Case Study: Examining the R. V. Fearon Decision on Cell Phone Searches

This case study analyzes the R. V. Fearon decision by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the legality of police searches of cell phones incident to arrest. The paper discusses the circumstances under which such searches are permissible, highlighting the balance between law enforcement needs and individual privacy rights. It references the Supreme Court's ruling that police can search an arrested person's cell phone under specific conditions, even without a warrant, but emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal safeguards. The analysis covers the facts of the Fearon case, where a cell phone search led to the discovery of incriminating evidence, and discusses the implications of this decision for personal privacy and police powers in Canada. The study concludes by emphasizing the responsibility of citizens to avoid criminal activity to protect their privacy, in light of the legal standards established after R. V. Fearon.

1Introduction to Criminal Justice System
Running head: INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Introduction to Criminal Justice System
Author’s Name
Institution

2Introduction to Criminal Justice System
Introduction to Criminal Justice System
Introduction
Yes, I agree with the majority of the Court in R. V. Fearon because the police can search
the cell phone of an arrested person under the law. In addition, it is considered to be legal under
certain circumstances stated by the law of the country. Since the people have every right for
being secure, the third point can be stated that an individual is responsible for himself if he or she
commits crime, which further makes searching of the cell phone legally liable (Quattlebaum,
2012). Hence, this study focuses on projecting a description on the three major points, which are
addressed under 3 paragraphs below.
Body
Under the statement of Supreme Court of Canada, it is stated that police have the right to
search or use the arrested person’s cell phone, even if they do not have warrant. However, the
police are only allowed to do so under certain specific conditions (Hoffman, Pinsonnault &
Chad, 2015). This can be projected in the case of R. V. Fearon, where his cell phone was
searched by the Canadian police after he was arrested without a warrant. In this case, it is
observed that the Fearon had committed a crime but the facts about his crime were unknown
until the police saw his cell phone by themselves. On searching his cell phone, the police was
able to find the images of the gun and cash along with a text message about jewellery that were
stolen (Tucker, 2014).
Based on the same context, the searching of Fearon’s cell phone was a violation on
looking for personal belongings. The Supreme Court of Canada also ruled out and stated that
instead of searching an individual’s cell phone, the police must search and get varying
information of the personal details about the person through the service providers. The Canadian

3Introduction to Criminal Justice System
Court also mentioned that without any warrant, searching of private belongings without a
warrant is enforced by the law. Here, one of the major circumstances that must be met by the
police in order to search the cell phone of an arrested individual is that they must have an access
under the law of the authority. The court also considers that this circumstance does not consider
violating privacy of a person, who is arrested (Bogart, 2016).
The police of Canada not only are given permission to gain access on the arrested
person’s cell phone by monitoring the current scenario. After the case of R.V. Fearon, the
Supreme Court has also stated the two major standards under the decision of an arrested person.
In this context, the first standard is that the police can search a cell phone even if a person is
arrested without being charged. The other standard set by the Supreme Court of Canada is that an
individual must take care and stay out of criminal actions because if they are arrested than their
cell phones will be searched and privacy will be shared if any offensive information is found
(Malmo, 2014).
Conclusion
After the case of R. V. Fearon, the Supreme Court of Canada has developed standards for
alerting the citizens on taking their own responsibility and not blame anyone, if their privacy is
violated.

4Introduction to Criminal Justice System
References
Bogart, N. (2016). Can law enforcement legally access data on your smartphone in Canada?.
Retrieved July 14, 2018, form https://globalnews.ca/news/2537715/can-law-enforcement-
legally-access-data-on-your-smartphone-in-canada/
Hoffman, P. C. C., Pinsonnault, G. & Chad, J. (2015). Warrantless searches of cell phones upon
arrest are lawful in Canada—but strict safeguards apply. Canadian Privacy Law, 12(3),
1-5.
Malmo, C. (2014). Canadian cops can now search your phone if you’ve been arrested, so slap a
password on it. Retrieved July 15, 2018, from
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/avay8a/canadian-cops-can-now-search-your-phone-
if-youve-been-arrested-so-slap-a-password-on-it-426
Quattlebaum, J. (2012). Should police be able to search cell phones without a warrant?.
Retrieved July 15, 2018, from http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/should-
police-be-able-to-search-cell-phones-without-a-warrant
Tucker, E. (2014). What rules must police follow to search a cellphone during arrest?. Retrieved
July 15, 2018, from https://globalnews.ca/news/1721307/what-rules-must-police-follow-
to-search-a-cellphone-during-arrest/