the metadata associated with the electronic evidence is preserved, such as file creation and modification dates, authorship attributions, and source code. When dealing with section 487.1(3.1), investigators must ensure that the means of communication used do not damage the perceived legitimacy of the investigation. For example, the use of sophisticated surveillance technologies, such as Stingray devices, without appropriate oversight, can damage public trust in law enforcement and leave open the possibility of a future legal challenge to evidence gathered. A final strategic consideration is the need to balance the risks and benefits of electronic surveillance against the legal and ethical considerations involved. Investigators should weigh the potential benefits against the negative impacts on the privacy and other fundamental rights of the suspect and other individuals involved in the investigation. In conclusion, Section 487.1(3.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada presents several strategic considerations when dealing with electronic surveillance. Investigators must ensure that the means of communication used are legal and that the evidence obtained is admissible, credible, and maintains its integrity. Furthermore, there is a need to consider the potential legal and ethical implications of using electronic surveillance, and the risks and benefits must be carefully weighed and balanced to ensure that the investigation can proceed transparently and ethically.