Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Electronic surveillance and the police : a comparative study of the Canadian and Japanese systems Ishikawa, Shoichiro 1986

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A6_4 I83.pdf [ 6.01MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077692.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077692-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077692-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077692-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077692-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077692-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077692-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077692-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077692.ris

Full Text

ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE AND THE POLICE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE CANADIAN AND JAPANESE SYSTEMS by SHOICHIRO ISHIKAWA LL.B., U n i v e r s i t y of Tokyo, 1981 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Fac u l t y of Law) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 1986 © Sh o i c h i r o Ishikawa, 1986 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Law  The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date November 17, 1986 ABSTRACT " E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e " , the mechanical technique to monitor p r i v a t e communications of the suspect i s one of the most powerful weapons of the p o l i c e i n modern c r i m e - p r e v a i l i n g s o c i e t i e s . In Canada the attempt to set up a l e g a l framework to balance the p o l i c e need f o r e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e against the c i t i z e n ' s r i g h t to p r i v a c y r e s u l t e d i n the P r o t e c t i o n of Privacy  Act proclaimed on June 30, 1974. In Japan, i n c o n t r a s t , with no s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i o n governing e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , the p o l i c e r e f r a i n from r e s o r t i n g to t h i s enchanting method of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The purpose of t h i s study i s to propose a d e s i r a b l e e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e law i n Japan, taking advantage of the Canadian precedent i n t h i s f i e l d . The i n t r o d u c t o r y p o r t i o n of t h i s study focusses on the concept of p r i v a c y i n the West and Japan. Despite the vast d i f f e r e n c e i n t r a d i t i o n a l p r i v a c y consciousness between Canada and Japan, p r i v a c y has been recognized as a l e g a l l y protected i n t e r e s t i n both co u n t r i e s . In the f i r s t h a l f of the main p o r t i o n , the study analyzes the Canadian e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e l e g i s l a t i o n from the standpoint of the p o l i c e . While providing the most powerful i n v e s t i g a t i v e t o o l , the law also has had a negative impact upon the Canadian p o l i c e i n that i t brought about undue i n t e r f e r e n c e , - i i -j u d i c i a l or otherwise, i n the o p e r a t i o n of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . In the l a s t h a l f of the main p o r t i o n , the study deals with the Japanese system f o r e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . The c o n c l u s i o n reached i s that the Canadian l e g i s l a t i v e precedent can, with some necessary m o d i f i c a t i o n , be an a p p r o p r i a t e model f o r Japan, and that Japan should i n t r o d u c e an e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e system with l e s s i n t r u s i v e power than i n Canada while p r e s e r v i n g the t r a d i t i o n a l independent a u t h o r i t y of the p o l i c e i n c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 I I . PRIVACY IN THE WEST AND JAPAN 3 A. P r i v a c y i n Canada and Other Western Co u n t r i e s 3 B. P r i v a c y i n Japan 9 I I I . ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE IN CANADA 17 A. E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e before the Enactment of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act 17 1. P o l i c e Behaviour 17 2. L e g i s l a t i o n and Court D e c i s i o n s 20 3. Advent of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act 23 B. A n a l y s i s of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act 24 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n 24 2. General O u t l i n e of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act 26 3. Scope of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act 29 a. Meaning of P r i v a t e Communication 30 ( i ) General D e f i n i t i o n 30 ( i i ) S u s p i c i o n of the O r i g i n a t o r 30 ( i i i ) Knowledge of the O r i g i n a t o r 32 ( i v ) Consent of the O r i g i n a t o r 33 (v) O r i g i n a t o r of Communication 36 b. Meaning of I n t e r c e p t i o n 37 ( i ) Requirement of T h i r d Party 37 ( i i ) Requirement of Use of A r t i f i c i a l Device 39 4. Lawful E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e 40 a. E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e with Consent 41 b. E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e with J u d i c i a l A u t h o r i z a t i o n 44 - i v -TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ( i ) Ordinary A u t h o r i z a t i o n 44 ( i i ) Known Person and Primary Target 48 ( i i i ) Renewal of A u t h o r i z a t i o n 53 ( i v ) Emergency A u t h o r i z a t i o n 54 (v) P o s t - A u t h o r i z a t i o n Notice 54 5. E v i d e n t i a l Rule 55 a. Primary Evidence 56 b. D e r i v a t i v e Evidence 57 C. Impact of the P r o t e c t i o n of Privacy Act on 57 the P o l i c e 1. P o s i t i v e Aspect to the P o l i c e 57 2. Negative Aspect to the P o l i c e 61 3. Conclusion 65 D. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the P r o t e c t i o n of Privacy Act 65 IV. ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE IN JAPAN 72 A. Necessity of E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e 72 B. Legitimacy of E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e 78 1. Court Decision 78 2. L e g i s l a t i o n 80 3. C o n s t i t u t i o n 83 4. Conclusion 87 C. Desirable Contents of E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e Law i n Japan 88 V. CONCLUSION 96 - v -TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) NOTES 99 BIBLIOGRAPHY 121 - v i -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am deeply indebted to three UBC Law P r o f e s s o r s : Dean Peter Burns f o r h i s l e c t u r e on the Canadian p o l i c e system at the Na t i o n a l P o l i c e Agency i n Tokyo i n June, 1985, which convinced me of the importance of resea r c h i n t o t h i s area of the law; Dr. John Hogarth f o r h i s h e l p f u l s u p e r v i s i o n and c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m ; and Dr. Malcolm Smith f o r h i s continuous encouragement. I a l s o owe a great deal to A s s i s t a n t Commissioner D.K. Wilson, "E" D i v i s i o n , Royal Canadian Mounted P o l i c e , D i r e c t o r P h i l Crosby-Jones, P o l i c e Academy, J u s t i c e I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia, Inspector A. Andrascik, Co-ordinated Law Enforcement U n i t , M i n i s t r y of the Attorney General, Inspector J.L. C r i c h , Vancouver P o l i c e Department, and many other o f f i c e r s f o r t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p and a s s i s t a n c e which provided me with the p r a c t i c a l i n s i g h t i n t o the a c t u a l o p e r a t i o n of the law. This study was made p o s s i b l e by f i n a n c i a l support from the Japanese Government, which granted me i t s long-term graduate s c h o l a r s h i p from 1985 to 1987. I am g r a t e f u l to the s t a f f of the Nat i o n a l P o l i c e Agency and the N a t i o n a l Personnel A u t h o r i t y f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e i n my o b t a i n i n g t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y . F i n a l l y , and most imp o r t a n t l y , thanks are owed to my w i f e , Satomi, f o r her pa t i e n c e and inner support. - v i i -I. INTRODUCTION The development of modern technology has provided the p o l i c e with various advanced methods to c o l l e c t c r i m i n a l information, i d e n t i f y suspects and survey t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s . Among them, " e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e " , the mechanical technique to l i s t e n to and record p r i v a t e communications of the suspects i s one of the most powerful weapons of the p o l i c e i n t h e i r performing the c r i m e - f i g h t i n g duty. On the other hand, i t could create a continuous threat to the c i t i z e n ' s r i g h t to privacy i f performed without reasonable and necessary c o n t r o l . Thus, i n the context of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i t i s important to set up a framework to balance the two c o n f l i c t i n g s o c i a l i n t e r e s t s , namely, the need of the p o l i c e to obtain information on c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t i e s and the p r o t e c t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t to p r i v a c y . In Canada, the attempt to set up t h i s framework r e s u l t e d i n the P r o t e c t i o n of Privacy A c t l proclaimed on June 30, 1974, which has decided the scope of lawfu l i n t e r c e p t i o n by the p o l i c e of p r i v a t e communications under r e s t r i c t i n g c o n d i t i o n s . A f t e r a decade of confusing p r a c t i c e , the law now seems to have furnished the p o l i c e with the most e f f e c t i v e method of both evidence-gathering and i n t e l l i g e n c e -gathering i n major crime i n v e s t i g a t i o n , while p r o t e c t i n g the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to pri v a c y of the c i t i z e n s by v i r t u e of j u d i c i a l c o n t r o l over the p o l i c e conduct. - 1 -In Japan, on the other hand, with no s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i o n governing e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e the p o l i c e r e f r a i n from r e s o r t i n g to t h i s enchanting method of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n , with the r e s u l t that i t i s g e t t i n g d i f f i c u l t f o r them to deal with the d e t e r i o r a t i n g crime s i t u a t i o n i n the country. E s p e c i a l l y , i t seems impossible f o r the p o l i c e to suppress, only by means of the t r a d i t i o n a l methods of i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the e s c a l a t i n g a c t i v i t i e s both of "Boryokudan", the t r a d i t i o n a l organized crime, and of "Kageki-ha", the u l . t r a - l e f t w i n g t e r r o r i s t s . The purpose of t h i s study i s to propose a d e s i r a b l e e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e law i n Japan, t a k i n g advantage of the Canadian precedent i n t h i s f i e l d . T h i s w i l l be done through a n a l y s i s of the l e g a l s i t u a t i o n s concerning e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i n Canada and Japan, and examination of the d i f f e r e n c e i n crime s i t u a t i o n and p o l i c e a c c o u n t a b i l i t y between the two c o u n t r i e s . - 2 -I I . PRIVACY IN THE WEST AND JAPAN Before s t a r t i n g the d i s c u s s i o n on the main t o p i c of t h i s study, namely, e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e per se, I would l i k e to b r i e f l y examine the concept of p r i v a c y i n Japan as compared with that i n the West, because e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i s i n s e p a r a b l y r e l a t e d to the i n t r u s i o n s i n t o the p r i v a c y of suspects and other c i t i z e n s concerned. The P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y  Act i s a l e g a l framework by the Canadian l e g i s l a t u r e to balance the p o l i c e need against the p r i v a c y r i g h t . If there e x i s t s a fundamental d i f f e r e n c e i n the concept of p r i v a c y as a l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d i n t e r e s t between both c o u n t r i e s , the Canadian l e g i s l a t i v e precedent might be i r r e l e v a n t to the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e law i n Japan which i s to be proposed i n t h i s study. A. P r i v a c y i n Canada and Other Western Countries It goes without saying that people i n Canada and other Western c o u n t r i e s p l a c e much value on p r i v a c y . According to a survey conducted by B e l l Canada i n May, 1982, " p r i v a c y and c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s the key p u b l i c issue surrounding the spread of new t e c h n o l o g i e s . " 2 The London P r i v a c y Survey, which p o l l e d a random sample of 210 households i n London, Ontario i n 1982, showed that n i n e t y percent of respondents c i t e d the p r o t e c t i o n of p r i v a c y as important or very important, and that sixty-two percent of them were very concerned or somewhat concerned about the t h r e a t s to t h e i r own p r i v a c y . 3 - 3 -Although i t was i n 1890 when the l e g a l r i g h t to p r i v a c y was claimed f o r the f i r s t time, p r i v a c y had long been an important concept i n Western t h i n k i n g . It i s maintained that the e x i s t e n c e of the p r i v a t e realm "can be found, marked o f f , h i n t e d a t , or groped f o r i n some of [the] o l d e s t l e g a l codes and i n the most i n f l u e n t i a l p h i l o s o p h i c a l w r i t i n g s ' ^ i n the West, such as the B i b l e , S o c r a t e s , P l a t o , Thomas More and Locke.5 For i n s t a n c e , Lubor Velecky p o i n t s out that Aquinas' Summa  Theologiae, a t y p i c a l medieval encyclopedia of moral problems, co n t a i n s s e v e r a l d i s c u s s i o n s germane to p r i v a c y . 6 Aquinas recognized the d i s t i n c t i o n between the sphere of the p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l and that of the community, and h i s " d i s c u s s i o n of the supremacy of i n d i v i d u a l conscience i m p l i e s that a high value i s set upon the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e r i o r i t y and autonomy."7 Modern a p p r e c i a t i o n of p r i v a c y d i f f u s e d i n European and North American s o c i e t i e s during the t h i r d quarter of the n i n e t e e n t h century, when a huge number of the urban working c l a s s e s , who were f r e e from the oppressive moral o p i n i o n of v i l l a g e and r u r a l s o c i e t y and from the d a i l y s c r u t i n y of others i n the small communities, emerged as a r e s u l t of the i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n . In P r i v a c y : I t s C o n s t i t u t i o n and V i c i s s i t u d e s , 8 P r o f e s s o r Edward S h i l s d e t a i l e d the reasons f o r the increase i n the amount of p r i v a c y enjoyed during t h i s p e r i o d . According to the a r t i c l e , i n a d d i t i o n to the b a s i c e c o l o g i c a l and economic changes a s s o c i a t e d with u r b a n i z a t i o n and i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , the emergence of the concept of r e s p e c t a b i l i t y among the urban working c l a s s e s of the i n d u s t r i a l c o u n t r i e s , the p u r i t a n i c a l - 4 -ethos which "not only emphasized each man's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r h i s own soul and the w e l l - b e i n g and p r o p e r t y of h i s own f a m i l y but a l s o encouraged him to be ambitious"9 and thereby "focused h i s a t t e n t i o n on a remote goal and ... d i v e r t e d h i s a t t e n t i o n from h i s neighbors",10 the growth of i n d i v i d u a l i t y , the growth of l i t e r a c y and i n c r e a s e d education, and the repect by the i n c r e a s i n g l y l i b e r a l and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l governments f o r p r i v a t e economic a c t i v i t i e s were the main f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g to the e f f l o r e s c e n c e of p r i v a c y i n the t h i r d quarter of the nineteenth century, which i s c a l l e d "the golden age of p r i v a c y " . However, the golden age was not l o n g - l i v e d . By the end of the n i n t e e n t h century, people i n the West had begun to be much concerned about the t h r e a t s to t h e i r p r i v a c y . T h e i r p r i v a t e l i v e s became more and more v u l n e r a b l e to i n t r u s i o n s by "popular j o u r n a l i s m , p r i v a t e p o l i c e and i n v e s t i g a t o r s , the s p e c i a l i s t of personnel recruitment i n l a r g e - s c a l e p r i v a t e b u s i n e s s , and the p r a c t i t i o n e r s of p s y c h o l o g i c a l and ... s o c i o l o g i c a l research."11 In 1890 a personal o u t c r y of a Boston lawyer Samuel Warren against the yellow j o u r n a l i s m which had p u b l i s h e d d e t a i l e d g o s s i p y s t o r i e s about Mrs. Warren's p r i v a t e a f f a i r s turned out an a r t i c l e d e n t i t l e d "The Right to Privacy"12 by Warren h i m s e l f and h i s c o l l e a g u e , Louis Brandeis. The a r t i c l e i n the Harvard Law Review examined a number of common law precedents i n which r e l i e f had been a f f o r d e d on s e v e r a l ' d i f f e r e n t grounds such as defamation, breach of c o n f i d e n c e , i n v a s i o n of p r o p e r t y r i g h t , e t c . , and concluded that they were i n r e a l i t y based upon a broader p r i n c i p l e e n t i t l e d to separate r e c o g n i t i o n , to w i t , the - 5 -r i g h t to p r i v a c y . The new r i g h t proposed by the a r t i c l e was l a t e r d e s c r i b e d by Brandeis as a Supreme Court J u s t i c e as "the most comprehensive of r i g h t s and the r i g h t most valued by c i v i l i z e d men",13 and has been an i n c r e a s i n g l y important l e g a l i s s u e i n Western c o u n t r i e s , where the enlarged government bureaucracy demands intimate d e t a i l s about many aspects of the p r i v a t e l i v e s of the c i t i z e n s i n exchange f o r var i o u s p u b l i c s e r v i c e s provided to them, and where the c o l l e c t i o n of p r i v a t e i n f o r m a t i o n both by the law enforcement agencies and by various o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n the p r i v a t e s e c t o r i s g e t t i n g more and more i n t r u s i v e i n p r o p o r t i o n to the development of modern technology.14 In f a c t , the a r t i c l e by Warren and Brandeis, which recognized f o r the f i r s t time the l e g a l r i g h t to p r i v a c y , succeeded i n having a tremendous impact upon American j u r i s p r u d e n c e . " I t enjoys the unique d i s t i n c t i o n of having synthesized at one stroke a whole new category of l e g a l r i g h t s and of having i n i t i a t e d a new f i e l d of jurisprudence."15 W i t h i n a year a f t e r the p u b l i c a t i o n the f i r s t r e p o r t e d case appeared which e x p r e s s l y recognized, c i t i n g the Warren and Brandeis a r t i c l e . , the r i g h t to p r i v a c y . 16 In 1902 the e x i s t e n c e of the new r i g h t was i n iss u e f o r the f i r s t time before a court of l a s t r e s o r t i n Robertson v. Rochester F o l d i n g Box Co.,17 where the defendant made use of the p i c t u r e of a young lady to a d v e r t i s e i t s merchandise without her consent. The p l a i n t i f f asked f o r an i n j u n c t i o n to stop the p u b l i c a t i o n of her p i c t u r e as we l l as compensation f o r damages. The New York Court of Appeal i n t h i s - 6 -case r e j e c t e d the p l a i n t i f f ' s request, d e c l i n i n g to recognize the r i g h t to p r i v a c y . The d e c i s i o n brought about a storm of p u b l i c d i s a p p r o v a l , which e v e n t u a l l y f o r c e d the New York l e g i s l a t u r e to pass laws p r o t e c t i n g privacy.18 In 1905 the Supreme Court of Georgia d e a l t with e s s e n t i a l l y the same qu e s t i o n i n Pavesich v.  New England L i f e Insurance Company,19 where the defendant used the p l a i n t i f f ' s name and p i c t u r e i n i t s newspaper advertisement without h i s consent. In t h i s case the court refused to f o l l o w Robertson and recognized the e x i s t e n c e of a d i s t i n c t r i g h t of p r i v a c y proposed by Warren and Brandeis. T h i s became the l e a d i n g case t h e r e a f t e r , and the r i g h t to p r i v a c y came to be recognized i n v i r t u a l l y a l l j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n the United States.20 In c o n t r a s t to the American c o u n t e r p a r t s , the Canadian courts have been r e l u c t a n t to recognize a general r i g h t to p r i v a c y . Instead, the term of p r i v a c y has been used as a statement of p r i n c i p l e i n support of some other a l r e a d y recognized r i g h t or cause of action.21 L i k e the E n g l i s h c o u r t s , the Canadian c o u r t s "have been content to grope forward, c a u t i o u s l y along the grooves of e s t a b l i s h e d l e g a l concepts ... r a t h e r than make a b o l d commitment to an e n t i r e l y new head of l i a b i l i t y . " 2 2 However, p r i v a c y i n t e r e s t s had long been l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d by v a r i o u s causes of a c t i o n recognized at common law, such as defamation, breach of c o n t r a c t , i n t e r f e r e n c e with a p r o p e r t y r i g h t , t r e s p a s s and nuisance, as w e l l as by miscellaneous s t a t u t e s remedies such as S e c t i o n 173 and S e c t i o n 3 8 1 ( l ) ( f ) of the C r i m i n a l Code.23 Further, p r i o r to the enactment of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act i n 1973, which was the - 7 -f i r s t f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n whose main object was to p r o t e c t the r i g h t to privacy,24 the Provinces of B r i t i s h Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan had adopted general P r i v a c y Acts25 and thereby c r e a t e d c i v i l l i a b i l i t y f o r unreasonable i n v a s i o n s of p r i v a c y . According to the d e s c r i p t i o n by P r o f e s s o r Peter Burns i n 1976, "the combined e f f e c t of the extant common law, and p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n , g rants[ed] Canadians a f a i r measure of p r o t e c t i o n against i n v a s i o n s of p r i v a c y . " 2 6 The concept of p r i v a c y covers a wide range of human a c t i v i t i e s . It i s s a i d that the law of p r i v a c y i s d i r e c t e d at four kinds of i n v a s i o n : " i n t r u s i o n s upon the p l a i n t i f f ' s p h y s i c a l s e c l u s i o n or s o l i t u d e , p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e of p r i v a t e f a c t s , p u b l i c i t y which p l a c e s the p l a i n t i f f i n a f a l s e l i g h t and a p p r o p r i a t i o n f o r the defendant's b e n e f i t of the p l a i n t i f f ' s name or l i k e n e s s . " 2 7 A l s o , i t i s maintained that p s y c h o l o g i c a l s u r v e i l l a n c e and data s u r v e i l l a n c e be added to the c a t e g o r i e s of i n v a s i o n of p r i v a c y . 2 8 The e x p l o r a t i o n of developments of case law on each of m u l t i f a r i o u s aspects of the p r i v a c y r i g h t i s not a task of t h i s study. However, i n the context of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , we should note that both i n the United S t a t e s and Canada i t has been recognized by the c o u r t s that the p r i v a c y r i g h t i s not merely p r o t e c t e d by a c i v i l a c t i o n i n t o r t , but a l s o guaranteed by the C o n s t i t u t i o n . In Katz v. United States,29 the Supreme Court of the United S t a t e s h e l d : [T]he Fourth Amendment p r o t e c t s people, not p l a c e s . What a person knowingly exposes to the p u b l i c , even i n h i s own home or o f f i c e , i s not a s u b j e c t of Fourth Amendment p r o t e c t i o n . But what he seeks to preserve as p r i v a t e , even i n an area a c c e s s i b l e to the p u b l i c , may be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y protected.30 - 8 -S i m i l a r l y , the Supreme Court of Canada i n Hunter et a l .  v. Southam Inc.31 d e c l a r e d , as d e t a i l e d l a t e r i n t h i s study, that S e c t i o n 8 of the Canadian Charter of R i g h t s and Freedoms32 guaranteeing "the r i g h t to be secure a g a i n s t unreasonable search or s e i z u r e " p r o t e c t s the r i g h t of p r i v a c y . Thus, the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n of p r i v a c y i n Canada i s to be one of the primary c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n t h i s study. B. P r i v a c y i n Japan The not i o n of p r i v a c y i n any s o c i e t y i s profoundly a f f e c t e d by c u l t u r e and t r a d i t i o n s . T h e r e f o r e , value of p r i v a c y v a r i e s from s o c i e t y to s o c i e t y . It i s widely known that the t r a d i t i o n a l Japanese s o c i e t y p l a c e d l i t t l e value on p r i v a c y of i n d i v i d u a l s . Indeed, Japanese language used to c o n t a i n no p r e c i s e e q u i v a l e n t to " p r i v a c y " . T h e r e f o r e , the E n g l i s h word " p r i v a c y " ( p h o n e t i c a l l y s p e l l e d " p u r a i b a s h i " ) i s used i n c u r r e n t l i t e r a t u r e . The o p i n i o n survey of p r i v a c y consciousness conducted by the Prime M i n i s t e r ' s O f f i c e i n February, 1981, which p o l l e d a random sample of 3,000 a d u l t s i n the country, shows a s t r i k i n g c o n t r a s t to the London P r i v a c y Survey, supra. Ten percent of respondents d i d not know the concept of p r i v a c y . Only twenty-five percent of them were concerned about the p r o t e c t i o n of p r i v a c y . The r a t i o of those who had experienced any i n t r u s i o n i n t o t h e i r own p r i v a c y was no more than nineteen percent.33 It seems that the emphasis i n Western c u l t u r e on the value of p r i v a c y i s g r e a t l y r e l a t e d to the C h r i s t i a n p r i n c i p l e s , - 9 -upon which Western c i v i l i z a t i o n has been b u i l t , advocating the importance of i n d i v i d u a l i t y . According to the C h r i s t i a n concept of human being, Man, made i n the image of God, i s "above a l l a s p i r i t u a l being, i n t e l l i g e n t and f r e e , endowed with an immortal s o u l ; i n s h o r t , a person, and as such, exceeding i n value a l l the m a t e r i a l u n i v e r s e while having charge and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r h i s own destiny."34 And i n order to ensure the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e g r i t y and the development of personal i d e n t i t y , i t i s e s s e n t i a l to p r o t e c t a zone of p r i v a c y w i t h i n which the u l t i m a t e s e c r e t s of one's core s e l f remain i n v i o l a b l e a g a i n s t unwanted i n t r u s i o n or observation.35 Despite the c o n s i d e r a b l e disagreement about the d e f i n i t i o n of p r i v a c y r i g h t among Western l e g a l students (e.g. " r i g h t to be l e t alone",36 "the c l a i m of i n d i v i d u a l s , groups, or i n s t i t u t i o n s to determine f o r themselves when, how, and to what extent i n f o r m a t i o n about them i s communicated to o t h e r s " , 37 " c o n t r o l over when and by whom the ( p h y s i c a l ) p a r t of us (as i d e n t i f i a b l e persons) can be seen or heard ( i n person or by use of photographs, r e c o r d i n g s , T.V. , e t c . ) , touched, smelled or t a s t e d by o t h e r s " 3 8 ) , there seems to be no d i s p u t e that p r i v a c y i s an e s s e n t i a l means to guarantee i n d i v i d u a l autonomy and personal freedom as w e l l as a fundamental element of the res p e c t and d i g n i t y that i n d i v i d u a l s are owed as human beings.39 In c o n t r a s t , Japanese c u l t u r e has no t r a d i t i o n emphasizing the autonomy of i n d i v i d u a l s , from which the value of p r i v a c y i s d e r i v e d i n Western c u l t u r e . The t r a d i t i o n of Buddhism, which has had a profound i n f l u e n c e upon the Japanese m e n t a l i t y , - 10 -"recognizes the temporal, p a s s i n g , impermanent, changing nature of ego, and by so doing i s l e d to f i n d the true s e l f through i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with u n i v e r s a l oneness."40 Thus, according to the Buddist t r a d i t i o n , the i d e a l s t a t e of mind of a human being i s Muga no Kyochi ( s t a t e of no-ego), which means "the r e j e c t i o n of the s e l f as an independent agent separate from the web of int e r c o n n e c t e d c o n d i t i o n e d causes."41 A l s o , Confucianism, which had long dominated the t r a d i t i o n a l moral consciousness of Japanese people, emphasizes c o l l e c t i v i s m as opposed to i n d i v i d u a l i s m . According to the Confucian concept of Man and s o c i e t y , Men are not equal and the i n d i v i d u a l has s i g n i f i c a n c e only as a member of a h i e r a r c h i c a l group to which he belongs. An i n f e r i o r i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l s o c i a l order must, as duty, obey h i s s u p e r i o r who has the a u t h o r i t y to l a y down r u l e s and orders. S a c r i f i c i n g o neself i n the i n t e r e s t s of the group to which an i n d i v i d u a l belongs ( f a m i l y , community, n a t i o n , e t c . ) i s h i g h l y advocated and o f t e n compelled (Messhi Hoko). The group i n s i s t s upon the i n d i v i d u a l ' s l o y a l maintenance of the group's good name before o u t s i d e r s , and o f t e n e x e r c i s e s a moral r i g h t to know about the p r i v a t e l i f e of the i n d i v i d u a l . Thus, i t seems that there used to be l i t t l e , i f any, room i n the t r a d i t i o n a l Japanese s o c i e t y f o r the development of i n d i v i d u a l i s m and norms of p r i v a c y . The r e s u l t of the o p i n i o n survey by the Prime M i n i s t e r ' s O f f i c e , supra, i n d i c a t e s that i n s p i t e of the f u l l - s c a l e democratic re f o r m a t i o n of the Japanese s o c i e t y , which took p l a c e immediately a f t e r World War I I , the p r i v a c y consciousness of Japanese people has not f u l l y developed yet. - 11 -An i n t e r e s t i n g example which i l l u s t r a t e s the d i f f e r e n c e i n p r i v a c y consciousness between the West and Japan i s the unique a c t i v i t y by the Japanese p o l i c e c a l l e d "Junkai Renraku" ( r o u t i n e v i s i t to the r e s i d e n t s ) . In Japan each p a t r o l o f f i c e r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r o u t i n e v i s i t s to f o u r or f i v e hundred households so that a l l the r e s i d e n t s i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n of a p o l i c e s t a t i o n s h a l l be c a l l e d upon every s i x months on average. On each v i s i t the p o l i c e o f f i c e r i n t e r v i e w s the r e s i d e n t and f i l l s out the residence card c o n t a i n i n g such i n f o r m a t i o n as home address, permanent address, date and p l a c e of b i r t h , occupation, s c h o o l , p l a t e number of automobile, f a m i l y members, e t c . And those cards are f i l e d i n each p o l i c e post. This a c t i v i t y i s not a u t h o r i z e d by law but supported by t r a d i t i o n which s t r e s s e s v o l u n t a r y c o o p e r a t i o n with the p o l i c e . No doubt such a c t i v i t i e s , i f conducted by Canadian p o l i c e f o r c e s , would be t o t a l l y r e j e c t e d as i n v a s i o n of p r i v a c y . Indeed, I was t o l d by a s e n i o r p o l i c e o f f i c e r i n one of the major p o l i c e s t a t i o n s i n Hyogo P r e f e c t u r e f i v e years ago; "In the j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s p o l i c e s t a t i o n s e v e r a l households r e j e c t the r o u t i n e v i s i t s . They are a l l Western f o r e i g n e r s (Gai j i n ) . " The question a r i s e s : i s i t necessary to c o n s i d e r the p r o t e c t i o n of p r i v a c y i n proposing an e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e law i n Japan? There seem to be s e v e r a l c o n v i n c i n g reasons f o r answering "yes" to t h i s q u e s t i o n . F i r s t of a l l , the r i g h t to p r i v a c y has acquired a u n i v e r s a l i t y that transcends n a t i o n a l boundaries by v i r t u e of the - 12 -U n i v e r s a l D e c l a r a t i o n of Human Rights.42 Under A r t i c l e 12 of the U n i v e r s a l D e c l a r a t i o n of Human R i g h t s , which the Japanese Government i s o b l i g e d to comply with: No one s h a l l be subjected to a r b i t a r y i n t e r f e r e n c e with h i s p r i v a c y , f a m i l y , home or correspondence, nor to att a c k s upon h i s honour and r e p u t a t i o n . Everyone has the r i g h t to the p r o t e c t i o n of the law aga i n s t such i n t e r f e r e n c e or a t t a c k s . The second reason i s the democracy of Japan i t s e l f , which has been f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d by the 1947 C o n s t i t u t i o n of  Japan. The post-war C o n s t i t u t i o n , which was passed, under heavy American i n f l u e n c e , by the Diet as an amendment to the 1889 Me i j i  C o n s t i t u t i o n , 4 5 embodied a v e r i t a b l e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e v o l u t i o n i n the l o c u s of so v e r e i g n t y and i n l e g i t i m i z e d p u b l i c values and i n s t i t u t i o n s . 4 4 Above a l l , i t e s t a b l i s h e d a strong p a r l i a m e n t a r y democracy, with e x t e n s i v e i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s and freedoms. Sovereignty was placed i n the hands of the people, and the fundamental human r i g h t s i n the sense of " r i g h t s possessing a p r e s t a t e and p r e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r that d e r i v e s l o g i c a l l y and i n e v i t a b l y from human nature"45 was recognized f o r the f i r s t time. Thus, the idea of the d i g n i t y of i n d i v i d u a l , the fundamental concept of Western t r a d i t i o n from which the value of p r i v a c y i s d e r i v e d , has been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the Japanese l e g a l system. A r t i c l e 13 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n of Japan proceeds ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : A l l of the people s h a l l be respected as i n d i v i d u a l s . T h e i r r i g h t to l i f e , l i b e r t y , and the p u r s u i t of happiness s h a l l , to the extent that i t does not i n t e r f e r e with the p u b l i c w e l f a r e , be the supreme c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n l e g i s l a t i o n and i n other governmental a f f a i r s . - 13 -The d i f f e r e n c e between democracy and t o t a l i t a r i a n i s m i n r e l a t i o n to the p r o t e c t i o n of p r i v a c y has been d e s c r i b e d as f o l l o w s : T o t a l i t a r i a n systems deny most p r i v a c y claims of i n d i v i d u a l s and non-governmental o r g a n i z a t i o n s to assure complete d e d i c a t i o n to the i d e a l s and programs of the s t a t e , while the t o t a l i t a r i a n s t a t e ' s own governmental op e r a t i o n s are conducted i n t i g h t secrecy. Democratic s o c i e t i e s provide s u b s t a n t i a l amounts of p r i v a c y to allow each person widespread freedom to work, th i n k , and act without s u r v e i l l a n c e by p u b l i c or p r i v a t e a u t h o r i t i e s , and to provide s i m i l a r b r e a t h i n g room f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s ; but they t r y to s t r i k e a d e l i c a t e balance between d i s c l o s u r e and p r i v a c y i n government i t s e l f . 4 6 If the Japanesse people and t h e i r government are to keep the d i s t a s t e f u l memories of pre-war t o t a l i t a r i a n i s m i n mind, and are to f i r m l y commit themselves to the present democratic regime, there should be no a r b i t r a r y i n t e r f e r e n c e by the s t a t e with the p r i v a c y of c i t i z e n s . T h erefore, i t was q u i t e a p p r o p r i a t e that the Tokyo D i s t r i c t Court on September 28, 1964, recognized the r i g h t to p r i v a c y i n the Utage no Ato ( A f t e r the Banquet) T r i a l , 4 7 i n which the e x i s t e n c e of the new r i g h t was i n i s s u e f o r the f i r s t time i n the country. This case arose with the p u b l i c a t i o n of Yukio Mishima's model novel concerning a famous p o l i t i c i a n , who was unhappy about the book and t h e r e f o r e sued f o r h i s mental d i s t r e s s . The court comprehended the p r i v a c y r i g h t i n t h i s context as the r i g h t not to have one's p r i v a t e l i f e wantonly opened to the p u b l i c , and r u l e d that "to r e s p e c t the p r i v a c y r i g h t i s no longer only a matter demanded by e t h i c , but i t i s proper to c o n s i d e r i t as a human i n t e r e s t which i s e l e v a t e d to - 14 -the p o i n t of being accorded l e g a l r e l i e f a g a i n s t unlawful infringement and although the p r i v a c y r i g h t i s subsumed i n the s o - c a l l e d r i g h t of p e r s o n a l i t y , t h i s does not preclude r e f e r r i n g to i t as a r i g h t " ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) . A l s o , i t should be noted that the judgment considered the d i g n i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s guaranteed by A r t i c l e 13 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n , supra, as the fundamental b a s i s of the new r i g h t . The court s t a t e d ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : The idea of the d i g n i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l , which i s one of the fundamental concepts of modern law and one on which the C o n s t i t u t i o n of Japan stands f i r m l y , can only be secured by mutual res p e c t f o r p e r s o n a l i t y and by p r o t e c t i o n from improper i n t e r f e r e n c e , and f o r t h i s reason i t cannot be permitted to p u b l i c i z e another's personal a f f a i r s without s u i t a b l e reason. This c o n s t i t u t i o n a l approach to the p r i v a c y r i g h t was followed by the Supreme Court i n the Shozoken (Right to Likeness) T r i a l 4 8 on December 24, 1969, i n which the Grand Bench of the court recognized the r i g h t of a person to h i s own l i k e n e s s as an aspect of the p r i v a c y r i g h t . The court r u l e d ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : Now, A r t i c l e 13 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o v i d e s that a l l of the people s h a l l be respected as i n d i v i d u a l s . T h e i r r i g h t to l i f e , l i b e r t y , and the p u r s u i t of happiness s h a l l , to the extent that i t does not i n t e r f e r e with the p u b l i c w e l f a r e , be the supreme c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n l e g i s l a t i o n and i n other governmental a f f a i r s . It can be s a i d that t h i s p r o v i d e s that the people's freedom with respect to t h e i r p r i v a t e l i v e s should be p r o t e c t e d a g a i n s t the e x e r c i s e of s t a t e powers such as the p o l i c e power. As one of the freedoms of the i n d i v i d u a l with r e s p e c t to p r i v a t e l i f e , i t should be s a i d that every man has the freedom not to have h i s face or p h y s i c a l appearance ( h e r e i n a f t e r , "face") photographed i n v o l u n t a r i l y and without permission.49 To sum up, d e s p i t e the t r a d i t i o n a l i n d i f f e r e n c e of the people t h e r e t o , p r i v a c y has been recognized as a l e g a l l y - 15 -p r o t e c t e d i n t e r e s t i n Japan, and has been given c o n s t i t u t i o n a l value by the c o u r t s . Thus, the p r o t e c t i o n of p r i v a c y should be one of the major c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n the context of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i n Japan as w e l l . - 16 -I I I . ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE IN CANADA A. E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e before the Enactment of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act 1. P o l i c e Behavior Since long before the enactment of the P r o t e c t i o n of  P r i v a c y Act, e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e had been widely used as an i n v e s t i g a t i v e technique by the Royal Canadian Mounted P o l i c e ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d to as "the RCMP") and other p o l i c e f o r c e s i n Canada. According to the r e p o r t of McDonald Commission,50 the RCMP s t a r t e d the use of wiretapping i n the 1930's, and both wiretapping and e l e c t r o n i c eavesdropping became common among Canadian p o l i c e f o r c e s i n the years f o l l o w i n g the Second World War. 51 During the ten year p e r i o d from 1963 to 1973, the RCMP conducted 1,912 e l e c t r o n i c i n t r u s i o n s i n c l u d i n g wiretapping with one-party consent and e l e c t r o n i c eavesdropping.52 The Montreal Urban Community P o l i c e used 355 wiretaps during the s i x t e e n month pe r i o d from January, 1972 to A p r i l , 1973.53 C l e a r l y , e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e had been considered by the p o l i c e personnel to be a "necessary b u s i n e s s " i n coping with e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g s o p h i s t i c a t e d organized crimes.54 In the absence of r e l e v a n t l e g i s l a t i o n , the p o l i c y on e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e - when i t should be r e s o r t e d to - was to be decided by the i n d i v i d u a l p o l i c e f o r c e s , and one t h i n g i n common was that e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e had been used only with the permission of a high p o l i c e a u t h o r i t y because of i t s - 17 -s e n s i t i v e nature.55 Let us see an example of the M e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto P o l i c e Department. In March, 1969, the Board of Commissioners of P o l i c e f o r M e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto decided the p o l i c y concerning e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e as f o l l o w s : "The use of [wiretapping and e l e c t r o n i c l i s t e n i n g ] equipment by any member of the M e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto P o l i c e w i l l only be with the approval i n each case of the Chief of P o l i c e and only when i n h i s op i n i o n there i s reasonable and probable cause to b e l i e v e that a c r i m i n a l o f f e n c e has been or i s about to be committed. "56 As to the RCMP the s i t u a t i o n was somewhat c h a o t i c , because s i n c e March, 1959, the RCMP Headquarters i n Ottawa had taken the p o l i c y f o r b i d d i n g the use of wiretapping by members of the f o r c e i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of c r i m i n a l matters, except where the consent of a party to the c o n v e r s a t i o n was obtained.57 Although e l e c t r o n i c eavesdropping other than wiretapping was not r e f e r r e d to i n i t , t h i s p o l i c y was c l e a r l y c o n t r a r y to the p r a c t i c a l demands of f i e l d o p e r a t i o n s . As a r e s u l t , wiretapping was being c a r r i e d out i n the f i e l d i n d e f i a n c e of the p o l i c y , and t h i s p r a c t i c e was withheld from top o f f i c e r s of the f o r c e who were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the Headquarters' p o l i c y . 5 8 One important aspect of the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e p r i o r to the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act i s that i t s primary purpose was not the gat h e r i n g of evidence, but the gat h e r i n g of i n t e l l i g e n c e . 5 9 In other words, the p o l i c e used e l e c t r o n i c sur-v e i l l a n c e "not as a t o o l to gather evidence f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n at t r i a l , but as an a i d to i n v e s t i g a t i o n - to keep under - 18 -s u r v e i l l a n c e those they suspect of crime."60 What we should note here i s that the p o l i c e had been using i t not only f o r " t a c t i c a l i n t e l l i g e n c e g a t h e r i n g " , that i s to say, e v e n t - s p e c i f i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i n an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r o f f e n c e s , but a l s o f o r " s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e g a t h e r i n g " , that i s to say, panoptic s u r v e i l l a n c e to monitor a c t i v i t i e s and a s s o c i a t i o n of c r i m i n a l f i g u r e s apart from i n v e s t i g a t i o n of s p e c i f i c offences.61 The e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e was able to be performed without f i r m knowledge on the p a r t of the p o l i c e of what kind of of f e n c e had been or was to be committed. On the other hand, the p o l i c e d e l i b e r a t e l y r e f r a i n e d from adducing the i n t e r c e p t e d c o n v e r s a t i o n as evidence at t r i a l , u nless to do so was r e a l l y i n e v i t a b l e i n the circumstances. This was the e s t a b l i s h e d behavior common not only to the RCMP,62 which had the formal p o l i c y p r o h i b i t i n g w iretap, but a l s o to the municipal p o l i c e f o r c e s such as those i n Toronto,63 Montreal64 and Vancouver. 65 The f a c t that "there [were] l e s s than a dozen r e p o r t e d cases i n Canada where evidence obtained e l e c t r o n i c a l l y [had been] introduced i n court"66 before the enactment of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act e l o q u e n t l y i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s aspect. We can i n f e r some shady mental s t a t e or dilemma on the part of the p o l i c e from the r e l u c t a n c e to use the i n t e r c e p t e d c o n v e r s a t i o n as evidence: the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i s a necessary business, but i t must be performed s e c r e t l y . The d i s c l o s u r e of i t s use would a l e r t the c r i m i n a l s about the p o l i c e technique of - 19 -i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Above a l l , the d i s c l o s u r e might invoke unneces-sary r e a c t i o n of the c i t i z e n s who would f e e l a t h r e a t to t h e i r own r i g h t to p r i v a c y . -- The e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e had been regarded, c o n s c i o u s l y or u n c o n s c i o u s l y , as a " d i r t y business".67 2. L e g i s l a t i o n and Court D e c i s i o n s P r i o r to the passage of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act, there was no f e d e r a l s t a t u t e adequately d e a l i n g with e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e by the p o l i c e . S e c t i o n 25 of the Act i n c o r p o r a t i n g the B e l l Telephone Company of Canada68 reads: 25. Any person who s h a l l w i l f u l l y or m a l i c i o u s l y i n j u r e , molest or d e s t r o y any of the l i n e s , posts or other m a t e r i a l or p r o p e r t y of the company or i n any way w i l f u l l y o b s t r u c t or i n t e r f e r e with the working of the s a i d telephone l i n e s or i n t e r c e p t any message tra n s m i t t e d thereon s h a l l be g u i l t y of a misdemeanour. Though i t had not been c l e a r f o r a long time whether t h i s p r o v i s i o n makes the wiretapping by the p o l i c e i l l e g a l or not, the d e c i s i o n of the O n t a r i o Court of Appeal i n Re Copeland and Adamson69 i n 1972 held that wiretapping i s not a v i o l a t i o n of the s e c t i o n unless the audio s u r v e i l l a n c e c r e a t e s any d i s t u r b a n c e of the c o n v e r s a t i o n . At p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l , there was no l e g a l p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e except i n A l b e r t a and Manitoba. 70 The Manitoba Telephone Act71 and The A l b e r t a Government Telephone  Act72 s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o h i b i t e d the i n t e r c e p t i o n and c l a n d e s t i n e - 20 -r e c o r d i n g of telephone communications by any means.73 Doubts were poi n t e d out, however, as to whether p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n could c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y c o n t r o l conduct of law enforcement o f f i c e r s i n i n v e s t i g a t i o n of c r i m i n a l offences.74 i n Regina v.  F o i l , 7 5 where a d m i s s i b i l i t y of tape r e c o r d i n g of telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n s was contended, Manitoba Queen's Bench h e l d , o b i t e r : " [ I ] t i s d i f f i c u l t to see how the p r o v i s i o n of The  Manitoba Telephone Act, a s t a t u t e of a p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e , can a f f e c t the q u e s t i o n of the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of evidence i n a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n of t h i s k i n d , s i n c e c r i m i n a l law and c r i m i n a l procedure are w i t h i n the e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Dominion. "76' In' the absence of s u f f i c i e n t s t a t u t o r y r e g u l a t i o n s , both primary evidence and d e r i v a t i v e evidence obtained by e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e had been s u c c e s s f u l l y i n troduced to Canadian c o u r t s , although i t d i d not o f t e n happen, as mentioned before, that primary evidence, to wit, the i n t e r c e p t e d c o n v e r s a t i o n i t s e l f , was adduced. In S i l v e s t r o v. The Queen,77 the Supreme Court of Canada admitted primary evidence obtained by w i r e t a p p i n g . In t h i s case, the accused was charged with keeping a common b e t t i n g house and engaging i n book-making, and the recorded telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n of the accused was adduced as evidence. It was held that the telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n which had been a c c u r a t e l y recorded by the p o l i c e was a d m i s s i b l e to prove the nature, - 21 -c h a r a c t e r and atmosphere of the premises. The i n t e r c e p t e d c o n v e r s a t i o n alone was not enough evidence to c o n v i c t under the circumstances, but i t was evidence of some value tending to prove the charge. F u r t h e r , i t was held by the O n t a r i o Court of Appeal i n Regina v. Steinberg,78 a room bugging case, that "the method of the o b t a i n i n g of evidence does not a f f e c t i t s a d m i s s i b i l i t y , the question i n such cases being the r e l e v a n c e of the tendered evidence."79 In t h i s case the p o l i c e s u r r e p t i t i o u s l y i n s t a l l e d a r e c o r d i n g device while executing a search warrant of the premises of the accused. The tape r e c o r d i n g of the accused's v o i c e obtained from the device was, thus, admitted, and the c o n v i c t i o n was secured though the court "[was] not s a t i s f i e d that that which [had] occurred [had] the appearance of j u s t i c e . " 8 0 This was a n a t u r a l c o n c l u s i o n , because p r i o r to the enactment of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act there was no r u l e r e s t r i c t i n g the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of evidence on the b a s i s that i t had been obtained by i l l e g a l means, 81 as the same court h e l d , one year a f t e r the coming i n t o f o r c e of the law, i n Regina v. LeSarge:82 There i s not i n Canada, apart from the r u l e which governs the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of statements made by an accused to a person i n a u t h o r i t y , any general r u l e which excludes evidence which i s r e l e v a n t and otherwise a d m i s s i b l e , on the ground that such evidence was i l l e g a l l y obtained. On the c o n t r a r y , the general r u l e i s that such evidence i s a d m i s s i b l e . S e c t i o n 178.16(1) [of the C r i m i n a l Code] c r e a t e s a l i m i t e d e x c e p t i o n to the general r u l e . . . . 8 3 - 22 -3. Advent of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act The enforcement of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act i n 1974 completely changed the s i t u a t i o n above. The l e g i s l a t i o n purports to p r o t e c t the p r i v a c y of i n d i v i d u a l s by p r o h i b i t i n g w i t h c r i m i n a l s a n c t i o n the w i l f u l i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communications by a r t i f i c i a l devices,84 and a l s o by excluding primary evidence obtained by the i l l e g a l i n t e r c e p t i o n . 8 5 As an e x c e p t i o n , the law sets out a scope of l a w f u l i n t e r c e p t i o n by the p o l i c e of p r i v a t e communications subject to s t r i c t j u d i c i a l s c r u t i n y . 8 6 Without any deep a n a l y s i s of the contents of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act, we can see that the l e g i s l a t i o n has a f f e c t e d the a t t i t u d e of the p o l i c e toward e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i n two opposite ways. On one hand, the law p r o h i b i t e d the " s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e g a t h e r i n g " by v i r t u e of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , by t y i n g the j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n to i n t e r c e p t p r i v a t e communications to s p e c i f i c o f f e n c e s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and a l s o by r e q u i r i n g p o s t - i n t e r c e p t i o n n o t i c e to the o b j e c t s of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . It i s no longer p o s s i b l e f o r the p o l i c e to r e s o r t to t h i s enchanting i n v e s t i g a t i v e method without reasonable and probable ground to b e l i e v e that the i n t e r c e p t i o n may a s s i s t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r offence.87 On the other hand, as a p o s i t i v e aspect to the p o l i c e , the law acknowledged the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e by the p o l i c e as - 23 -a l e g i t i m a t e method of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i s no longer a " d i r t y b u s i n e s s " , something to be concealed from the eyes of the p u b l i c . Thus, i t e l i m i n a t e d the self-imposed l i m i t a t i o n on the p a r t of the p o l i c e i n using the i n t e r c e p t e d p r i v a t e communications as evidence at t r i a l . The r e s u l t was, as P r o f e s s o r Peter Burns s t a t e d f i v e years a f t e r the proclamation of the law, t h i s : "No other recent p i e c e of l e g i s l a t i o n has spawned such a p l e t h o r a of case law i n such a short p e r i o d of time."88 B. A n a l y s i s of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act 1 . I n t r o d u c t i o n The P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act was enacted on December 4, 1973, and came i n t o e f f e c t on June 30, 1974. It amended the C r i m i n a l Code89 by adding Part IV.1, "Invason of P r i v a c y " , which cr e a t e d new o f f e n c e s of w i l f u l i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communications by means of an e l e c t r o m a g n e t i c , a c o u s t i c , mechanical or other device,90 w i l f u l d i s c l o s u r e of the i n t e r c e p t e d communications,91 and p o s s e s s i o n , s a l e s and purchase of any device or component thereof designed p r i m a r i l y f o r the i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communications.92 At the same time, i t set up a scope of l a w f u l i n t e r c e p t i o n by the p o l i c e of p r i v a t e communications as a means of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 9 3 The law a l s o c o d i f i e d the r u l e s governing the i n t r o d u c t i o n of evidence gathered by the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . 9 4 - 24 -T h i s s t r u c t u r e of the l e g i s l a t i o n r e f l e c t s a d e l i b e r a t e e f f o r t of the Parliament to set up a framework to balance two c o n f l i c t i n g s o c i a l i n t e r e s t s ; the p r o t e c t i o n of the s o c i e t y from e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g s o p h i s t i c a t e d crimes; and the p r o t e c t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l s ' r i g h t to p r i v a c y . As e x p l a i n e d by Zuber J.A. i n Regina v. Welsh and Iannuzzi (No.6),95 the law c l e a r l y has two o b j e c t i v e s . "The f i r s t was to p r o t e c t p r i v a t e communications by p r o h i b i t i n g i n t e r c e p t i o n and to render i n a d m i s s i b l e evidence obtained i n v i o l a t i o n of the s t a t u t e . The second o b j e c t i v e , which balances the f i r s t , was to recognize the need to allow the a p p r o p r i a t e a u t h o r i t i e s , s u b j e c t to s p e c i f i c c o n t r o l s , to i n t e r c e p t p r i v a t e communications i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of s e r i o u s crime, and to adduce the evidence thus obtained."96 The P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act a l s o amended the Crown  L i a b i l i t y Act97 by adding Part 1.1 which provided f o r c i v i l l i a b i l i t y of the Crown i n circumstances where a p r i v a t e communication i s u n l a w f u l l y i n t e r c e p t e d or d i s c l o s e d by government employees.98 It a l s o amended the O f f i c i a l S e c r e t s  Act99 to permit e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e to be c a r r i e d out f o r the p r e v e n t i o n or d e t e c t i o n of s u b v e r s i v e a c t i v i t i e s d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t Canada or d e t r i m e n t a l to the s e c u r i t y , or f o r the g a t h e r i n g of f o r e i g n i n t e l l i g e n c e i n f o r m a t i o n e s s e n t i a l to the s e c u r i t y of Canada.100 T h i s study w i l l focus on the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e as a method of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n by the p o l i c e , and t h e r e f o r e - 25 -w i l l e x c l u s i v e l y deal with the new Part IV.1 of the C r i m i n a l Code and i t s subsequent amendments i n 1977,101 1983,102 1984103 and 1985.104 2. General O u t l i n e of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act The components of Part IV. 1 of the C r i m i n a l Code as amended to date have been b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e d as f o l l o w s : (a) the d e f i n i t i o n s e c t i o n , s e c t i o n 178.1, which d e f i n e s the p r i n c i p a l words and phrases used i n Part IV. I and by such d e f i n i t i o n s , d e l i m i t s the scope of the Par t ; (b) the o f f e n c e - c r e a t i n g s e c t i o n s , s e c t i o n s 178.11, 178.18 and 178.20, which not only c r e a t e three new i n d i c t a b l e o f f e n c e s , but a l s o provide f o r exemptions from the l i a b i l i t y thus c r e a t e d ; (c) the pr o c e d u r a l s e c t i o n s , s e c t i o n s 178.12 to 178.15, i n c l u s i v e , which d e f i n e the p r o c e d u r a l steps to be followed to ob t a i n j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n both to i n i t i a t e and to continue e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e ; (d) the e v i d e n t i a r y r u l e s e c t i o n s , s e c t i o n s 178.15(3); (5), 178.16 and 178.17, which enact a complete code of e v i d e n t i a r y r u l e s both i n respect of evidence of i n t e r c e p t e d p r i v a t e communications and evidence obtained d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y as r e s u l t of in f o r m a t i o n acquired by means of such i n t e r c e p t i o n s ; (e) the a d d i t i o n a l p e n a l t y s e c t i o n s , s e c t i o n s 178.19 and 178.21 which permit orders of f o r f e i t u r e and awards of p u n i t i v e damages to be made i n a d d i t i o n to other p e n a l t i e s provided f o r i n respe c t of co n t r a v e n t i o n s of the o f f e n c e - c r e a t i n g s e c t i o n s of the enactment; and, ( f ) the r e p o r t i n g s e c t i o n s , s e c t i o n s 178.22 and 178.23, which demand that n o t i c e be given to the ob j e c t s of i n t e r c e p t i o n s c a r r i e d out i n accordance with a u t h o r i z a t i o n s and f u r t h e r that y e a r l y p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e of the extent of co u r t - o r d e r e d e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e a c t i v i t i e s be made by the p o l i t i c a l f u n c t i o n a r y under whose auspices such s u r v e i l l a n c e was conducted.105 From the standpoint of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n performed by the p o l i c e , a general o u t l i n e of the law may be given i n the - 26 -f o l l o w i n g way: 1. The p o l i c e can l a w f u l l y i n t e r c e p t p r i v a t e communcations of the suspects only when consent of the o r i g i n a t o r or intended r e c i p i e n t thereof i s obtained, or when an a u t h o r i z a t i o n by a s u p e r i o r court judge i s obtained.106 2. The of f e n c e s i n respect of which the a u t h o r i z a t i o n can be obtained are l i m i t e d to those s e r i o u s offences or those committed by organized crime as d e s c r i b e d i n the d e f i n i t i o n section.107 3. An a p p l i c a t i o n f o r the a u t h o r i z a t i o n i s ex pa r t e and must be i n w r i t i n g and signed, i f p e r t a i n i n g to a C r i m i n a l Code o f f e n c e , by a designated agent of the p r o v i n c i a l Attorney General, or i f p e r t a i n i n g to a f e d e r a l o f f e n c e , by a designated agent of the S o l i c i t o r General of Canada.108 4. An a u t h o r i z a t i o n may be given only when the judge to whom the a p p l i c a t i o n i s made i s s a t i s f i e d , on the b a s i s of the p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s a f f i d a v i t , that i t would be i n the best i n t e r e s t s of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e to do so,109 and one of the f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s has been met; a. other i n v e s t i g a t i v e procedures have been t r i e d and have f a i l e d . b. other i n v e s t i g a t i v e procedures are u n l i k e l y to succeed. c. the urgency of the matter i s such that i t would be i m p r a c t i c a l to c a r r y out the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the of f e n c e using only other i n v e s t i g a t i v e procedures.110 5. An a u t h o r i z a t i o n should; a. s t a t e the offe n c e i n respe c t of which p r i v a t e communications may be intercepted,111 - 27 -b. s t a t e the type of p r i v a t e communication that may be intercepted,112 c. s t a t e the i d e n t i t y of the persons, i f known, whose p r i v a t e communications are to be intercepted,113 d. g e n e r a l l y d e s c r i b e , i f p o s s i b l e , the p l a c e at which p r i v a t e communications may be intercepted,114 e. g e n e r a l l y d e s c r i b e the manner of i n t e r c e p t i o n that may be used,115 f. set f o r t h the p e r i o d of v a l i d i t y , not exceeding s i x t y days.116 In a d d i t i o n , the judge may i n c l u d e such terms and c o n d i t i o n s as he c o n s i d e r s a d v i s a b l e i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . 1 1 7 6. An a u t h o r i z a t i o n i s s u b j e c t to renewal from time to time on ex parte a p p l i c a t i o n . A renewal s h a l l not be f o r a p e r i o d exceeding s i x t y days.118 7. In case of emergency, an a u t h o r i z a t i o n may be given without going through the r e g u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n procedure. In t h i s case, a p o l i c e o f f i c e r s p e c i a l l y designated by the S o l i c i t o r General of Canada or the p r o v i n c i a l Attorney General, as the case may be, can apply ex parte f o r an emergency a u t h o r i z a t i o n which may only be given f o r a p e r i o d of up to t h i r t y - s i x hours.119 8. A p r i v a t e communication secured by l a w f u l i n t e r c e p t i o n i s admissible as evidence.120 However, i n order f o r the l a w f u l l y i n t e r c e p t e d p r i v a t e communication to be r e c e i v e d i n evidence, p r i o r n o t i c e of the Crown's i n t e n t i o n accompanied by the d e t a i l s of the communication has to be g i v e n to the accused.121 9. A p r i v a t e communication secured by unlawful i n t e r c e p t i o n i s prima f a c i e i n a d m i s s i b l e , unless the o r i g i n a t o r or intended - 28 -r e c i p i e n t has consented to i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n i n evidence.122 However, t h i s i s subject to a d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l judge to admit such evidence where the evidence i s r e l e v a n t and the unlawfulness of the i n t e r c e p t i o n was due only to a d e f e c t of form or i r r e g u l a r i t y i n procedure.123 10. D e r i v a t i v e evidence secured by reason of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i s prima f a c i e admissible.124 However, t h i s i s subject to a d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l judge to exclude such evidence where the admission of i t would b r i n g the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e i n t o d i s r e p u t e on account of the unlawfulness of the i n t e r c e p t i o n . 1 2 5 11. The person who became the o b j e c t of the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e pursuant to the a u t h o r i z a t i o n i s to be n o t i f i e d of the f a c t of the i n t e r c e p t i o n w i t h i n n i n e t y days of the date when the i n t e r c e p t i o n was l a w f u l l y terminated.126 This n i n e t y day p e r i o d may be r e p l a c e d f o r a longer p e r i o d of up to three years upon a p p l i c a t i o n , e i t h e r at the p r e - a u t h o r i z a t i o n stagel27 or before the e x p i r y of the n o t i c e period.128 This n o t i c e i s i r r e l e v a n t to the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of the i n t e r c e p t e d p r i v a t e communication i n evidence.129 3. Scope of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act As seen above, the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act i s a l e g i s l a t i o n package r e g u l a t i n g the " i n t e r c e p t i o n " of " p r i v a t e communications". If the i n v e s t i g a t i v e measures conducted by the p o l i c e do not f a l l w i t h i n the meaning of the " i n t e r c e p t i o n " of " p r i v a t e communications", i t w i l l be n e i t h e r p r o h i b i t e d as an o f f e n c e c r e a t e d by the law nor r e g u l a t e d by i t s e v i d e n t i a l - 29 -r u l e s . Therefore f o r the purpose of f i n d i n g the scope of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act, i t i s e s s e n t i a l to f i n d out the meaning of the two key words; p r i v a t e communication and i n t e r c e p t i o n . a. Meaning of P r i v a t e Communication ( i ) General D e f i n i t i o n S e c t i o n 178.1 of the C r i m i n a l Code d e f i n e s " p r i v a t e communication" as; "any o r a l communication or any t e l e -communication made under circumstances i n which i t i s reasonable f o r the o r i g i n a t o r thereof to expect that i t w i l l not be i n t e r c e p t e d by any person other than the person intended by the o r i g i n a t o r thereof to r e c e i v e i t . " The above wording suggests that the c r i t e r i o n of p r i v a t e communication i s p a r t l y s u b j e c t i v e and p a r t l y o b jective.130 On one hand the s u b j e c t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n of p r i v a c y on the part of the o r i g i n a t o r i s e s s e n t i a l f o r the communication to be a p r i v a t e one. On the other hand the e x p e c t a t i o n of the o r i g i n a t o r must be reasonable, and the reasonableness i s to be judged o b j e c t i v e l y with a l l the circumstances taken i n t o account such as "the l o c a t i o n , content and purpose of the communication, the means by which i t i s t r a n s m i t t e d , and the nature of the means, or techniques, i f any, employed by the o r i g i n a t o r to prevent being overheard."131 ( i i ) S u s p i c i o n of the O r i g i n a t o r It should be noted that even i f the o r i g i n a t o r of the - 30 -communication suspects that the communication might be i n t e r c e p t e d by a t h i r d p a r t y , h i s communication can be p r o t e c t e d by the law as a " p r i v a t e communication" where h i s e x p e c t a t i o n of p r i v a c y i s j u s t i f i e d i n the l i g h t of a l l the r e l e v a n t f a c t s and circumstances. In Regina v. Watson,132 the accused was p l a c e d i n an otherwise empty c e l l block with another r e l a t e d suspect, and a p o l i c e o f f i c e r s e c r e t l y p l a c e d i n a c e l l between those occupied by them l i s t e n e d to t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n . The contents of the monitored c o n v e r s a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t hat the accused was s u s p i c i o u s that the c e l l block might be "bugged". It was held by Mossop Co.Ct.J: The c o n v e r s a t i o n i t s e l f i n d i c a t e s that they were aware of the danger that the c e l l block might be "bugged" and while they may have e x e r c i s e d more c a u t i o n having regard to t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , the very nature of the c o n v e r s a t i o n suggests that they d i d not expect, nor was i t reasonable f o r them to expect, that t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n would be overheard. It being admitted by the p o l i c e witnesses that the remaining f i v e c e l l s were unoccupied, I t h i n k i t might be i n f e r r e d that the accused and M a r t i n had reasonable grounds to b e l i e v e they were alone i n the absence of a sound from any of the other c e l l s . So I t h i n k i t was reasonable f o r them to expect that t h e i r communication would not be i n t e r c e p t e d and that the c o n v e r s a t i o n t h e r e f o r e f a l l s w i t h i n the s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n of a " p r i v a t e communication".133 On the other hand, there are a number of cases to the e f f e c t that the s u s p i c i o n of i n t e r c e p t i o n on the part of the o r i g i n a t o r a u t o m a t i c a l l y takes h i s communication out of the ambit of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act.134 For example, Brooke J.A. i n Regina v. Samson et al.135 held i n o b i t e r : - 31 -...I t h i n k there i s a s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n as to whether or not the communications of the respondent Samson tendered i n evidence were p r i v a t e communications w i t h i n the meaning of s. 178.1 There was evidence on a v o i r d i r e of a statement of the respondent Samson which was c l e a r l y to the e f f e c t that he knew that there was a r e a l danger that the telephone l i n e s would be the subject of an a u t h o r i z a t i o n to i n t e r c e p t a p r i v a t e communication. In the circumstances, I q u e s t i o n that i t could p r o p e r l y be s a i d that these communications were made under circumstances i n which i t was reasonable f o r Samson as the o r i g i n a t o r to expect that they would not be i n t e r c e p t e d by any person other than the person whom he intended should r e c e i v e i t . 1 3 6 The f a l l a c y of t h i s k i nd of reasoning i s that i t i s c l e a r l y a g a i n s t the main o b j e c t i v e of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y  Act, namely, the p r o t e c t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t to p r i v a c y . In these days, Canadians who are i n v o l v e d i n s e r i o u s c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t i e s such as drug t r a f f i c k i n g normally suspect, at l e a s t to some extent, that t h e i r telephones might be tapped by the p o l i c e . 1 3 7 If the above reasoning i s c o r r e c t , the p o l i c e can f r e e l y i n t e r c e p t t h e i r l i n e s o u t s i d e of the law. Therefore the approach taken by Mossop Co.Ct.J. i n Watson, supra, i s e s s e n t i a l i n l i g h t of the p r o t e c t i o n of p r i v a c y . ( i i i ) Knowledge of the O r i g i n a t o r Cases are almost unanimous i n h o l d i n g that i f the o r i g i n a t o r of the communication "knows" that h i s communication w i l l be i n t e r c e p t e d by a t h i r d p a r t y , i t i s not a " p r i v a t e communication".138 - 32 -When he knows of the i n t e r c e p t i o n , there can be no e x p e c t a t i o n of p r i v a c y on the p a r t of the o r i g i n a t o r . In t h i s sense the o r i g n a t o r ' s s t a t e of mind i s d e c i s i v e . ( i v ) Consent of the O r i g i n a t o r F u r t h e r i t i s now s e t t l e d law that when the o r i g i n a t o r "consents" to the i n t e r c e p t i o n , h i s communication i s not a " p r i v a t e communication", because i n such a case he c l e a r l y knows that the communication w i l l be i n t e r c e p t e d by a t h i r d p a r t y . The Supreme Court of Canada, on the face of i t , made t h i s p o i n t c l e a r i n Goldman v. The Queen.139 In t h i s case, r e c o r d i n g s of both a telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n and a f a c e - t o - f a c e c o n v e r s a t i o n between the accused and one Dwyer, a p o l i c e informant, were int r o d u c e d i n t o evidence. Dwyer had consented to the p o l i c e i n t e r c e p t i o n of the c o n v e r s a t i o n s . Mclntyre J . held f o r the m a j o r i t y of the c o u r t : P r i o r to the telephone c a l l and the meeting with the a p p e l l a n t , Dwyer had signed a form of consent to the i n t e r c e p t i o n of h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n s with the a p p e l l a n t . • • • . . . [ I ] t was abundantly c l e a r t h a t , during both the telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n and the p e r s o n a l c o n v e r s a t i o n which f o l l o w e d , Dwyer was f u l l y aware that the p o l i c e were i n t e r c e p t i n g and r e c o r d i n g the words spoken. Dwyer then had no reasonable e x p e c t a t i o n that the c o n v e r s a t i o n s would not be i n t e r c e p t e d . • • • It w i l l be observed at once that under the d e f i n i t i o n of " p r i v a t e communication" i t i s the o r i g i n a t o r ' s s t a t e of mind that i s d e c i s i v e . It f o l l o w s , i n my o p i n i o n , that i f Dwyer was the s o l e o r i g i n a t o r of the communications they were not p r i v a t e communications w i t h i n the meaning of the Act. They would not be s u b j e c t to the terms of Part IV.1 of the C r i m i n a l Code.140 - 33 -However, i t should be noted that t h i s view i s aga i n s t the p l a i n wording of Subsection 178.11(2)(a) of the C r i m i n a l Code. As P r o f e s s o r Peter Burns p o i n t e d out, Subs e c t i o n 178.11(2)(a), d e a l i n g with one c l a s s of u n p r o h i b i t e d i n t e r c e p t i o n of a " p r i v a t e communication", envisages an o r i g i n a t o r consenting to such an i n t e r c e p t i o n . 1 4 1 The s u b s e c t i o n reads: (2) S u b s e c t i o n (1) does not apply to (a) a person who has the consent to i n t e r c e p t , express or i m p l i e d , of the o r i g i n a t o r of the p r i v a t e communication or of the person intended by the o r i g i n a t o r thereof to r e c e i v e i t ; Moreover, the above reasoning i s a l s o c o n t r a r y to the a u t h o r i t a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of S e c t i o n 178.16 of the C r i m i n a l Code, which acknowledges the i n t e r c e p t i o n made with consent of the o r i g i n a t o r as one c l a s s of l a w f u l i n t e r c e p t i o n of a " p r i v a t e communication". In Goldman, supra, Mclntyre J . a l s o d e a l t with the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of S e c t i o n 178.16. He quoted the f o l l o w i n g judgment of Brooke J.A. i n Regina v. Cremascoli and Goldmanl42 f o r the Ontario Court of Appeal: S e c t i o n 178.16 pr o v i d e s f o r the a d m i s s i b i l i t y i n evidence of an i n t e r c e p t i o n of a p r i v a t e communication i n two circumstances. The evidence of the i n t e r c e p t i o n i s a d m i s s i b l e , f i r s t , i f the i n t e r c e p t i o n was l a w f u l l y made and, second, evidence of a l l other i n t e r c e p t i o n s i s a d m i s s i b l e with the consent s p e c i f i e d i n s.178.16(1)(b). An i n t e r c e p t i o n of a p r i v a t e communi-c a t i o n i s l a w f u l l y made i f one of the p a r t i e s to i t  consented to the i n t e r c e p t i o n . 1 4 5 [emphasis added] Then M c l n t y r e J . proceeded: I am i n f u l l agreement with Brooke, J.A., i n h i s comments above quoted .... S e c t i o n 178.11(1) makes i t an i n d i c t a b l e o f f e n c e t o i n t e r c e p t a p r i v a t e - 34 -communication by means of the d e v i c e s d e s c r i b e d and i n s-s.(2) p r o v i d e s that s - s . ( l ) which c r e a t e d the o f f e n c e w i l l not apply to a person who has the consent, express or i m p l i e d , of the o r i g i n a t o r of the p r i v a t e communication or of the person intended to r e c e i v e i t . T h i s consent i s a consent to i n t e r c e p t i o n and i t s e f f e c t i s to preserve from i l l e g a l i t y , i n other words, to render l a w f u l , an i n t e r c e p t i o n of a p r i v a t e communication made with consent. It i s important to note as w e l l that the consent may be express or i m p l i e d  and may be given by e i t h e r the o r i g i n a t o r of the  p r i v a t e communication or the intended r e c i p i e n t . 1 4 4 [emphasis added] These statements of Mclntyre J . c l e a r l y suggest that even when the o r i g i n a t o r has consented to the i n t e r c e p t i o n h i s communication i s a p r i v a t e one: The i n t e r c e p t i o n here i s a la w f u l i n t e r c e p t i o n of a " p r i v a t e communication". I t h i n k that t h i s manifest c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada i n Goldman should be re s o l v e d by v i r t u e of a proper i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the words "the person intended by the o r i g i n a t o r thereof to r e c e i v e i t " ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d to as "intended r e c i p i e n t " ) i n the d e f i n i t i o n of " p r i v a t e communication". I again quote the d e f i n i t i o n i n S e c t i o n 178.1 of the C r i m i n a l Code: " p r i v a t e communication" means any o r a l communication or any telecommunication made under circumstances i n which i t i s reasonable f o r the o r i g i n a t o r thereof to expect that i t w i l l not be i n t e r c e p t e d by any person other than the person intended by the o r i g i n a t o r thereof to r e c e i v e i t ; In my o p i n i o n , when the o r i g i n a t o r of a communication consents to the i n t e r c e p t i o n and t h e r e f o r e not merely knows but a l s o p o s i t i v e l y accepts the f a c t that a s p e c i f i c t h i r d p a r t y w i l l l i s t e n to h i s communication, then the t h i r d p a r t y should f a l l w i t h i n the category of "intended r e c i p i e n t " . (The po i n t of my - 35 -argument i s to crea t e a c l a s s of persons belonging to both " t h i r d p a r t y " and "intended r e c i p i e n t " . ) It f o l l o w s that the communication i n t e r c e p t e d with consent of the o r i g i n a t o r i s s t i l l a p r i v a t e communication. This t r a i n of thought would be s e n s i b l e , because i n such a case the o r i g i n a t o r a pparently intends the t h i r d p a r t y to l i s t e n to h i s communication. In a d d i t i o n to r e s o l v i n g the above c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n Goldman, t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n has another p r a c t i c a l advantage. Assume p a r t i e s of a c o n v e r s a t i o n give the consent to a s p e c i f i c acquaintance; e.g., one makes a telephone c a l l to h i s f r i e n d while h i s wife i s l i s t e n i n g to i t with t h e i r consent on an ex t e n s i o n telephone.145 If my argument i s accepted, t h e i r p r i v a c y i s p r o t e c t e d under Part IV.1 of the C r i m i n a l Code; otherwise not. (v) O r i g i n a t o r of Communication Since the s t a t e of mind of the o r i g i n a t o r of communication i s a d e c i s i v e f a c t o r i n determining whether i t i s a p r i v a t e communication or not, the quest i o n of who i s the o r i g i n a t o r i s e s s e n t i a l i n c o n s i d e r i n g the scope of the l e g i s l a t i o n . T h i s i s s u e was a l s o a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y s e t t l e d by the Supreme Court of Canada i n Goldman, supra.146 According to the d e c i s i o n , the o r i g i n a t o r i s the person who makes the remark or s e r i e s of remarks. A " c o n v e r s a t i o n " i s d i v i d e d i n t o a s e r i e s of component "communications", and the o r i g i n a t o r f l i p s back and - 36 -f o r t h depending upon whose l i p s are moving at any moment during the conversation.147 b. Meaning of I n t e r c e p t i o n S e c t i o n 178.1 of the C r i m i n a l Code broadly d e f i n e d the term " i n t e r c e p t i o n " as f o l l o w s : " i n t e r c e p t " i n c l u d e s l i s t e n t o , record or acq u i r e a communication or acq u i r e the substance, meaning or purport t h e r e o f , Here, two questions a r i s e : 1. Can there be an i n t e r c e p t i o n without i n t e r f e r e n c e by a t h i r d party? 2. Can there be an i n t e r c e p t i o n without the use of an ele c t r o m a g n e t i c , a c o u s t i c , mechanical or other device? ( i ) Requirement of T h i r d Party As to the f i r s t q u e s t i o n above, a u t h o r i t i e s are d i v i d e d . T h i s issue was i n i t i a l l y d e a l t with i n Regina v.  McQueen.148 In t h i s case, the accused was charged f o r keeping a common gaming-house and u n l a w f u l l y engaging i n book-making, and s e v e r a l telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n s between a p o l i c e o f f i c e r and u n i d e n t i f i e d customers who c a l l e d to the b e t t i n g house during the r a i d by the p o l i c e were introduced i n t o evidence. McDermid J.A. he l d f o r the A l b e r t a Court of Appeal, r e f e r r i n g to the d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n of the word " i n t e r c e p t " , that there had been no i n t e r c e p t i o n i n the absence of any i n t e r f e r e n c e by a t h i r d party between the pl a c e of o r i g i n and the place of d e s t i n a t i o n of the communication. The P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act i s aimed at - 37 -p r e v e n t i n g a t h i r d p a r t y from i n t e r c e p t i n g a p r i v a t e communication and t h e r e f o r e S e c t i o n 178.16 of the C r i m i n a l Code doesn't apply to the case where there are only two people i n v o l v e d even i f the o r i g i n a t o r i s mistaken as to the i d e n t i t y of the r e c i p i e n t of h i s communication. In Regina v: Bengert, Robertson et a l . (no.2),149 how-ever, Berger J . f o r the B r i t i s h Columbia Supreme Court took the view that McQueen was wrongly decided. In t h i s case, A i r Canada l o c a t e d a missing bag which was found to c o n t a i n cocaine. The RCMP arranged with A i r Canada that anyone c a l l i n g to i n q u i r e about the bag should be giv e n a number to c a l l . At the number, the RCMP o f f i c e r s are ready to answer and record the c a l l i n the d i s g u i s e of an employee of A i r Canada. It was held that where the o r i g i n a t o r i s mistaken as to the i d e n t i t y of the a c t u a l r e c e i v e r of the communication because of h i s "impersonation or fra u d " , the r e c e i v e r cannot be an "intended r e c i p i e n t " i n the d e f i n i t i o n of " p r i v a t e communication" i n S e c t i o n 178.1 of the Cr i m i n a l Code. Therefore the p o l i c e o f f i c e r s ' answering and re c o r d i n g the telephone c a l l s amounted to an " i n t e r c e p t i o n " , though there was no i n t e r f e r e n c e by a t h i r d p a r t y . In my view, the r u l i n g i n Bengert pays l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n to the aim of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act which was a c c u r a t e l y e x p l a i n e d i n McQueen,150 and a l s o pays l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n to the p r a c t i c a l needs of everyday p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . In c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s there are numerous occasions where a p o l i c e o f f i c e r has to d i s g u i s e h i s i d e n t i t y . Assume a kidnapper - 38 -s e c r e t l y and re p e a t e d l y c a l l s the parents of the kidnapped c h i l d . If t h i s r u l i n g i s c o r r e c t , when a p o l i c e o f f i c e r answers and records the kidnapper's c a l l i n the d i s g u i s e of the c h i l d ' s parent t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i v e a c t i v i t y turns out to be a of f e n c e under S e c t i o n 178.11 of the C r i m i n a l Code. Moreover t h i s r u l i n g would make a l l the rec o r d i n g s of an undercover p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s c o n v e r s a t i o n i l l e g a l . N a t u r a l l y , recent cases are r e f u s i n g to f o l l o w Bengert.151 In Regina v. Newall et a l (No.1)152 the B r i t i s h Columbia Supreme Court h e l d , per Bouck J . : R. v. Bengert, supra, holds that i f Hughes was r e p r e s e n t i n g h i m s e l f as a drug d e a l e r when he was a c t u a l l y a p o l i c e undercover agent, then he was not the "the person intended" by Erven to r e c e i v e the o r a l communication. With res p e c t I have some d i f f i c u l t y reading that i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n t o the l e g i s l a t i o n . Parliament does not say the o r i g i n a t o r must know the i d e n t i t y of the r e c e i v e r before the i n t e r c e p t i o n of the communication i s ad m i s s i b l e on the consent of the r e c e i v e r . What the s t a t u t e means to p r o t e c t i s the admission of i n t e r c e p t i o n s on the consent of a t h i r d person or eavesdropper who i s n e i t h e r the o r i g i n a t o r nor the person intended to r e c e i v e the c a l l from the o r i g i n a t o r . 1 5 3 ( i i ) Requirement of Use of A r t i f i c i a l Device The next q u e s t i o n i s whether or not l i s t e n i n g to a p r i v a t e communication through the medium of the naked ear c o n s t i t u t e s an " i n t e r c e p t i o n " f o r the purpose of S e c t i o n 178.16 of the C r i m i n a l Code, which r e g u l a t e s the e v i d e n t i a l r u l e concerning e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . T h i s i s s u e a r i s e s because the words "by means of an e l e c t r o m a g n e t i c , a c o u s t i c , mechanical - 39 -or other d e v i c e " used i n the o f f e n c e - c r e a t i n g s e c t i o n 178.11 are not adopted i n S e c t i o n 178.16. In Regina v. Becknerl54 Dubin J.A. held f o r the Onta r i o Court of Appeal that S e c t i o n 178.16 doesn't apply where the communication i s merely overheard by a t h i r d p a r t y without the a i d of any e l e c t r o m a g n e t i c , a c o u s t i c , mechanical or other d e v i c e . There i s no " i n t e r c e p t i o n " without using any a r t i f i c i a l d e v i c e . This view has been supported by the m a j o r i t y of the cases,155 and seems to be a n a t u r a l c o n c l u s i o n s i n c e .the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act was designed to p r o t e c t the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t to p r i v a c y which had been endangered by a r t i f i c i a l surveying devices produced by modern technology.156 4. Lawful E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e Once e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e by the p o l i c e f a l l s w i t h i n the scope of an " i n t e r c e p t i o n " of " p r i v a t e communications" as seen above, Part IV.1 of the C r i m i n a l Code i s a p p l i c a b l e to both the s u r v e i l l a n c e i t s e l f and the evidence obtained thereby. The law acknowledges two c a t e g o r i e s of l e g i t i m a t e e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e by the p o l i c e : 1. e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e with consent of a p a r t y of p r i v a t e communications;157 2. e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i n accordance with a j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n . 1 5 8 In order f o r the i n t e r c e p t e d communications to be introduced i n t o - 40 -evidence at t r i a l , the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v i l l a n c e by the p o l i c e , as a g e n e r a l r u l e , must f a l l w i t h i n e i t h e r of the two c a t e g o r i e s . 159 a. E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e with Consent As r u l e d by the Supreme Court of Canada i n Goldman, supra,160 an i n t e r c e p t i o n by the p o l i c e of p r i v a t e communications i s l a w f u l when p r i o r to the i n t e r c e p t i o n the p o l i c e have obtained the consent to do so, express or i m p l i e d , from one of the p a r t i e s of the communications. It seems that persons who consent to the i n t e r c e p t i o n by the p o l i c e of t h e i r p r i v a t e communications can be c l a s s i f i e d i n t o three c a t e g o r i e s ; 1. undercover p o l i c e o f f i c e r , 1 6 1 2. p o l i c e informant who h i m s e l f i s i n v o l v e d i n the crime which the p o l i c e are i n v e s t i g a t i n g , 3. other persons who are somewhat r e l a t e d to the crime, such as v i c t i m s . S e v e r a l l e g a l i s s u e s a r i s e depending upon which c a t e g o r i e s the consenting p a r t y belongs to. Where the consenting p a r t y i s an undercover p o l i c e o f f i c e r , the other p a r t i e s who communicate with him do not know h i s true s t a t u s . Therefore the l e g a l e f f e c t of the o r i g i n a t o r ' s mistaken b e l i e f as to the intended r e c i p i e n t ' s i d e n t i t y might be contended at t r i a l . According to the reasoning of Berger J . i n Bengert, supra, 162 an undercover p o l i c e o f f i c e r cannot be an "intended r e c i p i e n t " because of h i s impersonation, and thus h i s - 41 -consent cannot render the i n t e r c e p t i o n l a w f u l . However, t h i s r e s u l t would be c l e a r l y c o n t r a r y to the common sense, as seen b e f o r e . In Regina v. Newall et a l . (No.1),163 where the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of recorded c o n v e r s a t i o n s between the accused and an United S t a t e s drug enforcement undercover o f f i c e r was i n i s s u e , Bouck J . f o r the B r i t i s h Columbia Supreme Court r e f u s e d to f o l l o w Bengert, and held that the o r i g i n a t o r ' s mistake as to the i d e n t i t y of the undercover o f f i c e r does not change the o f f i c e r ' s l e g a l s t a t u s as an intended r e c i p i e n t . T h e r e f o r e , the consent given by the undercover o f f i c e r makes the i n t e r c e p t i o n l a w f u l i n s p i t e of h i s impersonation. U n t i l r e c e n t l y , where the p o l i c e wanted t h e i r informants or other cooperators belonging to the second or t h i r d category mentioned above to wear a "body pack" f o r the purpose of monitoring t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n s , i t had been necessary to l e t them ob t a i n a temporary l i c e n c e f o r the p o s s e s s i o n of the device issued by the S o l i c i t o r General of Canada, 164 so that they might be exempted from c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y f o r the o f f e n c e under S e c t i o n 178.18 of the C r i m i n a l Code. The C r i m i n a l Code amendment i n 1985,165 however, acknowledged l a w f u l p o s s e s s i o n of the device without the l i c e n c e by those persons a c t i n g under the d i r e c t i o n of the p o l i c e . 1 6 6 Where the consenting p a r t y belongs to the f i r s t or t h i r d category, the consent given to the p o l i c e would u s u a l l y be a genuine one. However, where the consentor belongs to the second category, namely, the informant who h i m s e l f takes part i n the - 42 -crime which the p o l i c e are i n v e s t i g a t i n g , i t o f t e n happens that the informant b a r t e r s h i s p r i v a c y i n r e t u r n f o r l e n i e n t treatment by the p o l i c e at the expense of h i s accomplice. T h e r e f o r e , the nature of the consent under Su b s e c t i o n 178.11(2)(a) had been contended at t r i a l . The Supreme Court of Canada a l s o d i s c u s s e d t h i s i s s u e i n Goldman, supra ,167 and r u l e d that even i f the consent i s giv e n because of promised or expected l e n i e n c y or immunity from p r o s e c u t i o n the consent i s v a l i d so long as i t i s the conscious act of the consentor doing what he intends to do f o r reasons which he c o n s i d e r s s u f f i c i e n t . His consent w i l l not be v i t i a t e d n o twithstanding that h i s motive to consent may be s e l f i s h or even r e p r e h e n s i b l e . Mclntyre J . s t a t e d f o r the m a j o r i t y of the cou r t as f o l l o w s : The consent given under s. 178.11(2)(a) must be vo l u n t a r y i n the sense that i t i s f r e e from c o e r c i o n . It must be made knowingly i n that the consentor must be aware of what he i s doing and aware of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of h i s act and the use which the p o l i c e may be able to make of the consent. The t e s t to be a p p l i e d i n co n s i d e r i n g the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of a statement or c o n f e s s i o n made by an accused person i n custody to p o l i c e o f f i c e r s or others i n a p o s i t i o n of a u t h o r i t y i s not a p p l i c a b l e here. • • • If the consent he g i v e s i s the one he intended to give and i f he g i v e s i t as a r e s u l t of h i s own d e c i s i o n and not under e x t e r n a l c o e r c i o n the f a c t that h i s motives f o r so doing are s e l f i s h and even r e p r e h e n s i b l e by c e r t a i n standards w i l l not v i t i a t e i t . • • • The consent must not be procured by i n t i m i d a t i n g conduct or by f o r c e or by t h r e a t s of f o r c e by the p o l i c e , but c o e r c i o n i n the sense i n which the word a p p l i e s here does not a r i s e merely because the consent i s g iven because of promised or expected l e n i e n c y or immunity from prosecution.168 - 43 -b. E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e with J u d i c i a l A u t h o r i z a t i o n Where i t i s impossible f o r the p o l i c e to o b t a i n the consent to i n t e r c e p t a p r i v a t e communication from one of the p a r t i e s t h e r e o f , the p o l i c e must seek j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r the intended e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . Part IV.1 of the C r i m i n a l Code provided f o r two types of j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n : 1. o r d i n a r y a u t h o r i z a t i o n granted f o r a p e r i o d not exceeding s i x t y days,169 2. emergency a u t h o r i z a t i o n granted f o r a p e r i o d not exceeding t h i r t y - s i x hours.170 ( i ) Ordinary A u t h o r i z a t i o n The law l i m i t s the crimes i n respect of which a j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n can be obtained to those provided f o r by the d e f i n i t i o n s e c t i o n 178.1 of the C r i m i n a l Code. E l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e without consent can be performed only where the p o l i c e are i n v e s t i g a t i n g these d e f i n i t i o n o f fences which are e i t h e r of a s e r i o u s c h a r a c t e r or "part of a p a t t e r n of c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y planned or organized by a number of persons a c t i n g i n concert."171 An a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an a u t h o r i z a t i o n must be made ex  parte and i n w r i t i n g to a judge of a s u p e r i o r court of c r i m i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n or a judge as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 482 of the C r i m i n a l Code by: 1. the S o l i c i t o r General of Canada,172 2. the Attorney General of the province,173 - 44 -3. an agent s p e c i a l l y designated i n w r i t i n g by the S o l i c i t o r General of Canada p e r s o n a l l y , i f the of f e n c e under i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s one i n re s p e c t of which proceedings, i f any, may be i n s t i t u t e d at the inst a n c e of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on b e h a l f of the Attorney General of Canada,174 or 4. an agent s p e c i a l l y designated i n w r i t i n g by the Attorney General of the pro v i n c e p e r s o n a l l y , i n resp e c t of any other o f f e n c e i n that province.175 To be p r a c t i c a l , where the p o l i c e need an a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r the purpose of i n v e s t i g a t i n g C r i m i n a l Code of f e n c e s other than c o n s p i r a c i e s to v i o l a t e other f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s , they s h a l l apply to the agent designated by the Attorney General of the pro v i n c e , while where the p o l i c e need an a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r the purpose of i n v e s t i g a t i n g the f e d e r a l s t a t u t e o f f e n c e s they s h a l l apply to the agent designated by the S o l i c i t o r General of Canada f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n . 1 7 6 Where the p o l i c e are i n v e s t i g a t i n g both a C r i m i n a l Code o f f e n c e and a f e d e r a l s t a t u t e o f f e n c e i n respect of the same suspect, they have to seek two separate a u t h o r i z a t i o n s f o r both o f f e n c e s r e s p e c t i v e l y . 1 7 7 Although the a p p l i c a t i o n i t s e l f i s made i n the name of an agent of the S o l i c i t o r General of Canada or the Attorney General of the p r o v i n c e , the m a t e r i a l supporting the a p p l i c a t i o n i s made by a p o l i c e o f f i c e r i n the form of a f f i d a v i t , and the judge who r e c e i v e s the a p p l i c a t i o n decides whether he should grant or r e f u s e the a u t h o r i z a t i o n on the b a s i s of the information contained i n the p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s a f f i d a v i t . 1 7 8 The p o l i c e o f f i c e r must d i s c l o s e the f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t h e r e i n : - 45 -1. the f a c t s r e l i e d upon to j u s t i f y the b e l i e f that the a u t h o r i z a t i o n should be given,179 2. p a r t i c u l a r s of the offence,180 3. the type of p r i v a t e communication proposed to be intercepted,181 4. the names, addresses and occupations, i f known, of a l l persons, the i n t e r c e p t i o n of whose p r i v a t e communications there are reasonable and probable grounds to b e l i e v e may a s s i s t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the offence,182 5. a g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of the nature and l o c a t i o n of the p l a c e , i f known, at which p r i v a t e communications are proposed to be intercepted,183 6. a general d e s c r i p t i o n of the manner of i n t e r c e p t i o n proposed to be used,184 7. the d e t a i l s of p r i o r a p p l i c a t i o n s , 1 8 5 8. the p e r i o d f o r which the a u t h o r i z a t i o n i s requested,186 9. whether other i n v e s t i g a t i v e procedures have been t r i e d and have f a i l e d or why i t appears they are u n l i k e l y to succeed or that the urgency of the matter i s such that i t would be i m p r a c t i c a l to c a r r y out the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the o f f e n c e using only other i n v e s t i g a t i v e procedures.187 In order to i s s u e an a u t h o r i z a t i o n , the judge to whom the a p p l i c a t i o n has been made must be s a t i s f i e d , on a balance of p r o b a b i l i t i e s , 1 8 8 from the i n f o r m a t i o n d i s c l o s e d i n the a f f i d a v i t that i t i s i n the best i n t e r e s t s of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e to grant the a u t h o r i z a t i o n , 189 and one of the f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s has been met:190 - 46 -1. other i n v e s t i g a t i v e procedures have been t r i e d and have f a i l e d , 2. other i n v e s t i g a t i v e procedures are u n l i k e l y to succeed, 3. urgency of the matter i s such that i t would be i m p r a c t i c a l to c a r r y out the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the o f f e n c e using only other i n v e s t i g a t i v e procedures. The i s s u e d a u t h o r i z a t i o n must i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g items i n order to be v a l i d : 1. the o f f e n c e i n respect of which p r i v a t e communications may be intercepted,191 2. the type of p r i v a t e communication that may be intercepted,192 3. the i d e n t i t y of the persons, i f known, whose p r i v a t e communications are to be intercepted,193 4. general d e s c r i p t i o n of the p l a c e at which p r i v a t e communications may be i n t e r c e p t e d , i f a general d e s c r i p t i o n of that p l a c e can be given,194 5. general d e s c r i p t i o n of the manner of i n t e r c e p t i o n that may be used,195 6. the p e r i o d , not exeeding s i x t y days, f o r which the a u t h o r i z a t i o n i s i n e f f e c t . 1 9 6 In a d d i t i o n to the above requirments, the a u t h o r i z a t i o n may c o n t a i n such terms and c o n d i t i o n s as the judge considers a d v i s a b l e i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . 1 9 7 In most cases the terms or c o n d i t i o n s considered a d v i s a b l e i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by the a u t h o r i z i n g judge are of r e s t r i c t i n g c h a r a c t e r as to the scope, manner or p l a c e s of the - 47 -proposed e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . 198 For example, i n case of an a u t h o r i z a t i o n to i n t e r c e p t a p u b l i c pay-phone or a telephone o u t s i d e of the primary r e s i d e n c e of the t a r g e t person, such terms r e q u i r i n g concurrent p h y s i c a l s u r v e i l l a n c e of the person or l i v e monitoring of the r e c o r d i n g d e v i ce f o r the purpose of m i n i m i z a t i o n of i n t e r c e p t i o n are u s u a l l y i n s e r t e d t h e r e i n . 199 A l s o a c l a u s e p r o h i b i t i n g s u r r e p t i t i o u s e ntry by the p o l i c e i n t o the residence of the t a r g e t person f o r the purpose of i n s t a l l i n g room bugging equipment w i l l be c ontained, where the judge thi n k s that the room bugging i s not a p p r o p r i a t e under the circumstances.200 ( i i ) Known Person and Primary Target S e c t i o n 178.12 of the C r i m i n a l Code r u l e s that the p o l i c e should p r o v i d e , i n the a f f i d a v i t s upporting the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an a u t h o r i z a t i o n , "the names, addresses and occupations, i f known, of a l l persons, the i n t e r c e p t i o n of whose p r i v a t e communications there are reasonable and probable grounds to b e l i e v e may a s s i s t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the offence."201 T h i s p r o v i s i o n has been taken by the m a j o r i t y of the a u t h o r i t i e s to r e q u i r e that the p o l i c e d i s c l o s e the i d e n t i t i e s of a l l the "known s u s p e c t s " who are b e l i e v e d to be i n v o l v e d i n the o f f e n c e , r e g a r d l e s s of whether or not those suspects are the "primary t a r g e t s " i n the sense that the p o l i c e are a c t i v e l y pursuing and are i n t e n t on i n t e r c e p t i n g p r i v a t e communications thereof.202 For example, i n Regina v. Burns e l al.203 Anderson Co.Ct.J., while making a d i s t i n c t i o n between "known suspect" and - 48 -"primary t a r g e t " , h e l d : "As my b rother Spencer observes i n the unreported d e c i s i o n i n Regina v. Carothers,204 under s u b s e c t i o n (12), the i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r must d i s c l o s e a l l the known suspects ( i n the sense mentioned therein)...."205 However, t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s d i f f i c u l t to accept, because i t has an e f f e c t c o n t r a r y to the purpose of the l e g i s l a t i o n , to w i t , the p r o t e c t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y through r e s t r i c t e d o p e r a t i o n of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . Assume the p o l i c e are i n v e s t i g a t i n g a drug t r a f f i c k i n g r i n g . At the time of the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an a u t h o r i z a t i o n , the p o l i c e have found that Suspect A i s a c e n t r a l f i g u r e of the crime o r g a n i z a t i o n , and that A i s u s u a l l y communicating with lower ranked suspects, B, C, D and some other u n i d e n t i f i e d persons through the telephone at h i s own r e s i d e n c e . In such a case, i t i s n a t u r a l that the p o l i c e c o n s i d e r only A as a primary t a r g e t and intend to wiretap the telephone i n h i s r e s i d e n c e . Then, i n my o p i n i o n , i t should be permitted that the p o l i c e name only A i n the a f f i d a v i t f o r the purpose of i n t e r c e p t i n g p r i v a t e communications on the very phone i n A's r e s i d e n c e . According to the m a j o r i t y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , however, the p o l i c e , i n t h i s case, have to d i s c l o s e a l l the i d e n t i t i e s of A, B, C and D as the "persons the i n t e r c e p t i o n of whose p r i v a t e communications there are reasonable and probable grounds to b e l i e v e may a s s i s t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the o f f e n c e " , with the r e s u l t that the a u t h o r i z i n g judge would permit to wiretap a l l the telephones i n the premises of the f o u r persons. T h i s consequence i s c l e a r l y a g a i n s t the o b j e c t of the P r o t e c t i o n  of P r i v a c y Act. "The unique c h a r a c t e r of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e - 49 -i s that i t s network in t r u d e s upon the l i v e s of many innocent persons as w e l l as the g u i l t y . " 2 0 6 T h e r e f o r e , an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n that would b r i n g about a p l e t h o r a of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e should be avoided. From the p r a c t i c a l p o i n t of view, as w e l l , some s e l e c t i v i t y by the p o l i c e as to the t a r g e t i s h i g h l y d e s i r a b l e , because the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e r e q u i r e s vast amounts of money and manpower i n order to be e f f e c t i v e l y and f a i t h f u l l y conducted. In 1984 "E" D i v i s i o n of the RCMP paid to the telephone company over $300,000 f o r r e n t i n g about 460 telephone l i n e s . 2 0 7 I n t e r c e p t i o n of a s i n g l e telephone l i n e or o p e r a t i o n of a s i n g l e room-bugging device r e q u i r e s lengthy, p a i n s t a k i n g e f f o r t s of a l a r g e number of p o l i c e personnel to i n s t a l l the d e v i c e , monitor the c o n v e r s a t i o n s , analyze and c o r r o b o r a t e the i n f o r m a t i o n t h e r e i n , and prepare f o r adducing them i n evidence at t r i a l . T h e r e f o r e , the p o l i c e t r y to apply f o r an a u t h o r i z a t i o n only when the importance of the t a r g e t person and h i s suspected c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t i e s warrant the expense and when s u f f i c i e n t manpower and resources are a v a i l a b l e to execute the measure.208 And such occasions are not i n the l e a s t u s u a l . The m a j o r i t y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would prevent the e f f e c t i v e and r e s t r i c t e d use of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , and moreover would make i t impossible f o r middle or small s i z e p o l i c e f o r c e s to make use of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of l a r g e - s c a l e organized crime a c t i v i t y . - 50 -For the reasons above, I am of the o p i n i o n that the r e l e v a n t p a r t of S e c t i o n 178.12 should be taken to r e q u i r e that the p o l i c e d i s c l o s e the i d e n t i t i e s of a l l the "primary t a r g e t s " (not a l l the known s u s p e c t s ) , as i f i t read; "... of a l l persons, the intended i n t e r c e p t i o n of whose p r i v a t e communications there are reasonable and probable grounds to b e l i e v e may a s s i s t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the o f f e n c e . " There i s some support f o r my i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In Regina  v. B l u n d e l l , S t r e e t and Read (No. 2),209 the defence counsel contended that one S t r e e t , who was not named i n the a u t h o r i z a t i o n , was a c t u a l l y known to a p o l i c e o f f i c e r at the time of the a p p l i c a t i o n , and that h i s communications are not covered by the basket c l a u s e provided f o r "unkown" persons. Cartwright Co.Ct.J. h e l d as f o l l o w s : There i s no p r o v i s i o n i n Part IV.1 [enacted 1973-74, c.50, s.2] of the C r i m i n a l Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34 as amended to date [by 1976-77, c.53] that r e q u i r e s e i t h e r that the a u t h o r i z i n g Judge must be informed of every person known or unknown suspected i n the c r i m i n a l a f f a i r , except f o r s. 178.12 [am. idem, s.8] r e q u i r i n g p a r t i c u l a r s of the o f f e n c e , or that an a u t h o r i z a t i o n must be i s s u e d f o r every known c r i m i n a l p a r t i c i p a n t whether the law o f f i c e r s of the Crown wish i t or not. The l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n would be l u d i c r o u s and would lead to a p l e t h o r a of a u t h o r i z a t i o n s ; j u s t the exact opposite of the course upon which Parliament has embarked. The language of s. 178.12(e) r e q u i r i n g i n the peace o f f i c e r ' s a f f i d a v i t : (e) the names and addresses, i f known, of a l l persons, the i n t e r c e p t i o n of whose p r i v a t e communications there are reasonable and probable grounds to b e l i e v e may a s s i s t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the o f f e n c e . . . (my emphasis) makes i t c l e a r that even though S t r e e t may have been known, that s t i l l does not say that an i n t e r c e p t i o n i n s t a l l a t i o n upon S t r e e t ' s communication system would " a s s i s t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n " i n t h i s a l l e g e d e n t e r p r i s e i n which the Crown has a l l e g e d that B l u n d e l l - 51 -was the s u p p l i e r . I note that s.178.13(2) only sets f o r t h mandatory contents of an a u t h o r i z a t i o n and again i n conformity with s.178.12(e), supra, s.178.13(2)(c) r e q u i r e s that the a u t h o r i z a t i o n s h a l l : (c) s t a t e the i d e n t i t y of the persons, i f known, whose p r i v a t e communications are to be i n t e r c e p t e d . . . As I s a i d above, nowhere i n Part IV. 1, and e s p e c i a l l y i n ss.178.12 and 178.13 i s there any requirement that a l l known suspects to the a l l e g e d o f f e n c e must be both d i s c l o s e d and s p e c i f i c a l l y subjected to an a u t h o r i z -a t i o n to i n t e r c e p t t h e i r p r i v a t e communications.210 S e c t i o n 11 of the I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Act 211 reads: 11. Every enactment s h a l l be deemed remedial, and s h a l l be given such f a i r , l a r g e and l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c -t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as best ensures the attainment of i t s o b j e c t . I t h i n k that the approach taken by Cartwright Co.Ct.J. i n B l u n d e l l i s sound i n the l i g h t of the s a i d object of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act, and t h e r e f o r e should p r e v a i l . R e c e n t l y , the A l b e r t a Court of Appeal d e l i v e r e d a r e l e v a n t judgment on t h i s p o i n t . In Regina v. Chesson and  Vanweenan212 the court held that evidence that a p a r t i c u l a r person may be a p a r t y to an o f f e n c e under i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s not n e c e s s a r i l y proof that the i n t e r c e p t i o n of h i s p r i v a t e communications may a s s i s t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Thus, the p o l i c e are not r e q u i r e d to d i s c l o s e the i d e n t i t i e s of a l l the suspects i n the a f f i d a v i t . On the other hand, t h i s case a l s o i m p l i e d that an innocent t h i r d p a r t y can be a known person w i t h i n the meaning of S e c t i o n 178.12(l)(e) i f h i s p r i v a t e communications may a s s i s t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . In p r a c t i c e , however, the p o l i c e w i l l not - 52 -name an innocent t h i r d p a r t y as a t a r g e t i n the a f f i d a v i t on any occasion.213 ( i i i ) Renewal of A u t h o r i z a t i o n Where the p o l i c e need to prolong the p e r i o d of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e under an a u t h o r i z a t i o n , a renewal thereof can be r e p e a t e d l y obtained,214 before the e x p i r y of the former a u t h o r i z a t i o n . 2 1 5 The s t a t u s of the a p p l i c a n t , the a u t h o r i z i n g judge and the procedure of a p p l i c a t i o n f o r renewal are s i m i l a r to those f o r the o r i g i n a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n . 2 1 6 The i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d i n the a f f i d a v i t of the p o l i c e o f f i c e r supporting the a p p l i c a t i o n i s the reason and p e r i o d f o r which the renewal i s required,217 the f u l l p a r t i c u l a r s of p r e v i o u s i n t e r c e p t i o n s , 2 1 8 the i n f o r m a t i o n obtained by the i n t e r c e p t i o n s , 2 1 9 and the d e t a i l s of previous renewal a p p l i c a t i o n s i f any.220 i n a d d i t i o n , the a u t h o r i z i n g judge may r e q u i r e f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n i f he thinks i t necessary.221 i n order to grant the renewal, the judge must be s a t i s f i e d that the same c o n d i t i o n s as those r e q u i r e d f o r the o r i g i n a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n have been met.222 It o f t e n happens that during the p e r i o d of the o r i g i n a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n the p o l i c e f i n d out the i d e n t i t y of a new t a r g e t who was unknown at the time of g r a n t i n g of the a u t h o r i z a t i o n , or that the p o l i c e found that the suspects are i n v o l v e d i n other s e r i o u s crime than those i n r e s p e c t of which the o r i g i n a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n was granted. 223 However, i t has been he l d by the c o u r t s that a renewal can only extend the time of the o r i g i n a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n ; i t cannot "extend, modify, add to or otherwise - 53 -deal with any f e a t u r e of the a u t h o r i z a t i o n beyond simply extending the period."224 T h e r e f o r e , i n these cases the p o l i c e s h a l l apply f o r a f r e s h a u t h o r i z a t i o n as to the newly i d e n t i f i e d t a r g e t , 225 or new offences that they intend to i n v e s t i g a t e ; 226 otherwise the renewal would be s u b s t a n t i v e l y d e f e c t i v e . ( i v ) Emergency A u t h o r i z a t i o n In case of emergency, a s p e c i a l l y designated p o l i c e o f f i c e r can make an ex parte a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a u t h o r i z a t i o n without c o n s u l t i n g the Crown agents.227 If the concerning offence i s one i n respe c t of which proceedings, i f any, may be i n s t i t u t e d by the Government of Canada and conducted by or on beh a l f of the Attorney General of Canada, the p o l i c e o f f i c e r must be designated i n w r i t i n g by the S o l i c i t o r General of Canada.228 In re s p e c t of any other o f f e n c e i n the p r o v i n c e , the d e s i g n a t i o n must be made by the Attorney General of the p r o v i n c e . 229 U n l i k e the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r o r d i n a r y a u t h o r i z a t i o n , the emergency a p p l i c a t i o n i s not r e q u i r e d to be i n writing.230 Al s o i t must be made to a judge of a s u p e r i o r court of c r i m i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , or a judge as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 482 of the C r i m i n a l Code, designated from time to time by the Chief J u s t i c e . 231 The judge may grant an emergency a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r a p e r i o d of up to t h i r t y - s i x hours when he i s s a t i s f i e d that the urgency of the s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r e s that i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communications commence before the o r d i n a r y a u t h o r i z a t i o n could be obtained.232 (v) P o s t - A u t h o r i z a t i o n Notice As a general r u l e the person who became the obj e c t of - 54 -the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e pursuant to an a u t h o r i z a t i o n must be n o t i f i e d i n w r i t i n g of the f a c t of the i n t e r c e p t i o n w i t h i n ninety-days next f o l l o w i n g the p e r i o d f o r which the a u t h o r i z a t i o n was g i v e n or renewed, by the Attorney General of the pro v i n c e or the S o l i c i t o r General of Canada on whose be h a l f the a p p l i c a t i o n was made.233 The ninety-day p e r i o d can be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r a longer p e r i o d not exceeding three years by an order of a judge of a s u p e r i o r court of c r i m i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n or a judge as d e f i n e d by S e c t i o n 482 of the C r i m i n a l Code, upon a p p l i c a t i o n f o r deferment by the concerning M i n i s t e r e i t h e r at the p r e - a u t h o r i z a t i o n stage234 or before the e x p i r y of the o r i g i n a l n o t i c e period.235 In p r a c t i c e , the contents of the p o s t - a u t h o r i z a t i o n n o t i c e i s merely the f a c t that the person was the o b j e c t of an i n t e r c e p t i o n pursuant to an a u t h o r i z a t i o n , without any f u r t h e r d e t a i l . 2 3 6 A l s o , the ob j e c t s of the n o t i c e are l i m i t e d to the persons who were named i n the a u t h o r i z a t i o n and whose p r i v a t e communications were i n f a c t intercepted.237 T h e r e f o r e , those who became the o b j e c t s of i n t e r c e p t i o n under a basket clause are not to be n o t i f i e d . 5. E v i d e n t i a l Rule There are two types of evidence that the p o l i c e can o b t a i n by means of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e : 2 3 8 1. primary evidence, to w i t , evidence of i n t e r c e p t e d p r i v a t e communications, 2. d e r i v a t i v e evidence, to w i t , evidence obtained d i r e c t l y or - 55 -i n d i r e c t l y as a r e s u l t of i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d by i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communications. S e c t i o n 178.16 of the C r i m i n a l Code prov i d e s the r u l e on both types of evidence. a. Primary Evidence The general e v i d e n t i a r y r u l e i s s t a t e d as f o l l o w s : "A p r i v a t e communication that has been i n t e r c e p t e d i s i n a d m i s s i b l e as evidence against the o r i g i n a t o r of the communication or the person intended by the o r i g i n a t o r to r e c e i v e i t unless (a) the i n t e r c e p t i o n was l a w f u l l y made; or (b) the o r i g i n a t o r t hereof or the person intended by the o r i g i n a t o r to r e c e i v e i t has e x p r e s s l y consented to the admission thereof."239 T h e r e f o r e , the primary evidence secured by the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e with consent of a p a r t y of the c o n v e r s a t i o n or by the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e pursuant to a v a l i d j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n i s a d m i s s i b l e . On the other hand, the primary evidence secured by unlawful e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i s prima f a c i e i n a d m i s s i b l e unless one of the p a r t i e s of the c o n v e r s a t i o n has e x p r e s s l y consented to the admission t h e r e o f . However, the judge or magistrate has a d i s c r e t i o n to admit the primary evidence obtained by unlawful i n t e r c e p t i o n where such evidence i s r e l e v a n t to a matter at i s s u e , and i s i n a d m i s s i b l e s o l e l y because of a formal d e f e c t or p r o c e d u r a l i r r e g u l a r i t y i n the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r or the g i v i n g of the a u t h o r i z a t i o n . 2 4 0 Before the primary evidence obtained by l a w f u l e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i s r e c e i v e d i n evidence, the accused must - 56 -be n o t i f i e d of the Crown's i n t e n t i o n , together with:241 1. a t r a n s c r i p t of the p r i v a t e communication, where i t w i l l be adduced i n the form of a r e c o r d i n g , or a statement s e t t i n g f o r t h f u l l p a r t i c u l a r s of the p r i v a t e communication, where evidence of the p r i v a t e communication w i l l be g i v e n v i v a voce;242 and 2. a statement r e s p e c t i n g the time, place and date of the p r i v a t e communication and the p a r t i e s t h e r e t o , i f known.243 On the other hand, compliance with the requirement of post-a u t h o r i z a t i o n notice244 i s i r r e l e v a n t to the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of evidence.245 b. D e r i v a t i v e Evidence The p r o v i s o of S u b s e c t i o n 178.16(1) s t a t e s : "evidence obtained d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y as a r e s u l t of i n f o r m a t i o n acquired by i n t e r c e p t i o n of a p r i v a t e communication i s not i n a d m i s s i b l e by reason only that the p r i v a t e communication i s i t s e l f i n a d m i s s i b l e as evidence." T h e r e f o r e , the d e r i v a t i v e evidence i s prima f a c i e a d m i s s i b l e r e g a r d l e s s of whether i t i s d e r i v e d from l a w f u l e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e or not. However, a judge or m a g i s t r a t e has a d i s c r e t i o n to r e f u s e the d e r i v a t i v e evidence secured by v i r t u e of unlawful e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e where he i s of the o p i n i o n that the admission thereof would b r i n g the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e i n t o disrepute.246 C. Impact of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act on the P o l i c e 1. P o s i t i v e Aspect to the P o l i c e As I pointed out e a r l i e r , the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act - 57 -acknowledged, f o r the f i r s t time, e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e as a l e g i t i m a t e method of p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and thus e l i m i n a t e d the self-imposed l i m i t a t i o n on the p a r t of the p o l i c e upon using the i n t e r c e p t e d communications as evidence at t r i a l . Since then, the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e has been one of the most important measures of the p o l i c e to secure evidence i n major crime i n v e s t i g a t i o n . For i n s t a n c e , i n the case of drug t r a f f i c k i n g c o n s p i r a c y c o n t r o l l e d by a s o p h i s t i c a t e d organized crime group, u s u a l l y there can be no evidence to show the involvement of the c r i m i n a l s standing on the upper echelons of the h i e r a r c h y , except f o r the o r a l communications of t h e i r own. Since i t i s extremely d i f f i c u l t to get the c o n f e s s i o n from such p r o f e s s i o n a l c r i m i n a l s through i n t e r r o g a t i o n , the only method to secure t h i s c r i t i c a l evidence i s the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . As to the i n t e l l i g e n c e g a t h e r i n g s i d e , I have a l s o p o i n t e d out that the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y A c t p r o h i b i t e d the " s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e g a t h e r i n g " by v i r t u e of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , by t y i n g the a u t h o r i z a t i o n to s p e c i f i c o f f e n c e s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . However, the l a t e r p r a c t i c e has shown i t s remarkable u s e f u l n e s s as an i n t e l l i g e n c e g a t h e r i n g method as w e l l . F i r s t of a l l , l i m i t a t i o n as to the o f f e n c e was d i s c l a i m e d by the O n t a r i o Court of Appeal i n Regina v. Welsh and  Iannuzzi (No.6).247 Zuber J.A. a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y r u l e d that i t i s l e g i t i m a t e f o r the p o l i c e to i n t e r c e p t under an a u t h o r i z a t i o n a l l the t a r g e t person's communications r e g a r d l e s s of whether or not - 58 -they are concerned with the o f f e n c e s p e c i f i e d i n the a u t h o r i z a t i o n . The p o l i c e can l a w f u l l y i n t e r c e p t a l l the communications concerning any o f f e n c e , once the i n t e r c e p t i o n has been commenced i n r e s p e c t to the s p e c i f i e d offence.248 On the other hand, i t was hel d i n the same case, Welsh, supra, that where the a u t h o r i z a t i o n does not i n c l u d e a basket c l a u s e i t i s not l a w f u l f o r the p o l i c e to i n t e r c e p t p r i v a t e communications between unnamed persons, i n other words, to i n t e r c e p t p r i v a t e communications to which none of the named persons are party.249 Since then, however, i t has become common to i n s e r t i n an a u t h o r i z a t i o n a basket c l a u s e p e r m i t t i n g the i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communications of 1. unknown persons who are i n concert with the named person with respect to the s p e c i f i e d o f f e n c e ( o f f e n c e - r e l a t i n g basket c l a u s e ) ; or 2. unknown persons who r e s o r t to the premises of the named persons ( p l a c e - r e l a t i n g basket c l a u s e ) . And the "unknown persons" have been taken by the courts to in c l u d e not only 1. those who were known to be i n v o l v e d i n the o f f e n c e but not i d e n t i f i e d at the time of the a p p l i c a t i o n ; but a l s o 2. those whose e x i s t e n c e was then completely unknown.250 Moreover, according to the o p i n i o n of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the second type of basket c l a u s e mentioned above can cover even an innocent person who i s not p e r s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d i n - 59 -the o f f e n c e . In Regina v. Samson,251 the r e l e v a n t a u t h o r i z a t i o n i n c l u d e d a p l a c e - r e l a t i n g basket c l a u s e as f o l l o w s : 3. The i d e n t i t i e s of the persons whose p r i v a t e communications may be i n t e r c e p t e d are: i . Douglas John Graham 46 Greenwich C i r c l e Brampton, Ontario Occupation: Unknown i i . Donald A l l a n Graham 46 Greenwich C i r c l e Brampton, Onta r i o Occupation: Unkown i i i . ... i v . Any Other Person/s at any of the l o c a t i o n s shown  i n t h i s paragraph.^57 [emphasis added] Brooke J.A. h e l d as to the scope of the basket c l a u s e : I t h i n k t h i s would i n c l u d e anyone who may l i v e there and indeed could i n c l u d e a c a s u a l v i s i t o r . For example, a trademan who attends at the r e s i d e n c e and while using the telephone d i s c l o s e s that the occupant w i l l be out u n t i l a f i x e d time, or who answers an incoming telephone c a l l and r e l a y s a message as requested by the occupant, may w e l l have i n f o r m a t i o n which a s s i s t s i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the offence.253 Thus, under t h i s k i n d of basket c l a u s e , to w i t , those provided with respect to s p e c i f i c premises, any innocent person can be the o b j e c t of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e so long as he i s r e s o r t i n g to the premises. In a d d i t i o n to the basket c l a u s e , i t has a l s o become customary to i n s e r t i n an a u t h o r i z a t i o n an " i t i n e r a n t i n t e r c e p t i o n clause"254 which permits the p o l i c e to perform - 60 -e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e at any place r e s o r t e d to by the t a r g e t person.25 5 Thus, as a p o s i t i v e aspect to the p o l i c e , the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act has provided the p o l i c e with a most powerful weapon f o r both evidence g a t h e r i n g and i n t e l l i g e n c e g a t h e r i n g , which i s i n d i s p e n s a b l e i n t h e i r never-ending f i g h t a gainst crime. 2. Negative Aspect to the P o l i c e In my o p i n i o n , the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act a l s o has a negative aspect to the p o l i c e . That i s undue i n t e r f e r e n c e , j u d i c i a l or otherwise, i n the o p e r a t i o n by the p o l i c e of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . F i r s t l y , the law d i d not f u r n i s h the p o l i c e with the a u t h o r i t y to make an o r d i n a r y a p p l i c a t i o n f o r e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . Except on rare occasions such as hostage or b a r r i c a d e s i t u a t i o n s which would j u s t i f y an emergency a p p l i c a t i o n , 2 5 6 the p o l i c e have to ask an " o u t s i d e r " , to wit, the agent of the Attorney General of the pro v i n c e or of the S o l i c i t o r General of Canada to make an a p p l i c a t i o n , i n s p i t e of the f a c t that a l l the necessary i n f o r m a t i o n i s i n the hands of the p o l i c e and a l l the supporting m a t e r i a l s are to be made by the p o l i c e . Secondly, because of the nature of the c o n d i t i o n s r e q u i r e d f o r the a u t h o r i z a t i o n , the whole process of the p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s to be s c r u t i n i z e d at the time of a p p l i c a t i o n , - 61 -both by the agent and by the a u t h o r i z i n g judge. In r e s p e c t of the c o n v e n t i o n a l search warrant or a r r e s t warrant only r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s of the i n f o r m a t i o n i n the hands of the p o l i c e are to be d i s c l o s e d , but here the p o l i c e have to d i s c l o s e a l l the t a c t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n obtained during the p e r i o d from the beginning of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n to the time of the a p p l i c a t i o n i n c l u d i n g such c r i t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n as the i d e n t i t i e s of the informants, i n order to convince the judge that i t i s i n the best i n t e r e s t s of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e to grant the a u t h o r i z a t i o n and that other t r a d i t i o n a l i n v e s t i g a t i v e procedures e i t h e r have f a i l e d , are u n l i k e l y to succeed, or would be i m p r a c t i c a l because of emergent circumstances.257 The t h i r d p o i n t i s the r e v i e w a b i l i t y of the a u t h o r i z a t i o n . In Wilson v. The Queen,258 Mclntyre J . held f o r the m a j o r i t y of the Supreme Court of Canada that although a t r i a l judge cannot go behind or c o l l a t e r a l l y a t t a c k the a u t h o r i z a t i o n , an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r review of the a u t h o r i z a t i o n can be made to the same judge who granted i t or, i f he i s not a v a i l a b l e , to another judge of the same c o u r t , and that the a u t h o r i z a t i o n should be set aside where "the f a c t s upon which the a u t h o r i z a t i o n was granted are found to be d i f f e r e n t from the f a c t s proved on the ex parte review."259 A l s o , i t has been held by recent cases that s u b j e c t to e d i t i n g by the court f o r the purpose of safeguarding c r i t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n such as the i d e n t i t i e s of informants, the accused should have access to the p o l i c e a f f i d a v i t and other m a t e r i a l s used f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n , so that he can a s c e r t a i n whether there i s some b a s i s f o r s e t t i n g aside the a u t h o r i z a t i o n . 260 Thus, the - 62 -p o l i c e o f f i c e r s are to be cross-examined as to the whole process of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n at the lengthy p r e l i m i n a r y hearings while the defence counsels are seeking f o r evidence on f r a u d or w i l f u l n o n - d i s c l o s u r e on the p a r t of the p o l i c e . 2 6 1 Here, a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of i n f o r m a t i o n on procedures and techniques of the p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s d i s c l o s e d i n the presence of the c r i m i n a l s . The f o u r t h and most c r i t i c a l p o i n t i s the scheme of the a u t h o r i z a t i o n i t s e l f . In r e s p e c t of the search warrant or a r r e s t warrant the p o l i c e choose the o b j e c t s t h e r e o f , and the judge's r o l l i s only to determine the adequacy of the i n t e n t of the p o l i c e . On the c o n t r a r y , here, the scheme of the a u t h o r i z a t i o n envisaged by the m a j o r i t y of the courts i s t h i s : The p o l i c e provide the judge with a l l the necessary i n f o r m a t i o n so that the judge, not the p o l i c e , can p r o p e r l y choose the objects.262 The f o l l o w i n g statement of Spencer Co.Ct.J. i n Regina v Carothers et al.263 represents t h i s scheme: Under S e c t i o n 178.12(e) the a p p l i c a t i o n must r e v e a l the names of a l l known persons, and under S e c t i o n 178.13(2)(c) the a u t h o r i z a t i o n must name a l l known persons who are chosen f o r i n t e r c e p t i o n . 2 6 4 [emphasis added] Another example of p r e s e n t a t i o n of the same view i s the f o l l o w i n g statement of Brooke J.A. i n Samson, supra :265 I f i n d no ambiguity i n the present ss.178.12(1)(e) and 178.13(2)(c) reading them s e p a r a t e l y or together. The f i r s t of the two s e c t i o n s sets out the f a c t s and  i n f o r m a t i o n which must be placed before a judge when he - 63 -i s asked to determine who are a l l the persons the i n t -e r c e p t i o n of whose p r i v a t e communications there are reasonable and probable grounds to b e l i e v e may a s s i s t i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n ... 266 [emphasis added] In the above statement of Brooke J.A., I observe lack of due r e s p e c t , on the part of the c o u r t , f o r the p o l i c e as p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . How can a judge be i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n than the p o l i c e to choose the o b j e c t s of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n ? How can a judge know more about the c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n than the p o l i c e , without any p e r s o n a l experience thereof and without access to the s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e the p o l i c e have accumulated through lengthy e f f o r t s ? Besides the i s s u e of s e l e c t i o n of the o b j e c t s , the Supreme Court of Canada i n Lyons v. The Queen2 67 a l s o c l a r i f i e d the s u p e r v i s o r y r o l e of the a u t h o r i z i n g judge over the p o l i c e with respect to the manner of the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . A f t e r r e c o g n i z i n g the a u t h o r i z i n g judge's power to permit s u r r e p t i t i o u s entry by the p o l i c e i n t o the named premises f o r the purpose of i n s t a l l i n g a room bugging d e v i c e , Estey J . proceeded f o r the m a j o r i t y of the c o u r t : I b e l i e v e that a c o u r t , i n i s s u i n g an a u t h o r i z a t i o n under Part IV.1, should, i n the e x e r c i s e of i t s s u p e r v i s o r y f u n c t i o n , designate the type of d e v i c e or d e v i c e s which may be employed and the procedures and c o n d i t i o n s which, i n the circumstances r e v e a l e d i n the a p p l i c a t i o n , are necessary or a d v i s a b l e i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . 2 6 8 Thus i t seems to me that the a u t h o r i z i n g judge, not the p o l i c e , - 64 -p r e s i d e s over the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , one of the most important methods of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 3. C o n c l usion Since the enactment i n 1973, i t has been f r e q u e n t l y maintained by a u t h o r i t i e s that the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act has a double-edged impact upon Canadian c i t i z e n s ; the p r o t e c t i o n from organized crime, and the t h r e a t to t h e i r own r i g h t to p r i v a c y . In my view, the law a l s o has a double-edged impact upon Canadian p o l i c e f o r c e s , as d e t a i l e d above. In a sense t h i s l a t t e r r e s u l t i s i n the n a t u r a l course of events. The more power i s granted, the more a c c o u n t a b i l i t y i s required.269 I would l i k e to draw the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n with respect to the l e g a l impact of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act upon the o p e r a t i o n of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n by Canadian p o l i c e f o r c e s : The p o l i c e obtained the most powerful weapon i n performing the c r i m e - f i g h t i n g duty, at the c o s t of t h e i r independence i n c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . D. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y A c t Because e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i s a p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t r u s i v e form of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the l e g i s l a t i o n which p r o v i d e s the p o l i c e with the power of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e should be c r i t i c a l l y s c r u t i n i z e d with a view to the p r o t e c t i o n of the c i t i z e n ' s r i g h t to p r i v a c y . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s e s s e n t i a l to - 65 -examine the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms270 ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d to as "the C h a r t e r " ) . Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada made a r e l e v a n t statement on the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of S e c t i o n 8 of the Charter which guarantees "the r i g h t to be secure against unreasonable search or s e i z u r e " . In Hunter et a l . v. Southam Inc., 271 i n which c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the search and s e i z u r e p r o v i s i o n s 2 7 2 of the Combines  I n v e s t i g a t i o n Act273 was i n i s s u e , the unanimous d e c i s i o n of the court r u l e d that S e c t i o n 8 of the Charter i s not l i m i t e d to the p r o t e c t i o n of the p r o p e r t y r i g h t , but goes at l e a s t as f a r as to p r o t e c t the r i g h t of p r i v a c y . Chief J u s t i c e Dickson s t a t e d : "[T]he purpose of S e c t i o n 8 i s . . . t o p r o t e c t i n d i v i d u a l s from u n j u s t i f i e d S t a t e i n t r u s i o n s upon t h e i r privacy."274 Since the Charter i s a "purposive document",275 i t i n e v i t a b l y f o l l o w s that S e c t i o n 8 of the Charter should apply not only to t r a d i t i o n a l search and s e i z u r e of t a n g i b l e evidence but a l s o to e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . In other words, the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act i s now subject to s c r u t i n y under S e c t i o n 8 of the Charter. Conveniently, Hunter, supra, has enunciated s p e c i f i c standards which s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s governing the a u t h o r i z a t i o n of search and s e i z u r e must meet i n order to comply with S e c t i o n 8 of the Charter. F i r s t of a l l , a system of p r i o r a u t h o r i z a t i o n which prevents u n j u s t i f i e d searches before they happen i s r e q u i r e d . Secondly, the person a u t h o r i z i n g a search and s e i z u r e must be n e u t r a l and i m p a r t i a l , and although he need not be a judge, he must at a minimum be capable of a c t i n g j u d i c i a l l y . - 66 -T h i r d l y , i n r e s p e c t of the b a s i s on which the balance of i n t e r e s t s between the s t a t e and the i n d i v i d u a l i s assessed, there must be, at a minimum, "reasonable and prbbable grounds, e s t a b l i s h e d upon oath, to b e l i e v e that an o f f e n c e has been committed and that there i s evidence to be found at the place of the search".276 Although the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act c l e a r l y s a t i s f i e s the f i r s t and second standards above, a c l o s e examination s h a l l be r e q u i r e d with respect to the t h i r d h u r d l e . S e c t i o n 178.12(l)(e) of the C r i m i n a l Code r e q u i r e s that besides p a r t i c u l a r s of the o f f e n c e being i n v e s t i g a t e d "the names, addresses and occupations, i f known, of a l l persons the i n t e r c e p t i o n of whose p r i v a t e communications there are reasonable and probable grounds to b e l i e v e may a s s i s t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of  the o f f e n c e " (emphasis added) be provided by an a f f i d a v i t accompanying an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an a u t h o r i z a t i o n of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . T h e r e f o r e , someone may argue that Part IV.1 of the C r i m i n a l Code does not r e q u i r e the a p p l i c a n t demonstrate, or that the judge before whom the a p p l i c a t i o n i s presented f i n d , reasonable and probable grounds to b e l i e v e that the t a r g e t e d i n d i v i d u a l ' s p r i v a t e communications w i l l provide evidence i n r e l a t i o n to an o f f e n c e , and thus does not s a t i s f y the t h i r d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirement s p e c i f i e d i n Hunter.277 In my o p i n i o n , however, t h i s t r a i n of thought i s untenable. What i s s p e c i f i e d i n S e c t i o n 178.12(l)(e) i s not a standard on which the a u t h o r i z i n g judge assesses the balance of i n t e r e s t s . S e c t i o n 178.12(l)(e) merely shows one of many - 67 -elements that must be d i s c l o s e d i n the a f f i d a v i t accompanying the a p p l i c a t i o n . As I d e t a i l e d i n the previous arguments i n t h i s study, the law r e q u i r e s that the p o l i c e d i s c l o s e , i n the a f f i d a v i t , a l l the important i n f o r m a t i o n obtained i n each step of t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o a p a r t i c u l a r o f f e n c e . And i n order to is s u e an a u t h o r i z a t i o n , the judge must be s a t i s f i e d on such i n f o r m a t i o n ; (a) that i t would be i n the best i n t e r e s t s of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e to do so; and (b) that other i n v e s t i g a t i v e procedures have been t r i e d and f a i l e d , other i n v e s t i g a t i v e procedures are u n l i k e l y to succeed or the urgency of the matter i s such that i t would be i m p r a c t i c a l to c a r r y out the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the offence using only other i n v e s t i g a t i v e procedures.278 Thus, the judge can a u t h o r i z e an i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communications only when he i s s a t i s f i e d that there are reasonable and probable grounds to b e l i e v e that a t a r g e t a b l e s e r i o u s o f f e n c e has been or i s being committed and that the named suspect i s p e r s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d i n the o f f e n c e , so that "the best i n t e r e s t s of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e " can be secured. When there i s a b a s i s f o r b e l i e v i n g the t a r g e t e d person i s hi m s e l f i n v o l v e d i n the o f f e n c e , i t i s saf e to say that there i s a b a s i s f o r b e l i e v i n g the i n t e r c e p t i o n of h i s p r i v a t e communications w i l l p rovide the evidence. In Regina v. F i n l a y and G r e l l e t t e , 2 7 9 i n which the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the l e g i s l a t i o n was contended, the Ontario Court of Appeal made a c l e a r statement on t h i s p o i n t . M a r t i n J.A. f o r the court p o i n t e d out: - 68 -In determining the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of Part IV. 1 of the Code the proper approach, i n my view, i s to consider i t s p r o v i s i o n s and the safeguards contained t h e r e i n i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y . It i s not proper, i n my o p i n i o n , to s e i z e upon i n d i v i d u a l s e c t i o n s of Part IV.1 and to see i f those s e c t i o n s , viewed i n i s o l a t i o n , contravene the p r o v i s i o n s of the Charter.280 Then M a r t i n J.A. proceeded: It i s true that s.178.13 does not, i n express language, r e q u i r e the judge as a c o n d i t i o n of g r a n t i n g the a u t h o r i z a t i o n to be s a t i s f i e d that there are reasonable grounds to b e l i e v e that an offe n c e has been committed or i s being or i s about to be committed and that the a u t h o r i z a t i o n sought w i l l a f f o r d evidence of communications concerning the o f f e n c e . . . The judge must, however, be s a t i s f i e d that the gr a n t i n g of the a u t h o r i z a t i o n would be i n the "best i n t e r e s t s of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e " . The language used by Parliament, as p r e v i o u s l y i n d i c a t e d , r e q u i r e s the judge to balance the i n t e r e s t s of e f f e c t i v e law enforcement against p r i v a c y i n t e r e s t s and, i n my view, imports at l e a s t the requirement that the judge must be s a t i s f i e d that there i s reasonable ground to b e l i e v e that  communications concerning the p a r t i c u l a r offence w i l l  be obtained through the i n t e r c e p t i o n sought. The " p a r t i c u l a r o f f e n c e " , of course"! i n c l u d e s the inchoate offences of co n s p i r a c y , attempt or incitement to commit the o f f e n c e . To pl a c e t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n on the language used by Parliament i s not to read i n words that are not th e r e , but to gi v e a reasonable meaning to Parliament's language. ...I am consequently of the view t h a t , when the p r o v i s i o n s of Part IV.1 are considered i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y , the a p p e l l a n t s ' c o n t e n t i o n that s.178.13 permits an a u t h o r i z a t i o n to be granted on the b a s i s of a standard that i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y low must be rejected.281 [emphasis added] Thus, the l e g i s l a t i o n i t s e l f i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y v a l i d with r e s p e c t to t h i s p o i n t , that i s to say, the b a s i s on which the balance of i n t e r e s t s between the s t a t e and the i n d i v i d u a l i s assessed. On the other hand, i n my view, an a u t h o r i z a t i o n would be u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i f the judge names an innocent t h i r d p a r t y as - 69 -a t a r g e t of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e merely because the i n t e r c e p t i o n of h i s p r i v a t e communications w i l l a s s i s t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of an o f f e n c e . S i m i l a r l y , the basket c l a u s e which covers innocent t h i r d p a r t i e s who are not p e r s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d i n the o f f e n c e i n v e s t i g a t e d i s , i n my o p i n i o n , u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . I b e l i e v e , t h e r e f o r e , the p l a c e - r e l a t i n g basket c l a u s e as endorsed by the O n t a r i o Court of Appeal i n Samson should not be u t i l i z e d any more. In F i n l a y and G r e l l e t t e , supra, however, M a r t i n J.A. a l s o s t a t e d that under Part IV.1 of the C r i m i n a l Code the p r i v a t e communications of a person may c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y become "the s u b j e c t of an a u t h o r i z a t i o n even though that person i s not b e l i e v e d to be i n v o l v e d i n the commission of the o f f e n c e , provided that there are reasonable grounds to b e l i e v e that the i n t e r c e p t i o n of the p r i v a t e communications of that person w i l l a s s i s t i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of an o f f e n c e , e.g. a car r e n t a l agency from whom a suspect rents cars to t r a n s p o r t drugs."282 i n my view t h i s p o r t i o n of the judgment i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with the p r i o r r u l i n g s quoted above, and cannot be s u s t a i n e d . Apart from the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l standards s p e c i f i e d i n Hunter, i t i s a l s o arguable that Part IV. 1 of the C r i m i n a l Code i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l because i t l a c k s express p r o v i s i o n s f o r minimization. M i n i m i z a t i o n has been d e f i n e d as "the procedure by which only those communications which are the proper subject of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n are i n t e r c e p t e d or recorded",283 or "the adoption of measures to reduce the extent of court-ordered e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e to a p r a c t i c a l minimum and at the same time to a l l o w l e g i t i m a t e i n v e s t i g a t i v e aims to be pursued".284 - 70 -For i n s t a n c e , the United S t a t e s ' counterpart of the P r o t e c t i o n of  P r i v a c y Act, T i t l e I I I of the Omnibus Crime C o n t r o l and S a f e t y  S t r e e t Act of 1968,285 has a p r o v i s i o n f o r m i n i m i z a t i o n . S e c t i o n 2815(5) of T i t l e I I I p r o v i d e s : (5) ... Every order and e x t e n s i o n thereof s h a l l c o n t a i n a p r o v i s i o n that the a u t h o r i z a t i o n to i n t e r c e p t s h a l l be executed as soon as p r a c t i c a b l e , s h a l l be conducted i n such a way as to minimize the i n t e r c e p t i o n of communications not otherwise su b j e c t to i n t e r c e p t i o n under t h i s chapter, and must terminate upon attainment of the a u t h o r i z e d o b j e c t i v e , or i n any event i n t h i r t y days. Although the Canadian s t a t u t e i s , to a l a r g e extent, based on T i t l e I I I , headed Wiretapping and E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e , i t d i d not f o l l o w the American precedent i n t h i s p o i n t , which has o f t e n been c r i t i c i z e d i n the l i g h t of p r o t e c t i o n of p r i v a c y . However, S e c t i o n 178.13(2) of the C r i m i n a l Code provides that an a u t h o r i z a t i o n s h a l l , among other t h i n g s , " c o n t a i n such terms and c o n d i t i o n s as the judge c o n s i d e r s a d v i s a b l e i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s " . 2 8 6 Therefore, the a u t h o r i z i n g judge can s p e c i f y any c o n d i t i o n s r e q u i r i n g m i n i m i z a t i o n i n the i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communications, i f he t h i n k s such c o n d i t i o n s necessary f o r the purpose of performing h i s s u p e r v i s o r y r o l e over the p o l i c e as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada i n Lyons. T h i s l e g i s l a t i v e scheme might not be the b e t t e r one i n the l i g h t of the m i n i m i z a t i o n i n that i t does not s p e c i f y any g u i d e l i n e f o r the a u t h o r i z i n g judge. Ne v e r t h e l e s s , i n my o p i n i o n , i t does not f o l l o w that the l e g i s l a t i o n i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l because of l a c k of m i n i m i z a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s . 2 8 7 - 71 -IV. ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE IN JAPAN A. N e c e s s i t y of E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e At present there i s no s t a t u t e governing p o l i c e i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communications i n Japan. With no s p e c i f i c p r o h i b i t i o n against e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , however, the Japanese p o l i c e r e f r a i n , u n l i k e Canadian p o l i c e f o r c e s before the enactment of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act, from r e s o r t i n g to t h i s powerful weapon as evidence-gathering and i n t e l l i g e n c e -g a t h e ring measures. N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t appears that the Japanese p o l i c e have been s u c c e s s f u l i n main t a i n i n g peace and order i n the country up to i m p r e s s i v e l y high standards. While the r e s u l t s of p o l i c e a c t i v i t i e s i n crime p r e v e n t i o n and crime i n v e s t i g a t i o n are s t a t i s t i c a l l y shown by "crime r a t e " (the number of o f f e n c e s r e p o r t e d to the p o l i c e per 100,000 p o p u l a t i o n ) and "clearance r a t e " (the r a t i o of the cases solved by the p o l i c e among a l l the cases r e p o r t e d ) , the i n t e r n a t i o n a l comparison c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s the e f f i c i e n c y of the Japanese p o l i c e , that i s to say, lower crime r a t e s and higher c l e a r a n c e r a t e s . According to the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Crime S t a t i s t i c s by the I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i m i n a l  P o l i c e O r g a n i z a t i o n ( I n t e r p o l ) , the crime r a t e s and cl e a r a n c e r a t e s i n 1984 both i n Canada and Japan are as follows:288 - 72 -Crime Rates (1984) [Japan] [Canada] Murder 1.5 6 Sex Offences 3.6 59 Se r i o u s A s s a u l t 19.6 117 Theft ( a l l kinds) 1,137.6 5,119 Robbery and V i o l e n t T h e ft 1.8 93 Breaking and E n t e r i n g 251.2 1,421 Fraud 90.7 489 C o u n t e r f e i t Currency 0.1 4 Drug Offences 1.6 219 Crime Total289 1,453 10,802 Clearance Rates (1984) [Japan] [Canada] Murder 97.2 % 83.7 % Sex Offences 83.9 65.4 Serious A s s a u l t 94.5 79.1 Theft ( a l l k i n d s ) 58.7 22.1 Robbery and V i o l e n t T h e ft 78.8 32.1 Breaking and E n t e r i n g 69.8 21.1 Fraud 97.7 69.7 C o u n t e r f e i t Currency 25.5 21.4 Drug Offences 100.0 88.0 Crime Total290 66.5 46.4 - 73 -Thus, as f a r as the s t a t i s t i c s go, the Japanese p o l i c e are remarkably s u c c e s s f u l i n performing t h e i r c r i m e - f i g h t i n g duties.291 Then the q u e s t i o n a r i s e s : i s i t necessary f o r the Japanese p o l i c e to r e s o r t to e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e ? In my o p i n i o n , the answer to t h i s question i s "Yes". The reasons are as f o l l o w s . F i r s t of a l l , the absolute number of crimes has been on the constant and r a p i d i n c r e a s e f o r n e a r l y two decades. In 1973, the number of penal code o f f e n c e s known to the p o l i c e ( i n thousands) was 1,191.292 In 1978, f i v e years l a t e r , i t went up to 1,337.293 In 1983, f i v e more years l a t e r , the number swelled i n t o 1,541.294 If t h i s trend c o ntinues, which i s very l i k e l y , the time w i l l come i n the near f u t u r e when the p o l i c e can no longer manage to deal with the d e t e r i o r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n unless they r e s o r t to e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e which i s more e f f e c t i v e than t r a d i t i o n a l methods of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g crimes are a menace to the s o c i e t y , demanding the p o l i c e to take a new method to prevent and a t t a c k them. Secondly, both crime r a t e s and c l e a r a n c e r a t e s do not r e f l e c t inadequacy of p o l i c e a c t i v i t i e s i n the f i e l d of v i c t i m l e s s crimes, such as drug o f f e n c e s , gambling, b r i b e r y and p r o s t i t u t i o n . Those crimes are r a r e l y reported from o u t s i d e to the p o l i c e , no matter how o f t e n they are a c t u a l l y committed. The r e f o r e , i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t h i s f i e l d leads to "low" crime r a t e s , while the c l e a r a n c e r a t e s of - 74 -those o f f e n c e s are t h e o r e t i c a l l y 100% (because those o f f e n c e s are never counted unless unearthed and s o l v e d by the p o l i c e ) . And i t i s i n t h i s f i e l d that the Japanese p o l i c e have been c r i t i c i z e d f o r t h e i r weakness. A c l e a r example i s "drug o f f e n c e s " , which i s the only v i c t i m l e s s crime shown i n the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Crime  S t a t i s t i c s , supra. According to the s t a t i s t i c s (1984), the crime r a t e of drug o f f e n c e s i n Japan i s 1.6, while 219 i n Canada. Although the crime r a t e i n Japan i s one one hundred and t h i r t y - t h i r d of that i n Canada, and the c l e a r a n c e r a t e thereof i s 100%, i t does not f o l l o w that the Japanese p o l i c e are the more e f f e c t i v e i n c r a c k i n g down on drug o f f e n d e r s . It only p o i n t s to the inadequacy of the e f f o r t s by the Japanese p o l i c e . The amount of i l l i c i t s t i m u l a n t drugs which are being smuggled i n t o Japan every year i s o f f i c i a l l y estimated to be over 2,000 kilograms.295 i n 1983, the p o l i c e c o n f i s c a t e d 99.0 kilograms of them, l e s s than 5% of the t o t a l a l l e g e d l y smuggled.296 Maybe the Japanese p o l i c e are one hundred and t h i r t y - t h r e e times l e s s e f f e c t i v e i n t h i s f i e l d than the Canadian c o u n t e r p a r t s who are armed wi t h the i n t r u s i v e weapon c a l l e d e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . The t h i r d f a c t o r to be considered i s "Boryokudan" or "Yakuza", the t r a d i t i o n a l crime s y n d i c a t e with a permanent Mafia-type o r g a n i z a t i o n . At the end of 1983, the number of Boryokudan members, recognized by the p o l i c e throughout the country, counted 98,771 i n 2,330 groups.297 Among them, " K o i k i Boryokudan", i n t e r - p r e f e c t u r a l crime s y n d i c a t e s c o v e r i n g wider areas, had 58,490 men i n 1,878 groups of 74 f a m i l i e s , 298 and - 75 -showed no s i g n of d e c l i n e d e s p i t e the p a i n s t a k i n g e f f o r t s by the p o l i c e to crack down on them. They are p r o f e s s i o n a l c r i m i n a l s earning t h e i r l i v i n g by i l l e g a l a c t i v i t i e s . Although Boryokudan members account f o r l e s s than 0.1% of the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n of Japan, they, i n 1984, accounted f o r 6.7% of the t o t a l a r r e s t e d i n the country f o r Penal Code v i o l a t i o n 2 9 9 and 13.6% of those a r r e s t e d f o r other offences.300 And what i s more important i s that organized crime dominates drugs, gambling and p r o s t i t u t i o n , the v i c t i m l e s s crimes mentioned above, as i t s huge resource of income. According to the e s t i m a t i o n by the N a t i o n a l Research I n s t i t u t e of P o l i c e Science, incomes earned by Boryokudan members are 1.08 t r i l l i o n yen a year, with the drug t r a f f i c b earing the l a r g e s t f r u i t of 458 b i l l i o n yen, to be f o l l o w e d by i l l e g a l book-making y i e l d i n g 175.4 b i l l i o n yen and gamblling 69.2 b i l l i o n yen.301 Because no c o o p e r a t i o n from v i c t i m s can be expected i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of those kinds of crimes, i t i s e s s e n t i a l f o r the p o l i c e to o b t a i n a very i n t r u s i v e weapon to unearth t h e i r s o p h i s t i c a t e d c r i m i n a l plans and penetrate t h e i r s o l i d o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The two key f a c t o r s i n c r a c k i n g down on Boryokudan are t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n and income. In order to exterminate Boryokudan, i t i s imperative to a r r e s t and d e t a i n those i n the upper echelons i n s t e a d of those i n the s t r e e t l e v e l as w e l l as to take away t h e i r f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s . The e f f o r t s only by means of t r a d i t i o n a l ways of i n v e s t i g a t i o n have proved to be shortcoming. The f o u r t h reason i s the other type of organized crime, "Kageki-ha", that i s , e x t r e m i s t s or u l t r a - l e f t i s t s with - 76 -p a r a m i l i t a r y underground o r g a n i z a t i o n s . As of the end of 1983, those v i o l e n t u l t r a - l e f t i s t groups were estimated to have membership of about 35,000 i n the country,302 and they are co n s p i c u o u s l y e s c a l a t i n g t h e i r t e r r o r i s m and g u e r r i l l a a c t i v i t i e s i n recent years. In 1983 those groups caused a t o t a l of 17 g u e r r i l l a i n c i d e n t s . 3 0 3 In 1984 the number of g u e r r i l l a i n c i d e n t s i n c r e a s e d to 47.304 In 1985 i t surged to 87,305 more than f i v e times as l a r g e as two years ago. Most of the t e r r o r i s t i n c i d e n t s are b r u t a l , committed by f i r e - a r m s , bombs and even r o c k e t s , and are causing c o n s i d e r a b l e s o c i a l unrest i n an otherwise s t a b l e s o c i e t y . However, i t seems that the p o l i c e are v i r t u a l l y powerless i n suppressing the t e r r o r i s m , and that they f i n d extreme d i f f i c u l t y i n s o l v i n g each i n c i d e n t . In order to subdue t h i s e s c a l a t i n g t e r r o r i s m , the Japanese p o l i c e d e f i n i t e l y need a new i n t r u s i v e weapon which could deeply penetrate t h e i r underground o r g a n i z a t i o n s . In summary the f o l l o w i n g f o u r f a c t o r s , i n my view, s u f f i c i e n t l y i n d i c a t e the n e c e s s i t y of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e as a method of crime i n v e s t i g a t i o n by the Japanese p o l i c e . a. Constant and r a p i d i n c r e a s e i n the abosolute number of crimes. b. Inadequate law enforcement i n the f i e l d of v i c t i m l e s s crimes such as drugs, gambling, p r o s t i t u t i o n , e t c . c. D i f f i c u l t y i n c r a c k i n g down on Boryokudan c o n t r o l l i n g the v i c t i m l e s s crimes which generate huge f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s . d. D i f f i c u l t y i n suppressing t e r r o r i s m by the u l t r a - l e f t i s t s ' underground o r g a n i z a t i o n . - 77 -B. Legitimacy of E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e 1. Court D e c i s i o n Assuming that e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i s a necessary method f o r the Japanese p o l i c e , and that the time w i l l come i n the near f u t u r e when the Japanese p o l i c e have to use i t i n order to deal with the d e t e r i o r a t i n g crime s i t u a t i o n , i s i t l e g i t i m a t e f o r them to use e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e under the present law? With respect to t h i s q u e s t i o n , there i s only one o l d case a u t h o r i t y which was d e l i v e r e d by the Tokyo High Court on J u l y 17, 1953.306 In t h i s case, a p o l i c e o f f i c e r i n s t a l l e d , with consent of the manager of the premises, a r a d i o t r a n s m i t t e r (room-bugging device) c l o s e to the room rented by a member of the Japan Communist Party i n order to o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n upon the whereabouts of s e v e r a l s t a f f members of the Party wanted f o r v i o l a t i o n of the O r g a n i z a t i o n s Regulating Act.307 While he was i n t e r c e p t i n g p r i v a t e communications between communists g a t h e r i n g i n the room, the device was found by the communist members, and the Party f i l e d a s u i t r e q u e s t i n g the p r o s e c u t i o n s of the p o l i c e o f f i c e r and the c h i e f of h i s p o l i c e s t a t i o n f o r abusing t h e i r authority.308 Thus, the l e g a l i t y of the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e was contended i n the c o u r t . The Tokyo High Court r u l e d as fo l l o w s ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : Although i t i s true that i n Japan so v e r e i g n power r e s i d e s with the people309 and that the people's fundmental human r i g h t s concerning t h e i r homes, speech, assembly, a s s o c i a t i o n e t c . s h a l l be the supreme c o n s i d e r a t i o n , 310 at the same time a l l the Japanese people are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r u t i l i z i n g those fundamental r i g h t s f o r the p u b l i c welfare.311 Therefore the - 78 -exercise of those fundamental r i g h t s i s not without l i m i t a t i o n , but should be r e s t r i c t e d so as to be i n harmony wit h the p u b l i c welfare. Whenever there are suspicions of crimes, regardless of the kinds of offences or damages e t c . , i t i s w i t h i n the duty and a u t h o r i t y of the j u d i c i a l p o l i c e o f f i c e r to i n v e s t i g a t e thereon,312 and with respect to the methods of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i t i s l e g i t i m a t e to take any d i s p o s i t i o n necessary f o r a t t a i n i n g the purpose of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n , provided that the d i s p o s i t i o n i s not a compulsory one and that i t does not v i o l a t e the laws and orders.313 Therefore, the objects of such an i n v e s t i g a t o r y d i s p o s i t i o n can include not only the suspects of the crimes but also relevant t h i r d p a r t i e s who have some r e l a t i o n s h i p with the offence or suspects. • • • The sole purpose of the i n t e r c e p t i o n of communications i n t h i s case was the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the crime committed by the eight s t a f f members of the Party. The p o l i c e had obtained the consent of the manager of the premises to the i n s t a l l a t i o n and use of the r a d i o t r a n s m i t t e r . The device was i n s t a l l e d close to the outside of A's room, but, according to the c l e a r evidence, i t d i d not a f f e c t the outlook or u t i l i t y of the room at a l l . There i s no evidence i n d i c a t i n g that the i n t e r c e p t i o n was conducted f o r the purpose of preparation f o r oppressing the l e g i t i m a t e p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s of the Japan Communist Party. Although the i n s t a l l a t i o n and use of the r a d i o t r a n s m i t t e r were kept secret from A whose communications were to be i n t e r c e p t e d , the device was not attached to the room i t s e l f , and the consent of the manager of the premises had been obtained beforehand with respect to i t s use and i n s t a l l a t i o n . Thus, i t i s c l e a r i n evidence that the p o l i c e regarded the i n t e r c e p t i o n as non-compulsory d i s p o s i t i o n . Therefore, as f a r as the i n t e r c e p t i o n was performed f o r the purpose of a t t a i n i n g the object of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n , there was no abuse of the p o l i c e a u t h o r i t y even i f there was some minor bad i n f l u e n c e upon the e x e r c i s e of A's fundamental r i g h t s , which was the n a t u r a l r e s u l t accompanying the i n t e r c e p t i o n , because such r e s t r i c t e d e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e was i n harmony with the p u b l i c w e l f a r e , and A and h i s company were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r u t i l i z i n g t h e i r fundamental r i g h t s f o r the p u b l i c welfare.314 Thus the court was of the view that e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e by the p o l i c e f o r the purpose of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s l e g i t i m a t e so long as i t i s not accompanied by - 79 -t r e s p a s s on the premises of the t a r g e t e d person. Since then there has been no development i n case law as to e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e (owing to the f a c t that the p o l i c e stopped r e s o r t i n g to the method), and the above judgment i s the only a u t h o r i t y with respect to the l e g i t i m a c y of the p o l i c e i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communications. However, t h i s judgment i s now s u b j e c t to severe c r i t i c i s m by academic s c h o l a r s f o r paying no a t t e n t i o n to the p r i v a c y r i g h t as w e l l as f o r the ambiguity of i t s reasoning. 315 C o n s i d e r i n g that the r i g h t to p r i v a c y , which i s now considered to be one of the most important p r i n c i p l e s u n d e r l y i n g the fundamental human r i g h t s guaranteed by the C o n s t i t u t i o n of  Japan,316 was not g e n e r a l l y recognized at the time of the judgment, i t seems that t h i s o l d a u t h o r i t y has l i t t l e b i n d i n g power at present, and that a f r e s h d e l i b e r a t i o n upon the l e g i t i m a c y of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i s r e q u i r e d . 2. L e g i s l a t i o n As mentioned b e f o r e , there i s no s t a t u t e s p e c i f i c a l l y r e g u l a t i n g e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e at present. A r t i c l e 13 of the E l e c t r o n i c Cable Communications Law317 provi d e s ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : A r t i c l e 13. A person who o b s t r u c t s e l e c t r o n i c c a b l e communcations by d e s t r o y i n g e l e c t r o n i c cable communication equipment, a t t a c h i n g d e v i c e s thereto or by other means h i n d e r i n g the f u n c t i o n of e l e c t r o n i c cable communcation equipment s h a l l be punished with imprisonment at f o r c e d labor f o r not more than f i v e years or with a f i n e of not more than one m i l l i o n yen. Since w ir etapping by the p o l i c e would c r e a t e no o b s t r u c t i o n of telephone communications i n t e r c e p t e d , the s u r r e p t i t i o u s a c t i v i t y cannot be covered by t h i s p r o v i s i o n . - 80 -A r t i c l e 4, Paragraph 1 of the E l e c t r o n i c Communication Business Law318 pr o v i d e s ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : A r t i c l e 4. Secrecy of communications r e l a t i n g to d e a l i n g s of an e l e c t r o n i c communication business c o r p o r a t i o n s h a l l not be v i o l a t e d . And A r t i c l e 104 of the same law proceeds ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : A r t i c l e 104. A person who v i o l a t e s the secrecy of communications r e l a t i n g to d e a l i n g s of an e l e c t r o n i c communication business c o r p o r a t i o n s h a l l be punished with imprisonment at f o r c e d l a b o r or with a f i n e of not more than 300,000 yen. However, "communications r e l a t i n g to d e a l i n g s of an e l e c t r o n i c communication business c o r p o r a t i o n " i n those p r o v i s i o n s are taken to exclude telephone communications of a p r i v a t e p a r t y which can be l i s t e n e d to by the other p r i v a t e p a r t y at the end of the terminal.319 Thus, wiretapping i s , g e n e r a l l y speaking, not p r o h i b i t e d by the A r t i c l e s . The most r e l e v a n t s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n , which r e q u i r e s d e t a i l e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i s A r t i c l e 197, Paragraph 1 of the Code of C r i m i n a l Procedure320 e n u n c i a t i n g the p r i n c i p l e i n f a v o r of non-compulsory d i s p o s i t i o n s i n c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . The p r o v i s i o n reads ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : A r t i c l e 197. With regard . to i n v e s t i g a t i o n , such examination as may be necessary f o r a t t a i n i n g i t s object may be made. However, compulsory d i s p o s i t i o n s  s h a l l not be e f f e c t e d excepted when there are s p e c i a l  p r o v i s i o n s t h e r e f o r i n t h i s law. [emphasis added] At present there are no " s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s " f o r e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i n the Code of C r i m i n a l Procedure. T h e r e f o r e , i f "compulsory d i s p o s i t i o n s " i n A r t i c l e 197(1) in c l u d e the s u r r e p t i t i o u s i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communications, i t would be - 81 -a g a i n s t A r t i c l e 197(1) of the Code of C r i m i n a l Procedure f o r the p o l i c e to r e s o r t to e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . On the other hand, i f we take the t r a d i t i o n a l view that the "compulsory d i s p o s i t i o n s " mean those accompanying some p h y s i c a l compulsion against the o b j e c t t h e r e o f , or those imposing some l e g a l d u t i e s upon the obj e c t thereof,321 i t would f o l l o w that the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i s ,out of the scope of the A r t i c l e . Indeed, the Tokyo High Court Judgment on J u l y 17, 1953, supra, i s apparently of the view that s u r r e p t i t i o u s i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communication i t s e l f i s not a compulsory d i s p o s i t i o n . In my view, however, the touchstone of "compulsory d i s p o s i t i o n " should be whether or not the d i s p o s i t i o n i n q u e s t i o n i s a g a i n s t the w i l l or reasonable e x p e c t a t i o n of the person who i s the obj e c t of the d i s p o s i t i o n . A t y p i c a l example of "compulsory d i s p o s i t i o n " i s , of course, the t r a d i t i o n a l search and s e i z u r e of t a n g i b l e evidence. Even i f a search and s e i z u r e i s conducted i n s e c r e t while the obj e c t person i s absent from the premises concerned, nobody would suggest that such search and s e i z u r e i s a non-compulsory d i s p o s i t i o n because i t i s not accompanied by p h y s i c a l compulsion a g a i n s t or l e g a l d u t i e s upon the o b j e c t person. It i s a compulsory d i s p o s i t i o n because i t i s against the o b j e c t person's reasonable e x p e c t a t i o n f o r s e c u r i t y of h i s p r o p e r t y and p r i v a c y . S i m i l a r l y , the s u r r e p t i t i o u s i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communications made under circumstances i n which i t i s reasonable f o r the o r i g i n a t o r thereof to expect that they w i l l not be i n t e r c e p t e d by any person other than an intended r e c i p i e n t should be considered as "compulsory - 82 -d i s p o s i t i o n " . T h e r e f o r e , I am o f t h e o p i n i o n ^ t h a t t h e J a p a n e s e p o l i c e c a n n o t u s e e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i t h o u t " s p e c i a l " s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s g o v e r n i n g i t s p r o c e d u r e s : i t w o u l d be a g a i n s t A r t i c l e 1 9 7 ( 1 ) o f t h e Code o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e . 3. C o n s t i t u t i o n I n o r d e r t o f u l l y e x a m i n e t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , we c a n n o t a v o i d d e l i b e r a t i o n upon t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y t h e r e o f . A r t i c l e 35 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f J a p a n 3 2 2 p r o v i d e s ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : A r t i c l e 35. The r i g h t o f a l l p e r s o n s t o be s e c u r e i n t h e i r homes, p a p e r s and e f f e c t s a g a i n s t e n t r i e s , s e a r c h e s and s e i z u r e s s h a l l n o t be i m p a i r e d e x c e p t upon w a r r a n t i s s u e d f o r a d e q u a t e c a u s e and p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s c r i b i n g t h e p l a c e t o be s e a r c h e d and t h i n g s t o be s e i z e d , o r e x c e p t as p r o v i d e d by A r t i c l e 33.323 E a c h s e a r c h o r s e i z u r e s h a l l be made upon s e p a r a t e w a r r a n t i s s u e d by a c o m p e t e n t j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r . I t i s c l e a r t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f p r o c l a m a t i o n o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f J a p a n 3 2 4 " s e a r c h " and " s e i z u r e " i n A r t i c l e 35 r e f e r r e d o n l y t o t h e t r a d i t i o n a l s e a r c h and s e i z u r e o f t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e . T h u s , t h e T okyo H i g h C o u r t Judgment on J u l y 17, 1953, s u p r a , a p p a r e n t l y t o o k t h e v i e w t h a t A r t i c l e 35 d o e s n o t a p p l y t o e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e as a means o f c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . R e c e n t l y , h o w e v e r , some l e a d i n g s c h o l a r s , t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e c a s e l a w i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s c o n c e r n i n g e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , 3 2 5 m a i n t a i n t h a t A r t i c l e 35 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f J a p a n p r o t e c t s , l i k e t h e F o u r t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n , 3 2 6 t h e p r i v a c y r i g h t , and t h u s i t i s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e p o l i c e i n t e r c e p t i o n o f p r i v a t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s . 3 2 7 - 83 -In Canada, the need f o r a broad p e r s p e c t i v e i n approaching c o n s t i t u t i o n a l documents was recognized i n Hunter. Chief J u s t i c e Dickson f o r the Supreme Court of Canada r u l e d as f o l l o w s : The task of expounding a c o n s t i t u t i o n i s c r u c i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from that of c o n s t r u i n g a s t a t u t e . A s t a t u t e d e f i n e s present r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s . It i s e a s i l y enacted and as e a s i l y repealed. A c o n s t i t u t i o n , by  c o n t r a s t , i s d r a f t e d with an eye to the f u t u r e . I t s  f u n c t i o n i s to p rovide a c o n t i n u i n g framework f o r the  l e g i t i m a t e e x e r c i s e of governmental power and, when  jo i n e d by a B i l l or a Charter of R i g h t s , f o r the  u n r e m i t t i n g p r o t e c t i o n of ind~ividual r i g h t s and  l i b e r t i e s . " Once enacted, i t s p r o v i s i o n s cannot e a s i l y  Fe repealed or amended. It must, t h e r e f o r e , be capable  of growth and development over time to meet new s o c i a l ,  p o l i t i c a l and h i s t o r i c a l r e a l i t i e s o f t e n unimagined by  i t s framers. The j u d i c i a r y i s the guardian of the C o n s t i t u t i o n and must, i n i n t e r p r e t i n g i t s p r o v i s i o n s , bear these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n mind. P r o f e s s o r Paul Freund expressed t h i s idea a p t l y when he admonished the American c o u r t s "not to read the p r o v i s i o n s of the C o n s t i t u t i o n l i k e a l a s t w i l l and testament l e s t i t become one".328 [emphasis added] There seems to be no reason why t h i s powerful statement a p p l i e s only to the Canadian and American c o n s t i t u t i o n s but not to the Japanese one. Therefore i t would be s e n s i b l e to argue that A r t i c l e 35 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n of Japan i s a p p l i c a b l e to e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , which i s a new s o c i a l r e a l i t y unimagined at the time of the enactment of the C o n s t i t u t i o n . On the other hand, some other s c h o l a r s argue that A r t i c l e 35 cannot encompass e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e because i t d i d not a n t i c i p a t e such k i n d of p o l i c e a c t i v i t i e s at the time of the enactment, and that there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the Japanese words "Jukyo, Shorui oyobi S h o j i h i n " - 84 -( t r a n s l a t e d as "homes, papers and e f f e c t s " i n the E n g l i s h v e r s i o n ) i n A r t i c l e 35 to i n c l u d e vocal communications.329 Those s c h o l a r s , however, unanimously maintain that A r t i c l e 31 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n of Japan, which adopted the p r i n c i p l e of requirement of "due process of law", a p p l i e s to e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . A r t i c l e 31 reads ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : A r t i c l e 31. No person s h a l l be d e p r i v e d of l i f e or l i b e r t y , nor s h a l l any other c r i m i n a l p e n a l t y be imposed, except according to procedure e s t a b l i s h e d by law. Because " l i b e r t y " i n A r t i c l e 31 encompasses the p r i v a c y r i g h t , i n order f o r the p o l i c e to i n t e r c e p t p r i v a t e communications, there must be s p e c i f i c procedures e s t a b l i s h e d by law f o r the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . F u r t h e r , they a l s o contend that because of the i n t r u s i v e nature of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e and of the s u b s t a n t i a l t h r e a t to the p r i v a c y r i g h t which could be created thereby, the r e s t r i c t i n g c o n d i t i o n s s i m i l a r to those r e q u i r e d by A r t i c l e 35 s h a l l be demanded i n the law governing e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e procedures, and that at l e a s t the p r i n c i p l e of the warrant requirement enunciated by A r t i c l e 35 should apply to e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . Thus according to those academic a u t h o r i t i e s which maintain that A r t i c l e 35 does not d i r e c t l y apply to e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , the requirements s p e c i f i e d by A r t i c l e 35 are v i r t u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e to the p o l i c e i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communications.330 Another r e l e v a n t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n i s A r t i c l e 21 which guarantees the freedom of speech. A r t i c l e 21 provides ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : - 85 -A r t i c l e 21. Freedom of assembly and a s s o c i a t i o n as w e l l as speech, press and a l l other forms of e x p r e s s i o n are guaranteed. No censorship s h a l l be maintained, nor s h a l l the  secrecy of any means of communication be v i o l a t e d . [emphasis added] It i s c l e a r from the wording that u n c o n t r o l l e d e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e by the State which v i o l a t e s the secrecy of p r i v a t e communications i s p r o h i b i t e d by A r t i c l e 21.331 On the other hand, however, the freedom of speech guaranteed by A r t i c l e 21 i s taken to be s u b j e c t to the reasonable l i m i t s f o r the purpose of the " p u b l i c welfare"332 c l a r i f i e d i n A r t i c l e 12 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n . A r t i c l e 12 reads ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : A r t i c l e 12. The freedoms and r i g h t s guaranteed to the people by t h i s C o n s t i t u t i o n s h a l l be maintained by the constant endeavor of the people, who s h a l l r e f r a i n from any abuse of these freedoms and r i g h t s and s h a l l always  be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r u t i l i z i n g them f o r the p u b l i c  welfare. [emphasis added] An example of the l i m i t a t i o n to the secrecy of communication f o r the purpose of the p u b l i c w e l f a r e i s found i n A r t i c l e 100 of the Code of C r i m i n a l Procedure, which a u t h o r i z e s the search and s e i z u r e of p o s t a l matters. A r t i c l e 100 provides ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : A r t i c l e 100. A court may s e i z e or cause to be produced p o s t a l matters or papers r e l a t i n g to telegrams, sent out by or to the accused, which are i n the custody or p o s s e s s i o n of a Government o f f i c e or of any other person t r a n s a c t i n g communication bus i n e s s . (2) P o s t a l matters or papers r e l a t i n g to telegrams other than those mentioned i n the preceding paragraph, which are i n the custody or p o s s e s s i o n of a Government o f f i c e or of any other person t r a n s a c t i n g communication b u s i n e s s , may be s e i z e d or caused to be produced only when there are circumstances which warrant t h e i r being c o n s i d e r e d to be connected w i t h the case i n hand. (3) When any d i s p o s i t i o n has been e f f e c t e d under the p r o v i s i o n s of the preceding two paragraphs, n o t i c e of such f a c t s h a l l be gi v e n to the sender or to the - 86 -addressee. However, t h i s s h a l l not apply i f there i s apprehension that such n o t i f i c a t i o n may o b s t r u c t the proceedings. S i m i l a r l y , the p o l i c e i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communications would not v i o l a t e the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l freedom of speech, i f i t i s w i t h i n the reasonable l i m i t s f o r the purpose of the p u b l i c w e l f a r e . Indeed, the Tokyo High Court Judgment on J u l y 17, 1953, quoted b e f o r e , seems to have r u l e d that e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e f o r the purpose of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s , i n p r i n c i p l e , w i t h i n the reasonable l i m i t s f o r the p u b l i c w e l f a r e . In my view, however,the l i m i t a t i o n f o r the purpose of the p u b l i c w e l f a r e should be r e s t r i c t e d l y s p e c i f i e d i n the form of s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s which balance the need f o r e f f e c t i v e crime i n v e s t i g a t i o n a g a i n s t the p r o t e c t i o n of the p r i v a c y r i g h t . 4. Conclusion As seen above, there are grave s u s p i c i o n s that the p o l i c e i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communications under the present law, i n which no s p e c i f i c s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s c l a r i f y the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e proceedings, i s a g a i n s t the Code of  C r i m i n a l Procedure and the C o n s t i t u t i o n . With such s u s p i c i o n s , the Japanese p o l i c e might as w e l l r e f r a i n from r e s o r t i n g to t h i s enchanting method of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Because, with r e s p e c t to the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of i l l e g a l l y obtained evidence, the Supreme Court of Japan takes the view that "where i t i s not a p p r o p r i a t e from the standpoint of d e t e r r i n g f u t u r e i l l e g a l i n v e s t i g a t i v e a c t i v i t y to allow i n t o evidence the things i l l e g a l l y obtained i n gross d i s r e g a r d of the p r i n c i p l e of the - 87 -warrant requirement embodied, i n t e r a l i a , i n such p r o v i s i o n s as  A r t i c l e 35 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n . . . , such evidence i s to be held inadmissible"333 ( t r a n s l a t i o n , emphasis added), i t i s l i k e l y that the p r i v a t e communications intercepted by the p o l i c e under the present law would be inadmissible i n evidence at t r i a l . Thus Japan needs a f r e s h e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e law, the l e g a l framework s a t i s f y i n g the requirement of j u d i c i a l warrant and balancing the c o n f l i c t i n g s o c i a l i n t e r e s t s ; the need of the p o l i c e to obtain information on c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t i e s and the p r o t e c t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t to p r i v a c y . C. Desirable Contents of E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e Law i n Japan Assuming Japan needs new l e g i s l a t i o n on e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , what s h a l l be the ingredients of the law? As to t h i s f i n a l question of the study, I would suggest that the P r o t e c t i o n of Privacy Act, the Canadian precedent i n t h i s c o n t r o v e r s i a l f i e l d , i s b a s i c a l l y an appropriate model f o r the proposed law i n Japan. The P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act, as we have seen i n d e t a i l e a r l i e r , i s an elaborate l e g a l scheme which sets up a scope of l a w f u l p o l i c e i n t e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a t e communications under r e s t r i c t i n g c o n d i t i o n s . The law has furnished the Canadian p o l i c e forces with the most e f f e c t i v e weapon i n major crime i n v e s t i g a t i o n , w h i l e , at the same time, p r o t e c t i n g the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to p r i v a c y of the c i t i z e n s by - 88 -v i r t u e of the j u d i c i a l c o n t r o l over p o l i c e conduct. It i s a d e l i b e r a t e l e g a l framework b a l a n c i n g the two c o n f l i c t i n g s o c i a l i n t e r e s t s , which can be a model f o r other democratic c o u n t r i e s . In my o p i n i o n , the f o l l o w i n g elements of the Canadian precedents s h a l l be e s s e n t i a l to the Japanese l e g i s l a t i o n as w e l l . 1. The p o l i c e can l a w f u l l y i n t e r c e p t p r i v a t e communications of the suspects only when consent of the o r i g i n a t o r or intended r e c i p i e n t thereof i s obtained, or when a j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n i s obtained. 2. The of f e n c e s i n resp e c t of which the a u t h o r i z a t i o n can be obtained are l i m i t e d to c e r t a i n s e r i o u s offences or those committed by organized crime. 3. An a u t h o r i z a t i o n may be giv e n only when the judge to whom the a p p l i c a t i o n i s made i s s a t i s f i e d that a. there are reasonable and probable grounds to b e l i e v e ( i ) a t a r g e t a b l e s e r i o u s o f f e n c e has been or i s being committed, and ( i i ) the person whose p r i v a t e communications are to be i n t e r c e p t e d i s p e r s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d i n the o f f e n c e , and b. one of the f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s has been met; ( i ) other i n v e s t i g a t i v e procedures have been t r i e d and have f a i l e d . ( i i ) other i n v e s t i g a t i v e procedures are u n l i k e l y to succeed. - 89 -( i i i ) t h e u r g e n c y o f t h e m a t t e r i s s u c h t h a t i t w o u l d be i m p r a c t i c a l t o c a r r y o u t t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e o f f e n c e u s i n g o n l y o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s . 4. A p r i v a t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s e c u r e d by l a w f u l i n t e r c e p t i o n i s a d m i s s i b l e a s e v i d e n c e , H o w e v e r , i n o r d e r f o r t h e l a w f u l l y i n t e r c e p t e d p r i v a t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n t o be r e c e i v e d i n e v i d e n c e , p r i o r n o t i c e o f t h e p r o s e c u t i o n a c c o m p a n i e d by t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n h a s t o be g i v e n t o t h e a c c u s e d . 5. A p r i v a t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s e c u r e d by u n l a w f u l i n t e r c e p t i o n i s p r i m a f a c i e i n a d m i s s i b l e , u n l e s s t h e o r i g i n a t o r o r i n t e n d e d r e c i p i e n t h a s c o n s e n t e d t o i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n i n e v i d e n c e . H o w e v e r , t h i s i s s u b j e c t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e t o a d m i t s u c h e v i d e n c e where t h e e v i d e n c e i s r e l e v a n t and t h e u n l a w f u l n e s s o f t h e i n t e r c e p t i o n was due o n l y t o a d e f e c t o f f o r m o r i r r e g u l a r i t y i n p r o c e d u r e . 6. An a u t h o r i z a t i o n i s v a l i d o n l y f o r a c e r t a i n p e r i o d o f t i m e , and i s s u b j e c t t o r e n e w a l on a p p l i c a t i o n . I n o r d e r t o g r a n t t h e r e n e w a l , t h e j u d g e must be s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e same c o n d i t i o n s a s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e o r i g i n a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n h a v e b e e n m e t . 7 . The p e r s o n who became t h e o b j e c t o f t h e e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e p u r s u a n t t o t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n i s t o be n o t i f i e d o f t h e f a c t o f t h e i n t e r c e p t i o n w i t h i n a c e r t a i n p e r i o d o f t i m e a f t e r t h e i n t e r c e p t i o n was l a w f u l l y t e r m i n a t e d . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , i t seems t o be i n e v i t a b l e t h a t b e c a u s e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n b o t h c o u n t r i e s i n l e g a l s y s t e m s and t r a d i t i o n s some p a r t i c u l a r e l e m e n t s o f t h e C a n a d i a n m o d e l a r e - 90 -not s u i t a b l e f o r the Japanese c o u n t e r p a r t , and t h e r e f o r e should be m odified. Such elements s h a l l be p o i n t e d out i n the f o l l o w i n g . F i r s t l y , the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act pr o v i d e s that except i n case of emergency an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n must be made by the Attorney General of the pr o v i n c e , the S o l i c i t o r General of Canada, or t h e i r designated agents. Not being given the s t a t u s of the a p p l i c a n t , the p o l i c e have to ask the agent of the r e l e v a n t M i n i s t e r to make an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , i n s p i t e of the f a c t that a l l the necessary i n f o r m a t i o n i s i n the hands of the p o l i c e and a l l the supporting m a t e r i a l s are to be provided by the p o l i c e . Probably, t h i s i s an a p p r o p r i a t e system to make sure of the d e l i b e r a t e o p e r a t i o n of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i n Canada, where the p r o v i n c i a l and municipal p o l i c e f o r c e s 334 come under the s u p e r v i s i o n of the Attorney General, the c h i e f law enforcement o f f i c e r of the p r o v i n c e , and where the RCMP, as the f e d e r a l p o l i c e f o r c e , i s under the d i r e c t i o n of the S o l i c i t o r General of Canada. In Japan, however, the p o l i c e , under the Code  of C r i m i n a l Procedure, are given a u t h o r i t y to conduct c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n independent of the prosecutor.335 Although the p o l i c e , a f t e r completing an i n v e s t i g a t i o n , s h a l l send the case to the prosecutor together with the w r i t t e n and other evidence obtained,336 the p o l i c e are not accountable to the pro s e c u t o r f o r the i n v e s t i g a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n t h e i r independent a u t h o r i t y . Neither i s the prosecutor r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the p o l i c e - 91 -i n v e s t i g a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , i f the s t a t u s of the a p p l i c a n t f o r the j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n i s l i m i t e d to the p r o s e c u t o r , i t would b r i n g about c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r f e r e n c e i n the p o l i c e a u t h o r i t y i n c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . C o n s i d e r i n g that before World War II only the p r o s e c u t o r s had the a u t h o r i t y f o r c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i t h the p o l i c e as t h e i r a s s i s t a n t s , 3 3 7 and that the independent p o l i c e a u t h o r i t y i n c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n was c r e a t e d by the democratic r e f o r m a t i o n of the Code of C r i m i n a l Procedure i n 1948,338 such i n t e r f e r e n c e i n the p o l i c e a u t h o r i t y would not be accepted. In my o p i n i o n , i n order to keep the independent i n v e s t i g a t i v e a u t h o r i t y of the p o l i c e , and, at the same time, to make sure of the d e l i b e r a t e o p e r a t i o n of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e i n Japan, the s t a t u s of the a p p l i c a n t f o r the j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n should be r e s t r i c t e d to the j u d i c i a l p o l i c e o f f i c e r at the rank of P o l i c e Superintendent or higher, designated by the N a t i o n a l P u b l i c S a f e t y Commission or the P r e f e c t u r a l P u b l i c S a f e t y Commission.339 The second poin t i s the scheme of the a u t h o r i z a t i o n i t s e l f . As seen e a r l i e r i n t h i s study, the scheme of the j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n envisaged by the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act and the court d e c i s i o n s thereon i s t h i s : "The p o l i c e p rovide the judge with a l l the necessary i n f o r m a t i o n so that the judge, not the p o l i c e , can p r o p e r l y choose the o b j e c t s of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . " It seems to me that Canadian j u r i s p r u d e n c e has had l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y i n a c c e p t i n g the n o v e l t y of the scheme. I b e l i e v e , however, t h i s scheme cannot be imported i n t o Japan where - 92 -there i s no t r a d i t i o n i n which the c o u r t s p r e s i d e over the i n v e s t i g a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s of the p o l i c e . Canada i n h e r i t e d the common law t r a d i t i o n i n which the p o l i c e were c r e a t e d as delegates of the c i t i z e n s , 3 4 0 and were under d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n of the j u s t i c e of the peace.341 i n Japan, on the other hand, the p o l i c e were c r e a t e d as an i n t e g r a l part of the s t a t e a u t h o r i t y , and they have never been the servants of the j u d i c i a r y . In Canada, an a r r e s t warrant i s an order by the j u s t i c e d i r e c t i n g the p o l i c e to a r r e s t the suspects so that they can answer to the charge before him or some other j u s t i c e having j u r i s d i c t i o n . On the other hand, i n Japan an a r r e s t warrant i s not an order, but a permit to a r r e s t the suspects f o r the purpose of the c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 3 4 2 Thus, the p o l i c e , having obtained the a r r e s t warrant, s t i l l have the d i s c r e t i o n not to execute i t . In Canada, a search warrant i s a l s o an order, and any a r t i c l e s e i z e d under a search warrant must, without d e l a y , be brought before the j u s t i c e who issued the warrant or some other j u s t i c e of the peace i n the same t e r r i t o r i a l d i v i s i o n so that the j u s t i c e can decide the d i s p o s i t i o n . In Japan, again, a search warrant i s a permit, and the p o l i c e can keep the s e i z e d a r t i c l e s i n t h e i r own custody u n t i l sending them to the prosecutor a f t e r the completion of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 3 4 3 With those d i f f e r e n c e s i n the j u d i c i a l r o l e s between Canada and Japan, I b e l i e v e that the scheme of j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n i n Japan should be t h i s : the p o l i c e choose the o b j e c t s of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , and the a u t h o r i z i n g judge s h a l l determine the adequacy of the i n t e n t of the p o l i c e ; the same scheme as those f o r the a r r e s t warrant and search warrant. - 93 -Besides the i s s u e of the s e l e c t i o n of the t a r g e t , the Supreme Court of Canada i n Lyons recognized the s u p e r v i s o r y r o l e of the a u t h o r i z i n g judge over the p o l i c e with respect to the manner of the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . In Japan, however, i t i s a l s o i r r e l e v a n t and u n f a i r to expect a judge to accept a s u p e r v i s o r y r o l e over c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Here, again, the manner of the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e should be chosen by the p o l i c e and the judge's r o l e s h a l l be to determine the adequacy of the p o l i c e ' s i n t e n t i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the Japanese law should r e q u i r e that i f the p o l i c e intend to do room-bugging by v i r t u e of s u r r e p t i t i o u s e n t r y i n t o the premises of the suspect, the i n t e n t i o n and the reasons thereof be made c l e a r at the time of the a p p l i c a t i o n , so that the judge can s c r u t i n i z e the adequacy of such an o p e r a t i o n . 344 Thus, the i n i t i a t i v e i n the manner of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h a l l be secured i n the hands of the p o l i c e . The judge should s t r i c t l y be the n e u t r a l and i m p a r t i a l a r b i t r a t o r between the p o l i c e ' s needs and the c i t i z e n ' s r i g h t s , not the s u p e r v i s o r of the p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . On the other hand, the s u p e r v i s o r y r o l e of the a u t h o r i z i n g judge over the p o l i c e i n Canada i s , i n a sense, recognized i n compensation f o r the sweeping power attached to a s i n g l e a u t h o r i z a t i o n c o n t a i n i n g the basket c l a u s e and i t i n e r a n t i n t e r c e p t i o n c l a u s e , and u s u a l l y no m i n i m i z a t i o n requirement. Therefore, i f we deny the judge's s u p e r v i s o r y r o l e i n Japan, i t would be reasonable to a t t a c h l e s s i n t r u s i v e power to an a u t h o r i z a t i o n . Thus, I would propose that the Japanese - 94 -e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e law r e q u i r e that the a u t h o r i z a t i o n s p e c i f y , among other things,345 the p a r t i c u l a r s of the persons whose p r i v a t e communications are to be i n t e r c e p t e d , and the p a r t i c u l a r s of the p l a c e at which p r i v a t e communications may be i n t e r c e p t e d , a l l o w i n g no basket c l a u s e or i t i n e r a n t i n t e r c e p t i o n c l a u s e . A l s o , i t would be p r e f e r a b l e that the law c o n t a i n a p r o v i s i o n f o r m i n i m i z a t i o n , l i k e S e c t i o n 2815(5) of T i t l e I I I . In the f i r s t h a l f of t h i s study, I drew the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n with re s p e c t to the l e g a l impact of the P r o t e c t i o n of  P r i v a c y Act upon the o p e r a t i o n of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n by the Canadian p o l i c e f o r c e s : "The p o l i c e obtained the most powerful weapon i n performing the c r i m e - f i g h t i n g duty, at the cost of t h e i r independence i n c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . " I b e l i e v e that under the circumstances i n Japan more r e s t r i c t i n g r u l e s with respect to the i n t r u s i v e power attached to an a u t h o r i z a t i o n s h a l l be r e q u i r e d , while the i n i t i a t i v e to choose the t a r g e t , p l a c e and manner of the e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e should be secured i n the hands of the p o l i c e . The Japanese p o l i c e s h a l l enjoy l e s s power and more independence. - 95 -V. CONCLUSION What i s law? Answering t h i s fundamental question of l e g a l s t u d i e s , P r o f e s s o r S.M. Waddams s t a t e s : "the law i n any s o c i e t y i s the s o c i e t y ' s attempt to r e s o l v e the most b a s i c human t e n s i o n s , that between the needs of man as an i n d i v i d u a l , and h i s needs as a member of a community. The law i s the knife-edge on which the d e l i c a t e balance i s maintained between the i n d i v i d u a l on the one hand and the s o c i e t y on the other. "346 In s p i t e of the strong emphasis placed on Man as an i n d i v i d u a l , no one can doubt that i t i s pa r t of Man's nature to l i v e i n a community. Thus, a human s o c i e t y must, i n order to s u r v i v e , develop a system of r e s o l v i n g c o n f l i c t s between i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r e s t s and community i n t e r e s t s . The law i s the system of r e s o l v i n g those c o n f l i c t s . In t h i s sense, the c r i m i n a l p r o c e d u r a l law r e g u l a t i n g e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e may be the w o r t h i e s t of the name of law. It i s a l e g a l framework b a l a n c i n g two fundamental i n t e r e s t s : the r i g h t to p r i v a c y , that i s , the core concept of the d i g n i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s , and e f f e c t i v e crime p r e v e n t i o n , that i s , a widely shared d e s i r e to be p r o t e c t e d from crime. Thus, e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e law deserves the most c a r e f u l b a l a n c i n g of competing yet d e f e n s i b l e i n t e r e s t s . P r i v a c y has long been a h i g h l y valued i n t e r e s t i n the West, and i t has been gi v e n by the Canadian c o u r t s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n against any kind of unreasonable search and s e i z u r e by - 96 -the s t a t e . In Japan, with a l l the t r a d i t i o n a l i n d i f f e r e n c e of the people t h e r e t o , p r i v a c y r e c e n t l y emerged as a l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d i n t e r e s t . Despite an o l d case a u t h o r i t y to the c o n t r a r y , the Japanese c o u r t s , too, are l i k e l y to a f f o r d i t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t unregulated e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . In Canada the attempt to set up a l e g a l framework to balance the p o l i c e need a g a i n s t the p r i v a c y r i g h t r e s u l t e d i n the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act proclaimed on June 30, 1974, which has decided a scope of l a w f u l i n t e r c e p t i o n by the p o l i c e of p r i v a t e communications under r e s t r i c t i n g c o n d i t i o n s . A f t e r a decade of c o n f u s i n g p r a c t i c e , the law now seems to have f u r n i s h e d the p o l i c e with the most powerful weapon i n major crime i n v e s t i g a t i o n , while p r o t e c t i n g the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to p r i v a c y of the c i t i z e n s . The law, however, has had negative impacts upon the Canadian p o l i c e f o r c e s i n that i t brought about undue i n t e r f e r e n c e , j u d i c i a l or otherwise, i n the o p e r a t i o n of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n , as d e t a i l e d i n t h i s study. In s h o r t , the p o l i c e obtained the most powerful weapon i n performing the c r i m e - f i g h t i n g duty, at the cost of t h e i r independence i n c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Up to t h i s time the Japanese p o l i c e have r e f r a i n e d from r e s o r t i n g to e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . The t r a d i t i o n a l c o o p e r a t i v e a t t i t u d e of the c i t i z e n s toward the p o l i c e as symbolized by Junkai Renraku, supra, seems to be the main f a c t o r which made i t p o s s i b l e f o r the p o l i c e to m a i n tain peace and order - 97 -i n the country without using t h i s e f f e c t i v e method of c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . However, with the r a p i d u r b a n i z a t i o n of the s o c i e t y accompanied by the i n c r e a s i n g anonymity of the r e s i d e n t s and the w e s t e r n i z a t i o n of the l e g a l consciousness r e s u l t i n g from permeation of the post-war democratic r e f o r m a t i o n , i t seems to be g e t t i n g more and more d i f f i c u l t to preserve the cooperative r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p o l i c e and the c i t i z e n s . T herefore, i t seems that sometime i n the near f u t u r e the d e t e r i o r a t i n g crime s i t u a t i o n w i l l f o r c e law makers to give the Japanese p o l i c e new t o o l s i n c l u d i n g e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . When the time comes, I b e l i e v e , the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act, the Canadian precedent to balance the two c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s , can, with the necessary m o d i f i c a t i o n as proposed i n t h i s study, be an a p p r o p r i a t e model f o r the Japanese cou n t e r p a r t . When we take i n t o account the r e l a t i v e l y low crime r a t e i n Japan, the co o p e r a t i v e a t t i t u d e of the c i t i z e n s toward the p o l i c e , the ease with which the p o l i c e are able to i d e n t i f y members of organized crime, and the unique s t a t u s of the Japanese p o l i c e i n the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system i n the country, my proposal that Japan i n t r o d u c e an e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e system with l e s s i n t r u s i v e power than i n Canada while p r e s e r v i n g t r a d i t i o n a l Japanese p o l i c e s t r a t e g i e s i n c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i l l be g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t a b l e . Then, I hope, e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e w i l l be a supplemental and l i m i t e d i n v e s t i g a t i v e t o o l f o r the Japanese p o l i c e , and at the same time w i l l be seen by Japanese c i t i z e n s as a reasonable l i m i t a t i o n to the newly emerged c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to p r i v a c y . - 98 -N O T E S 1. 1973-74 (Can.), c.50. 2. D.H. F l a h e r t y , P r o t e c t i n g P r i v a c y i n Two-Way E l e c t r o n i c  S e r v i c e s (1985), at 6. 3. I b i d . 4. M.R. Ko n v i t z , P r i v a c y And The Law: A P h i l o s o p h i c a l Prelude (1966) 31 L. and Cont. Prob. 2 72, at 2 72. 5. Id. at 272-276. 6. L.C. Velecky, The Concept of P r i v a c y , i n J.B. Young, P r i v a c y (1978), at 16. 7. I b i d . 8. (1968) 31 L. and Cont. Prob. 281. 9. Id. at 290. 10. I b i d . 11. Id. at 293. 12. (1890) 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193. 13. D i s s e n t i n g Judgment i n Olmsted v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928, U.S.S.C), at 478. 14. The i n c r e a s i n g t h r e a t to p r i v a c y brought about by the development of modern technology has been descibed by Alan F. Westin as f o l l o w s i n Science, P r i v a c y , and Freedom: Issues  and Proposals f o r The 1970*5 (1966) 66 C o l . L. Rev. 1003, at 1050: Man's a b i l i t y to f o l l o w the movements and monitor the p r i v a t e conduct of h i s f e l l o w human beings has been g r e a t l y expanded by the development of new s u r v e i l l a n c e d e v i c e s and techniques. P h y s i c a l s u r v e i l l a n c e has been aided by i n v e n t i o n s such as subminiature tags and t r a n s m i t t e r s , long range cameras, d i r e c t i o n a l microphones, and a great v a r i e t y of s o p h i s t i c a t e d "bugs" and wiretapping instruments. Access to the l i f e h i s t o r y of i n d i v i d u a l s has been made p o s s i b l e by the ever i n c r e a s i n g amount and v a r i e t y of records kept by government and i n d u s t r y , the e f f i c i e n c y with which computers can handle these r e c o r d s , the i n c r e a s i n g tendency toward data sharing and c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , and recent developments l e a d i n g to replacement of p r i v a t e - 99 -money and check t r a n s a c t i o n s with f u l l y recorded, computerized c r e d i t systems. D i s c o v e r y of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s innermost s e c r e t s - h i s f e a r s , hopes, and problems - f o r purposes such as personnel s e l e c t i o n and l o y a l t y - t e s t i n g has been f a c i l i t a t e d by the spread of p s y c h o l o g i c a l s u r v e i l l a n c e techniques such as polygraph and p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t s . 15. (1972) 62 Am Jur 2d 678. 16. Schuyler v. C u r t i s et a l . (1891) 15 N.Y. Supp. 787 (N.Y.S.C.). 17. 171 N.Y. 538, 64 N.E. 442 (N.Y.C.A.). 18. See W.P. Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on The Law of T o r t s (5th  ed.) (1984), at 850-851. 19. 122 Ga. 190, 50 S.E. 68. 20. See Keeton, supra, note 18, at 851. 21. E.g. P. Burns, The Law and P r i v a c y : The Canadian Experience (1976) 54 Can. Bar Rev. 1, at 12. 22. J.G. Fleming, The Law of T o r t s (6th ed.) (1983), at 568. 23. See Burns, supra, note 21; D. Gibson, Common Law P r o t e c t i o n  of P r i v a c y (1977), i n L. K l a r , S t u d i e s i n Canadian Tort Law, Ch. 12; Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on P r o t e c t i o n  of P r i v a c y i n Ont a r i o ( P r e l i m i n a r y Study) (1968). 24. The second f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n i s the P r i v a c y Act, 1980-81-82-83, c . I I I , Scheule I I , the purpose of which i s "to extend the present laws of Canada that p r o t e c t the p r i v a c y of i n d i v i d u a l s with respect to personal i n f o r m a t i o n about themselves h e l d by a government i n s t i t u t i o n and that p rovide i n d i v i d u a l s with a r i g h t of access to such i n f o r m a t i o n " ( S e c t i o n 2). 25. The B r i t i s h Columbia P r i v a c y Act, S.B.C., 1968, c.39; the Manitoba P r i v a c y Act, S.M., 1970, c.74; and the Saskatchewan P r i v a c y Act, S.S., 1974, c.80. These laws do not cover conduct of a peace o f f i c e r a c t i n g i n the course of h i s d u t i e s . 26. Burns, supra, note 21 and 23, at 64. 27. Id., at 10. See a l s o W.L. Pr o s s e r , P r i v a c y (1960) 48 C a l . L. Rev. 383. 28. See A.F. Westin, P r i v a c y and Freedom (1967) Ch.6 29. 389 U.S. 347 (1967, U.S.S.C). 30. Id. at 351. - 100 -31. [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, 14 C.C.C. (3d.) 97. 32. Part I, C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982, c . l l (U.K.). 33. J u r i s u t o (No.760) 39 (1982). 34. Quebec, Report of the Royal Commission of Inqui r y on  C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Problems (1956) Vol.2, at 113. 35. E.g. A. Schafer, P r i v a c y : A P h i l o s o p h i c a l Overview, i n D. Gibson Aspects of P r i v a c y Law (1980) C h . l , at 15. See a l s o E. Goffman Asylums: Essays on the S o c i a l S i t u a t i o n of Mental  P a t i e n t s and Other Inmates (1968). 36. T.M. Cooley, A T r e a t i s e on the Law of T o r t s , 2d ed. (1888), at 29. 37. Westin, supra, note 28, at 7. 38. R.B. Parker, A D e f i n i t i o n of P r i v a c y (1974) 27 Rutgers Law Review 275, at 283-284. 39. E.g. D.H. F l a h e r t y , P r o t e c t i n g P r i v a c y i n P o l i c e Information  Systems: Data P r o t e c t i o n i n The Canadian P o l i c e Information  Center (1986) 36 U. of Toronto L. Jour. 116. at 118. See  als o E.J. B l o u s t e i n , P r i v a c y as an Aspect of Human D i g n i t y :  An Answer to Dean Pr o s s e r , i n I n d i v i d u a l and Group P r i v a c y (1978) C h . l . 40. J.C. Smith, Ajase and Oedipus: Japanese and Western Ideas of  The S e l f i n Legal Consciousness (1986) 20 UBC L. Rev. 341, at 355. 41. T.P. K a s u l i s , Zen A c t i o n Zen Person (1981), at 44. 42. G.A. Res. 217 ( i i i ) , dated December 10, 1948. 43. Dai Nippon Teikoku Kenpo. 44. See L.W. Beer, Japan's C o n s t i t u t i o n a l System and I t s J u d i c i a l  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n (1984) 17 Law i n Japan 8. 45. T. I s h i d a , Fundamental Human Rights and The Development of  Legal Thought i n Japan (197T1 8 Law i n Japan 39, at ,3 9. 46. Westin, supra, note 14, at 1050. 47. 15 Kakyu Minshu (No.9) 2317. 48. 23 Kei Shu (No.12) 1625. 49. H. Itoh and L.W. Beer, The C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Case Law of Japan: S e l e c t e d Supreme Court D e c i s i o n s , 1961-79 (1978), at 180-181. - 101 -50. Commission of Inquiry Concerning C e r t a i n A c t i v i t i e s of the Royal Canadian Mounted P o l i c e , Second Report -- Volume 1;  Freedom and S e c u r i t y under the Law (1981). 51. I b i d , at 149. 52. E.P. C r a i g , E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e : S e t t i n g the L i m i t s (1975) 24 U.N.B.L.J. 29, at 33. 53. I b i d . 54. See i d . at 29. 55. See W. K e l l y and N. K e l l y , P o l i c i n g i n Canada (1976), at 397. 56. Re Copeland and Adamson et a l . (1972) 28 D.L.R. (3d) 26 (Ont. H . C ) , at 28. 57. See Commission of Inquiry Concerning C e r t a i n A c t i v i t i e s of the Royal Canadian Mounted P o l i c e , supra, note 50 and 51 at 156. 58. See Commission of Inquiry Concerning C e r t a i n A c t i v i t i e s of the Royal Canadian Mounted P o l i c e , T h i r d Report: C e r t a i n  R.C.M.P. A c t i v i t i e s and the Question of Government Knowledge (1981) at 111-124. 59. See C r a i g , supra, note 52-54, at 34. 60. S.M. Beck, E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e and the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of  C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e (1968) 46 Can. Bar Rev. 645, at 649. 61. See D. Watt, Law of E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e i n Canada (1979), at 86. 62. See Commission of Inquiry Concerning C e r t a i n A c t i v i t i e s of the Royal Canadian Mounted P o l i c e , supra, note 50, 51 and 57, at 149-150. 65. See R.J. D e l i s l e , E v i d e n t i a r y I m p l i c a t i o n s of B i l l C-176 i n M. Manning,The P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act (1974), at 120. 64. See R. v. C o t r o n i ; P a p a l i a v. R. (1979) 7 CR. (5d) 185 TS7C. C.), at 204. 65. My i n t e r v i e w with Vancouver P o l i c e Department. 66. C r a i g , supra, note 52-54 and 59, at 54. 67. Contra, i d . at 29. 68. S.C. 1880, ch.67. - 102 -69. Supra, note 56. 70. See Commission of Inquiry Concerning C e r t a i n A c t i v i t i e s of the Royal Canadian Mounted P o l i c e , supra, note 58, at 110. 71. R.S.M. 1970, c. T40. 72. R.S.A. 1970, c.12. 73. See Commission of Inquiry Concerning C e r t a i n A c t i v i t i e s of the Royal Canadian Mounted P o l i c e , supra, note 50, 51, 57 and 62, at 155. 74. See Canada, Report of the Canadian Committee on C o r r e c t i o n s , Toward. U n i t y : C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e and C o r r e c t i o n s (1969), at 82. 75. (1956),19 W.W.R. 661 (Man. Q.B.). 76. Id. at 664. 77. [1965] S.C.R. 155. 78. (1967) 3 C.C.C. 48 (Ont. C.A.). 79. I d ^ at 50. 80. IcL at 51. 81. See Regina v. Pass (1979) 47 C.C.C. (2d) 194 (Man. Q.B.) at 211; Regina v. Lyons (1982) 69 C.C.C. (2d) 318 (B.C.C.A.) at 327. 82. (1975) 26 C.C.C. (2d) 388 (Ont. C.A.). 83. Lo\ at 391. 84. C r i m i n a l Code, s.178.11. 85. I b i d , s.178.16. 86. I b i d , s.178.11(2). 87. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 2 ( l ) ( e ) . 88. P. Burns, A R e t r o s p e c t i v e View of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y  Act: A F r a g i l e Rede i s Recked (.1979) 13 U.B.C.L.Rev. 123, at 123. 89. R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34. 90. C r i m i n a l Code, s.178.11. 91. I b i d , s.178.2. - 103 -92. I b i d . s.178.18. 93. I b i d . s.178.11(2). 94. I b i d . s.178.16. 95. (1977) 32 C.C.C. (2d) 363 (Ont. C 96. Id. at 369 97. R.S.C . 1970, c. C-38. 98. Crown L i a b i l i t y Act, s.7.2 and s. 99. R.S.C . 1970, c. 0-3. 100. O f f i c i a l S e c r e t s Act, s.16 • 101. 1976- 77, c.53. 102. 1980- 81-82, c.125. 103. 1984, c. 21. 104. 1985 , c. 19. 105. Watt, supra, note 61., at 2 -3. 106. C r i m i n a l Code, s.178. 11(2) • 107. I b i d . s.178.1. 108. I b i d . s.178.12. 109. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 3 ( l ) ( a ) . 110. I b i d . S . 1 7 8 . 1 3 ( l ) ( b ) . 111. I b i d . s.178.13.(2)(a) • 112. I b i d . s.178.13(2)(b). 113. I b i d . S.178.13(2)(c). 114. I b i d . S.178.13(2)(c). 115. I b i d . S.178.13(2)(c). 116. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 3 ( 2 ) ( e ) . 117. I b i d . S.178.13(2)(d). 118. I b i d . s.l78.13(3)and s.178 .13(4). - 104 -119. I b i d , s.178.15. 120. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 6 ( l ) ( a ) . 121. I b i d , s.178.16(4). 122. I b i d , s.178.16(1). 123. I b i d , s.178.16(3). 124. I b i d , s.178.16(1). 125. I b i d , s.178.16(2). 126. I b i d , s.178.23(1). 127. I b i d , s.178.12(3). 128. I b i d , s.178.23(4). 129. See Regina v. Welsh and Iannuzzi (No.6), supra, note 95, at 370. 130. See Watt, supra, note 61 and 105, at 27-28. 131. I d ^ at 28. 132. (1976) 31 C.C.C. (2d) 245 (Ont. Co.Ct.). 133. IcL at 247. 134. See Regina v. Carothers et a l . , unreported, June 15, 1978 (B.C. Co.Ct.J, Van. Reg. #CC770553; Regina v. Samson et a l . , i n f r a , note 135. 135. (1983) 9 C.C.C. (3d) 194 (Ont.C.A.). 136. I d ^ at 204. 137. My i n t e r v i e w with the RCMP. 138. See Regina v. Carothers et a l . , supra, note 134; Regina v.  M i l l e r and Thomas (No.l) (,1976) 28 C.C.C. (2d) 94 (B.C.Co.Ct.) ; Goldman v. The Queen, i n f r a , note 139. Contra  Regina v. Ho, unreported, November 2, 1976 (B.C. Co.Ct.), Van. Reg. #CC760644. 139. [1980] 1 S.C.R. 976, 51 C.C.C. (2d) 1. 140. Id^_ at 992, 51 C.C.C. (2d) at 13-14. 141. P. Burns, supra, note 88, at 126. 142. (1978) 38 C.C.C. (2d) 212 (Ont.C.A.) - 105 -143. Id. at 217. 144. Goldman v. The Queen, supra, note 138-140, at 997, 51 C.C.C. (2d) at 17-18. 145. An extension telephone i s an " e l e c t r o m a g n e t i c , a c o u s t i c , mechanical or other d e v i c e " . See Regina v. Dunn (1975) 28 C.C.C. (2d) 538, 33 C.R.N.S. 299 (N.S. Co.Ct.). 146. Supra, note 138-140 and 144. 147. The essence of the reasoning of Mclntyre J . f o r the m a j o r i t y of the court appears i n the f o l l o w i n g passage i n [1980] 1 S.C.R. at 994-995, 51 C.C.C. (2d) at 15-16: It i s elementary to say that the Courts must d i s c e r n and apply the l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t when c o n s t r u i n g the s t a t u t e s . The i n t e n t must be found upon an examination of the words employed i n the enactment f o r i t i s the i n t e n t which the L e g i s l a t u r e expressed which must have e f f e c t . It i s f o r t h i s reason that the meaning of s t a t u t o r y language must be examined and on occasions f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s must be made. In my view, the d i f f e r e n c e between the word c o n v e r s a t i o n and the word communication i s , i n the context of t h i s s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n , s i g n i f i c a n t . A communication i n v o l v e s the passing of thoughts, i d e a s , words or i n f o r m a t i o n from one person to another. Conversation i s a broader term and i t would i n c l u d e , as a l l c o n v e r s a t i o n s do, an interchange of a s e r i e s of separate communications. It i s c o n s i s t e n t with the scheme of Part IV.1, i n my view, to c o n s i d e r that the o r i g i n a t o r of a p r i v a t e communication w i t h i n the meaning of s. 178.1 i s the person who makes the remark or s e r i e s of remarks which the Crown seeks to adduce i n evidence. If a person, with a reasonable e x p e c t a t i o n of p r i v a c y , speaking i n an e l e c t r o n i c a l l y i n t e r c e p t e d c o n v e r s a t i o n makes statements which the Crown seeks to use against him, he has, i n my view, as the o r i g i n a t o r of those statements, the p r o t e c t i o n of the p r i v a c y p r o v i s i o n s of the C r i m i n a l Code because those statements c o n s t i t u t e p r i v a t e communications upon h i s p a r t and t h e i r a d m i s s i b i l i t y at any subsequent t r i a l w i l l depend upon the p r o v i s i o n s of Part IV.1 of the C r i m i n a l Code. I do not f i n d t h i s a s t r a i n e d or u n r e a l i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the words of the s t a t u t e . In f a c t , where a p o l i c e o f f i c e r or p o l i c e agent p a r t i c i p a t e s i n a c o n v e r s a t i o n with a suspect knowing that i t i s being i n t e r c e p t e d e l e c t r o n i c a l l y and hears the suspect make hoped f o r i n c u l p a t o r y statements of - 106 -147. Quote continued: importance to the Crown's case, I am unable to con s i d e r the p o l i c e o f f i c e r to be the o r i g i n a t o r of the very statement or statements he was seeking to o b t a i n . It f o l l o w s from what I have s a i d that the Act a p p l i e s here to those statements i n the telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n and personal c o n v e r s a t i o n between Dwyer and the a p p e l l a n t which were o r i g i n a t e d by the a p p e l l a n t . 148. (1975) 25 C.C.C. (2d) 262 ( A l t a . C.A.). 149. (1978) 15 C.R. (3d) 7, 47 C.C.C. (2d) 457 ( B . C . S . C ) . 150. See Watt, supra, note 61, 105 and 130, at 35. 151. See Regina v. Grant. Higgins and Sharma (1979) 48 C.C.C. "CTd)504 (B.C.Co.Ct. J ; R. v. Newall et a l . (No. 1 ) (1982) 67 C.C.C. (2d) 431 (B.C.S.C.). 152. I b i d . 153. Id. at 440. 154. (1978) 43 C.C.C. (2d) 356 (Ont. C.A.). 155. See Regina v. McQueen, supra, note 148, per Clement J.A. ; Regina v. Watson, supra, note 132 and 133. Contra, Regina  v. B o u t i l i e r and Melnick (1976) 35 C.C.C. (2d) 555 (N.S.S.C.T.D.). 156. See Watt, supra, note 61, 105, 130 and 150, at 46. 157. C r i m i n a l Code, s.178.11(2)(a). 158. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 1 ( 2 ) ( b ) . 159. I b i d , s.178.16(1). 160. Supra, note 138-140, 144 and 147. 161. When an undercover p o l i c e o f f i c e r wears a concealed r a d i o t r a n s m i t t e r ("body pack"), the r e c o r d i n g of h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n i s conducted by another member of the p o l i c e f o r c e . 162. Supra, note 149. 163. Supra, note 151-153. 164. C r i m i n a l Code, s.178.18(2) ( d ) . 165. Supra, note 104. - 107 -166. C r i m i n a l Code, s.178.18(2)(b.1). 167. Supra, note 138-140, 144, 147 and 160. 168. I d ^ at 1005-1006, 51 C.C.C. (2d) at 23-24. 169. C r i m i n a l Code, s.178.13. 170. I b i d , s.178.15. 171. I b i d , s.178.1. 172. I b i d , s.178.12 ( 1 ) . 173. I b i d , s.178.12(1). 174. I b i d . S . 1 7 8.12(l)(a). 175. I b i d . s , 1 7 8 . 1 2 ( l ) ( b ) . 176. See Regina v. Hancock and Proulx (1976), 30 C.C.C. (2d) 544, 36 C.R.N.S. 102 (B.C.C.A.). 177. According to my i n t e r v i e w with the RCMP, t h i s s i t u a t i o n o f t e n happens. 178. C r i m i n a l Code, S.178.12(1). 179. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 2 ( l ) ( c ) . 180. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 2 ( l ) ( c ) . 181. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 2 ( l ) ( d ) . 182. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 2 ( l ) ( e ) . 183. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 2 ( l ) ( e ) . 184. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 2 ( l ) ( e ) . 185. I b i d . s , 1 7 8 . 1 2 ( l ) ( e . l ) . 186. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 2 ( l ) ( f ) . 187. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 2 ( l ) ( g ) . 188. See Watt, supra, note 61, 105, 130, 150 and 156, at 86. 189. C r i m i n a l Code, s.178.13(1)(a). 190. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 3 ( l ) ( b ) . 191. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 3 ( 2 ) ( a ) . - 108 -192. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 3 ( 2 ) ( b ) . 193. I b i d , s.178.13(c). 194. I b i d . S.178.13(2)(C). 195. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) . 196. I b i d . S.178.13(2)(e). 197. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 3 ( 2 ) ( d ) . U n l i k e other items i n s.178.13(2), t h i s item i s not mandatory. See Watt, supra, note 61, 105, 130, 150, 156 and 188, at 129. 198. See Watt, i b i d . 199. My i n t e r v i e w with the RCMP. 200. My i n t e r v i e w w i t h the RCMP. 201. C r i m i n a l Code, s.178.12(1) ( e ) . 202. E.g., i n Watt, supra, note 61, 105, 130, 150, 156, 188, 197 and 198, at 91, the learned author s t a t e s as f o l l o w s : It i s the p o t e n t i a l involvement of a known subject i n the commission of the of f e n c e being i n v e s t i g a t e d that makes h i s co n v e r s a t i o n s of e v i d e n t i a r y s i g n i f i c a n c e and, a c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s only knowledge of the contemplated o b j e c t ' s i d e n t i t y i n t h i s p a r t i c i p a t o r y sense that animates the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n requirement of s e c t i o n 178.12(e). 203. Unreported, January 8, 1979 (B.C. Co.Ct.) Van. Reg. #CC780237. 204. Supra, note 134. 205. Supra, note 203, at 4. On the other hand, the court held that an a u t h o r i z a t i o n i s not i n v a l i d s o l e l y by reason of the f a c t that i t f a i l s to name a l l "known" suspects, while a f a i l u r e to s p e c i f y a l l "primary t a r g e t s " may w e l l lead to the a u t h o r i z a t i o n being s t r u c k down on the b a s i s of frau d or n o n - d i s c l o s u r e . An accurate a n a l y s i s of t h i s case i s i n S.D. F r a n k e l , The R e l a t i o n s h i p of'Known" and"Unknown" Per- sons to the A d m i s s i b i l i t y of Intercepted P r i v a t e Communica- t i o n s , (.1979) 21 Cr. L.Q. 465. 206. M. T i t l e , Canadian Wiretap L e g i s l a t i o n : P r o t e c t i o n or  E r o s i o n of P r i v a c y , (.1978) 26 C h i t t y ' s L . J . 47, at 49. 207. My i n t e r v i e w with the RCMP. - 109 -208. My i n t e r v i e w with the RCMP. 209. (1977) 40 C.C.C.(2d) 87 (Ont. Co.Ct.). 210. Id. at 90-91. 211. 1967-68, c.7. 212. (1985) 21 C.C.C. (3d) 68. 213. My i n t e r v i e w with the R.C.M.P. 214. C r i m i n a l Code, s.178.13(3). 215. See Regina v. P l e i c h (1980) 55 C.C.C. (2d) 13, 16 C.R. (3d) 194 (Ont. C.A.). 216. C r i m i n a l Code, s.178.13(3). 217. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 3 ( 3 ) ( a ) . 218. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 3 ( 3 ) ( b ) . 219. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 3 ( 3 ) ( b ) . 220. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 3 ( 3 ) ( c ) . 221. I b i d , s.178.13(3). 222. I b i d , s.178.13(4). 223. My i n t e r v i e w w i t h the RCMP. 224. Regina v. Badovinac (1977) 34 C.C.C. (2d) 65 (Ont. C.A.), at 70. 225. In Regina v. Crease et a l . (No.2) (1980) 53 C.C.C. (2d) 121, 16 C.R. C 3d J 221 (B.C.C.A.J, i t was h e l d that an i n t e r c e p t i o n i s not l a w f u l l y made where, notwithstanding the a u t h o r i z a t i o n c o n t a i n s a basket c l a u s e f o r unknown persons, the person sought to be in c l u d e d i n the basket clause was known by the p o l i c e , at the time of renewal of the a u t h o r i z a t i o n . 226. In Regina v. Commisso (1983) 7 C.C.C. (3d) 1, 36 C.R. (3d) 105 ( S . C . C ) , i t was h e l d that i t may be that i f i t were shown that the p o l i c e on a renewal had not re v e a l e d that they had grounds to ask f o r a separate a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r another of f e n c e then the renewal might have been obtained i r r e g u l a r l y , and the subsequent i n t e r c e p t i o n s would be unlawful and any evidence obtained through such i n t e r c e p t i o n s i n a d m i s s i b l e . 227. C r i m i n a l Code, s.178.15. - 110 -228. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 5 ( l ) ( a ) . 229. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 5 ( l ) ( b ) . 230. I b i d , s.178.15(1). 231. I b i d , s.178.15(1). 232. I b i d , s.178.15(2). 233. I b i d , s.178.23(1). 234. I b i d , s.178.12(2). 235. I b i d , s.178.23(3). 236. My i n t e r v i e w with the RCMP. 237. My i n t e r v i e w with the RCMP. 238. C r i m i n a l Code, s.178.16(1). 239. I b i d , s.178.16(1). 240. I b i d , s.178.16(3). 241. I b i d , s.178.16(4). 242. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 6 ( 4 ) ( a ) . 243. I b i d . s . l 7 8 . 1 6 ( 4 ) ( b ) . 244. I b i d , s.178.23(1). 245. E.g., i n Regina v. Welsh and Iannuzzi (No.6), supra, note 95 and 96, at 370, the Onta r i o Court of Appeal he l d as f o l l o w s : S e c t i o n 178.23(1) i s d i r e c t o r y and i t s purpose i s to ensure that there be d i s c l o s u r e that p r i v a t e communications have been i n t e r c e p t e d and thereby pr o v i d e a b a s i s f o r p o l i t i c a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . However, i t cannot be s a i d that a f a i l u r e to comply with t h i s s e c t i o n can r e t r o s p e c t i v e l y c h a r a c t e r i z e an otherwise l a w f u l i n t e r c e p t i o n as unlawful. 246. C r i m i n a l Code, s.178.16(2). 247. Supra, note 95, 96 and 245. 248. The r e l e v a n t part of the court d e c i s i o n reads as f o l l o w s : In my o p i n i o n , an i n t e r c e p t i o n complies with both the Code and the a u t h o r i z a t i o n i f i t i s made i n resp e c t to a s t a t e d o f f e n c e , i . e . , f o r the purpose - I l l -or o b j e c t of i n v e s t i g a t i o n or g a t h e r i n g evidence with res p e c t to the named o f f e n c e . The f a c t that the p u r s u i t of the o b j e c t i v e of the a u t h o r i z a t i o n r e v e a l s evidence of other crimes does not a f f e c t the l a w f u l c h a r a c t e r of the i n t e r c e p t i o n . 249. The r e l e v a n t p a r t of the court d e c i s i o n reads as f o l l o w s : If an a u t h o r i z a t i o n does not i n c l u d e e i t h e r as a named or unnamed person any of the p a r t i e s to a communication, the i n t e r c e p t i o n cannot be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as l a w f u l , and the i n t e r c e p t e d communication i s , t h e r e f o r e , i n a d m i s s i b l e . 250. Contra, Regina v. Samson (No.4) (1982) 37 O.R. (2d) 26 (Co.Ct.), reversed i n the O n t a r i o Court of Appeal, supra, note 135 and 136. 251. Supra, note 135, 136 and 250. 252. Id. at 197. 253. Id. at 201. 254. S.A. Cohen, Invasion of P r i v a c y : P o l i c e and E l e c t r o n i c  S u r v e i l l a n c e i n Canada (1983), at 147. 255. See Regina v. L e c l e r c (1985) 20 C.C.C. (3d) 173 (B.C.CTA.),which hel d that the i n t e r c e p t i o n of the accused's p r i v a t e communications under an i t i n e r a n t i n t e r c e p t i o n c l a u s e was l a w f u l . On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Canada held i n Grabowski v. The Queen [1985] 2 S.C.R. 434, 22 C.C.C. (3d) 68 that the i t i n e r a n t i n t e r c e p t i o n clause combined with a p l a c e - r e l a t i n g basket clause was i n v a l i d , because such a combinatin allowed the c o n v e r s a t i o n s of anyone to be i n t e r c e p t e d anywhere and consequently the a u t h o r i z a t i o n contained no l i m i t a t i o n s as to person or p l a c e of the i n t e r c e p t i o n . 256. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of Attorney General, 1983 Annual Return: Invasion of P r i v a c y Part IV.1 of the  C r i m i n a l Code shows that during the s i x year p e r i o d from 1978 to 1983 the emergency a u t h o r i z a t i o n was granted only f o u r times, while 375 o r d i n a r y a u t h o r i z a t i o n s ( e x c l u d i n g renewals) were granted. 257. C r i m i n a l Code, s. 178.13(1). 258. (1984) 9 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (S.C.C.). 259. Id., at 124. - 112 -260. E.g. Regina v. Wood et a l . (1986) 8 C.R.D. 950-01 (S.C. Ont. )T~Regina v. Mar t e l (T986) 8 C.R.D. 950-02 (S.C.P.E.I., Appeal D i v . J ; Regina v." Young et a l . (1986) 8 C.R.D. 950-03 (B.C.Co.Ct.). 261. My i n t e r v i e w with the RCMP. 262. Contra, Regina v. B l u n d e l l , S t r e e t and Read (No. 2), supra, note 209 and 210. 263. Supra, note 134 and 204. 264. Ia\ at 16. 265. Supra, note 135, 136 and 250-253. 266. IdL at 201. 267. (1985) 15 C.C.C. (3d) 417 (S.C.C.). 268. Id. at 465. 269. For example, Lyons, i d . , has a p o s i t i v e aspect to the p o l i c e as w e l l . In t h i s case, the main i s s u e was whether or not the s u r r e p t i t i o u s entry by the p o l i c e i n t o the premises of the accused f o r the purpose of i n s t a l l i n g a r a d i o t r a n s m i t t e r rendered i n a d m i s s i b l e evidence of the i n t e r c e p t i o n s subsequently made pursuant to the a u t h o r i z a t i o n s which d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r to such e n t r y . The cou r t h e l d that unless the a u t h o r i z a i o n c o n t a i n s l i m i t a t i o n s on or p r o h i b i t i o n of s u r r e p t i t i o u s e n t r y , an a u t h o r i z a t i o n by necessary i m p l i c a t i o n a u t h o r i z e s any person a c t i n g under the a u t h o r i z a t i o n to enter any pl a c e at which p r i v a t e communications are to be i n t e r c e p t e d to i n s t a l l or to s e r v i c e a permitted l i s t e n i n g d e v i c e , provided such e n t r y i s r e q u i r e d to implement the a u t h o r i z a t i o n . 270. Supra, note 32. 271. Supra, note 31. 272. S e c t i o n 10(1) and 10(3) of the Combines I n v e s t i g a t i o n Act, i n f r a , note 273, pr o v i d e : 10(1). Subject to s u b s e c t i o n ( 3 ) , i n any i n q u i r y under t h i s Act the D i r e c t o r [of I n v e s t i g a t i o n and Research of the Combines I n v e s t i g a t i o n Branch] or any r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a u t h o r i z e d by him may enter any premises on which the D i r e c t o r b e l i e v e s there may be evidence r e l e v a n t to the matters being i n q u i r e d i n t o and may examine any thing on the premises and may copy or take away f o r f u r t h e r examination or copying any book, paper, r e c o r d or other document that i n the o p i n i o n of the D i r e c t o r or h i s a u t h o r i z e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , as the case may be, may a f f o r d such evidence. - 113 -( 3 ) . Before e x e r c i s i n g the power c o n f e r r e d by-s u b s e c t i o n ( 1 ) , the D i r e c t o r or h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s h a l l produce a c e r t i f i c a t e from a member of the [ R e s t r i c t i v e Trade P r a c t i c e s ] Commission, which may be granted on the ex p a r t e a p p l i c a t i o n of the D i r e c t o r , a u t h o r i z i n g the e x e r c i s e of such power. 273. R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23. 274. Supra, note 31 and 271, at 160 (S.C.R.), 109 ( C . C . C ) . 275. In Hunter v. Southam Inc., i d . , the Supreme Court of Canada expressed the view that the proper approach to the d e f i n i t i o n of the r i g h t s and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter was a purposive one, and that the meaning of a r i g h t or freedom guaranteed by the Charter was to be a s c e r t a i n e d by an a n a l y s i s of the purpose of such a guarantee. 276. La\, at 168 (S.C.R.), 115 ( C . C . C ) . 277. E.g., see J.W. Hak, The A u t h o r i z a t i o n P r o v i s i o n s of the  P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act and the A p p l i c a t i o n of S e c t i o n 8  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1986), unpublished. 278. C r i m i n a l Code, s.178.13(1). 279. (1986) 48 C.R. (3d) 341 (Ont. C.A.). 280. Id. at 362. 281. Id. at 365-366. 282. Id. at 366. 283. Law Reform Commission of Canada, Working Paper 47:  E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e (1986), at 34. 284. Watt, supra, note 61, 105, 130, 150, 156, 188, 197, 198 and 202, at 178. 285. 18. U.S.C. ss.2510-2520 (1970). 286. C r i m i n a l Code, s.178.13(2)(d). 287. E.g., i n F i n l a y and G r e l l e t t e , supra, note 279-282, at 369, M a r t i n J.XI f o r the O n t a r i o Court of Appeal h e l d as f o l l o w s : I am of the view t h a t , having regard to the p r o v i s i o n s of s.178.13(2)(d), which may and should be r e s o r t e d to by the a u t h o r i z i n g judge to impose a m i n i m i z a t i o n requirement when the circumstances of the i n t e r c e p t i o n warrant the imposing of such a term, the absence of an - 114 -express m i n i m i z a t i o n requirement such as that contained i n T i t l e I I I does not render Part IV.1 u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . 288. Source: I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i m i n a l A f f a i r s D i v i s o n , C r i m i n a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n Bureau, N a t i o n a l P o l i c e Agency, Government of Japan, 1986. 289. T o t a l number of o f f e n c e s contained i n N a t i o n a l Crime S t a t i s t i c s . 290. I b i d . 291. According to N a t i o n a l P o l i c e Agency, The P o l i c e of Japan (1985), besides the e f f i c i e n c y of the p o l i c e , the f o l l o w i n g are s a i d to be the main reasons f o r the good p u b l i c peace and order i n Japan: a. Japan i s a sea-bound country with a homogeneous rac e , language and c u l t u r e . b. The Japanese have a high l e v e l of education and are t r a d i t i o n a l l y bound by norm consciousness. c. In Japan, the unemployment r a t e i s low. The gap between the r i c h and the poor i s s m a l l . There are no f i x e d s o c i a l c l a s s e s . And the people are guaranteed equal o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n occupation, s o c i a l s t a t u s and income, subject to one's own e f f o r t s . d. Japan e x e r c i s e s s t r i c t c o n t r o l over guns and drugs. e. The Japanese put deep t r u s t i n the p o l i c e and are c o o p e r a t i v e i n c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 292. N a t i o n a l P o l i c e Agency, Government of Japan, White Paper on  P o l i c e 1983 ( e x e r p t s ) , t r a n s l a t e d and p u b l i s h e d by P o l i c e A s s o c i a t i o n , at 45. 293. N a t i o n a l P o l i c e Agency, Government of Japan, White Paper on  P o l i c e 1984, t r a n s l a t e d and p u b l i s h e d by P o l i c e A s s o c i a t i o n , at 61. 294. I b i d . 295. Asahi Shinbun, March 31, 1986, at 3. 296. N a t i o n a l P o l i c e Agency, supra, nofie 293 and 294, at 109. 297. Source: Second I n v e s t i g a t i o n D i v i s i o n , C r i m i n a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n Bureau, N a t i o n a l P o l i c e Agency, Government of Japan. 298. I b i d . 299. 446,417 persons. 300. 144,758 persons. - 115 -301. Source: Second I n v e s t i g a t i o n D i v i s i o n , C r i m i n a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n Bureau, N a t i o n a l P o l i c e Agency, Government of Japan. 302. N a t i o n a l P o l i c e Agency, supra, note 293, 294 and 296, at 150. 303. I b i d . 304. Shukan A s a h i , December 13, 1985, at 21. 305. Asahi Shinbun, A p r i l 2, 1986, at 5. 306. Judgment d e l i v e r e d by Eleventh C r i m i n a l Department. 307. D a n t a i - t o K i s e i r e i . 308. A r t i c l e 193 of the Penal Code [Keiho] p r o v i d e s ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : A r t i c l e 193. (Abuse of A u t h o r i t y by P u b l i c O f f i c e r ) When a p u b l i c o f f i c e r abuses h i s a u t h o r i t y and causes a person to perform an act which he has no o b l i g a t i o n to perform, or o b s t r u c t s a person from e x e r c i s i n g a r i g h t which he i s e n t i t l e d to e x e r c i s e , imprisonment at or without f o r c e d l a b o r f o r not more than two years s h a l l be imposed. 309. The preamble to the C o n s t i t u t i o n of Japan p r o v i d e s ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : We, the Japanese people, a c t i n g through our duly e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i n the N a t i o n a l D i e t , determined that we s h a l l secure f o r o u r s e l v e s and our p o s t e r i t y the f r u i t s of p e a c e f u l c o o p e r a t i o n with a l l nations and the b l e s s i n g s of l i b e r t y throughout t h i s l a n d , and r e s o l v e d that never again s h a l l we be v i s i t e d with the h o r r o r s of war through the a c t i o n of government, do p r o c l a i m that sovereign"power r e s i d e s  with the people and do f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h t h i s C o n s t i t u t i o n . Government i s a sacred t r u s t of the poeple, the a u t h o r i t y f o r which i s d e r i v e d from the people, the powers of which are e x e r c i s e d by the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the people, and the b e n e f i t s of which are enjoyed by the people. This i s a u n i v e r s a l p r i n c i p l e of mankind upon which t h i s C o n s t i t u t i o n i s founded. We r e j e c t and revoke a l l c o n s t i t u t i o n s , laws, ordinances, and r e s c r i p t s i n c o n f l i c t herewith. [emphasis added] - 116 -310. A r t i c l e 13 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n of Japan pro v i d e s ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : A r t i c l e 13. A l l of the people s h a l l be respected as i n d i v i d u a l s . T h e i r r i g h t to l i f e , l i b e r t y , and the p u r s u i t of happiness s h a l l , to the extent that i t does not i n t e r f e r e with the p u b l i c w e l f a r e , be the supreme c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n l e g i s l a t i o n and i n other governmental a f f a i r s . 311. A r t i c l e 12 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n of Japan p r o v i d e s ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : A r t i c l e 12. The freedoms and r i g h t s guaranteed to the people by t h i s C o n s t i t u t i o n s h a l l be maintained by the constant endeavor of the people, who s h a l l r e f r a i n from any abuse of these freedoms and r i g h t s and s h a l l always be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r u t i l i z i n g them f o r the p u b l i c w e l f a r e . 312. A r t i c l e 189 of the Code of C r i m i n a l Procedure p r o v i d e s ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : A r t i c l e 189. A p o l i c e o f f i c i a l s h a l l perform h i s d u t i e s as a j u d i c i a l p o l i c e o f f i c i a l as au t h o r i z e d by law, or r e g u l a t i o n s of the N a t i o n a l P u b l i c S a f e t y Commission or of the P r e f e c t u r a l P u b l i c Safety Commission. 2. A j u d i c i a l p o l i c e o f f i c i a l s h a l l , when he deems an of f e n c e has been committed, i n v e s t i g a t e the offe n d e r and evidence t h e r e o f . 313. A r t i c l e 197 of the Code of C r i m i n a l Procedure provides ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : A r t i c l e 197. With regard to i n v e s t i g a t i o n , such examination as may be necessary f o r a t t a i n i n g i t s object may be made. However, compulsory d i s p o s i t i o n s s h a l l not be e f f e c t e d except when there are s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s t h e r e f o r i n t h i s law. 2. P u b l i c o f f i c e s , or p u b l i c or p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s may be asked to make re p o r t s on necessary matters r e l a t i n g to i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 314. 4 Toko J i h o 18, 9 Hanrei J i h o 3. 315. See S. Tanakadate, Tochoki no Shiyo to P u r a i b a s h i (1980), Kenpo Hanrei Hyakusen Vol.1, at 170. 316. See K. Kubota, P u r a i b a s h i no Kenri (1965), Nipponkoku Kenpo T a i k e i Vol.7, at 145. 317. Yusen Denki Tsushin Ho, Law No.98 of 1953. - 117 -318. Denki Tsushin J i g y o Ho, Law No.86 of 1984. 319. Cabinet Legal Bureau's Opinion, December 9, 1963. 320. K e i j i Sosho Ho, Law No.131 of 1948. 321. See H. Tamiya, K e i j i Sosho Ho, Vol.1 (1975), at 146. 322. Nipponkoku Kenpo. 323. A r t i c l e 33 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n of Japan p r o v i d e s ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : No person s h a l l be apprehended except upon warrant i s s u e d by a competent j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r which s p e c i f i e s the offence with which the person i s charged, unless he i s apprehended, the o f f e n c e being committed. 324. January 3, 1946. 325. See, Katz v. United S t a t e s (1967), 389 U.S. 347 ( U . S . S . C ) . 326. The Fourth Amendment p r o v i d e s : The r i g h t of the people to be secure i n t h e i r persons, houses, papers, and e f f e c t s , a g a i n s t unreasonable searches and s e i z u r e s , s h a l l not be v i o l a t e d , and no warrants s h a l l i s s u e but upon probable cause, supported by oath or a f f i r m a t i o n , and p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s c r i b i n g the pl a c e to be searched, and the persons or things to be s e i z e d . 327. See R. Hirano, K e i j i Sosho Ho (1958), at 113; T. Atsumi, Tocho, Wiretapping (.1972 J, Enshu K e i j i Sosho Ho, at 74. 328. Supra, note 31 and 271 and 274-276, at 155 (S.C.R.), 105 (C.C.C.). 329. See H. Tamiya, Kyosei Sosa(1965), Sogo Hanken Keiso Vol.16, at 308. 330. See Tamiya, supra, note 321, at 148. 331. See T. Matsumoto, Tocho (1970), Shokoho T a i k e i Vol.1, at 208. 332. Kokyo no Fukushi. - 118 -333. Supreme Court, F i r s t P e t ty Bench Judgment on September 7, 1978, 901 Hanrei J i h o 15. The g i s t of the judgment reads as foll o w s ( t r a n s l a t i o n ) : Since n e i t h e r the C o n s t i t u t i o n nor the Code of C r i m i n a l Procedure provides concerning the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of i l l e g a l l y s e i z e d p h y s i c a l evidence, i t i s proper f o r t h i s i s s u e to be decided according to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Code of C r i m i n a l Procedure. The purpose of the Code of C r i m i n a l Procedure i s , "regarding c r i m i n a l cases, to c l a r i f y the true f a c t s of cases and to apply and r e a l i z e c r i m i n a l laws and ordinances f a i r l y and s p e e d i l y , while thoroughly accomplishing the maintenance of p u b l i c welfare and s e c u r i t y of fundamental human r i g h t s of i n d i v i d u a l s ( A r t i c l e 1 ) " . It i s , t h e r e f o r e , necessary to conside r the i s s u e from t h i s p o i n t of view. On one hand, i t i s an important m i s s i o n of the c r i m i n a l procedure to apply and r e a l i z e c r i m i n a l laws and ordinances f a i r l y and to maintain p u b l i c order. For that purpose i t goes without saying that c l a r i f y i n g the true f a c t s of cases as much as p o s s i b l e i s necessary. C o n s i d e r i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of p h y s i c a l evidence that the i l l e g a l i t y of search and s e i z u r e procedure could not change the nature, c o n d i t i o n , or shape and t h e r e f o r e the e v i d e n t i a l value, of the th i n g which was i l l e g a l l y s e i z e d , i t i s not proper to deny i t s a d m i s s i b i l i t y i n evidence merely because of the i l l e g a l i t y of search and s e i z u r e procedure, f o r i t would not conduce to the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the true f a c t s of cases. On the other hand, however, the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the true f a c t s of cases must be achieved according to the f a i r process, thoroughly accomplishing the s e c u r i t y of fundamental human r i g h t s of i n d i v i d u a l s . E s p e c i a l l y , c o n s i d e r i n g that A r t i c l e 35 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n provides that " [ t ] h e r i g h t of a l l persons to be secure i n t h e i r homes, papers and e f f e c t s against e n t r i e s , searches and s e i z u r e s s h a l l not be impaired except upon warrant issued f o r adequate cause and p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s c r i b i n g the p l a c e to be searched and th i n g s to be s e i z e d , or except as provided by A r t i c l e 33", and a l s o c o n s i d e r i n g that the Code of C r i m i n a l Procedure s t r i c t l y provides f o r such matters as searches and s e i z u r e s and that A r t i c l e 31 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o v i d e s that "[n]o person s h a l l be deprived of l i f e or l i b e r t y , nor s h a l l any other c r i m i n a l p e n a l t y be imposed, except according to procedure e s t a b l i s h e d by law", i t should be understood that where i t i s not a p p r o p r i a t e from the standpoint of d e t e r i n g f u t u r e i l l e g a l i n v e s t i g a t i v e a c t i v i t y to allow i n t o evidence the things i l l e g a l l y obtained i n gross d i s r e g a r d of the p r i n c i p l e of the warrant requirement embodied, i n t e r a l i a , i n such p r o v i s i o n s as A r t i c l e 35 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n and A r t i c l e 218, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Cr i m i n a l Procedure, such evidence i s to be held i n a d m i s s i b l e . - 119 -334. I n c l u d i n g the RCMP undertaking, by c o n t r a c t , the d u t i e s of a p r o v i n c i a l or municipal p o l i c e f o r c e . 335. Code of C r i m i n a l Procedure, A r t i c l e 189, supra, note 312. 336. Code of C r i m i n a l Procedure, A r t i c l e 246. 337. Code of C r i m i n a l Procedure of 1922, A r t i c l e 246 and A r t i c l e 248. 338. Under the enforcement of the new postwar C o n s t i t u t i o n . 339. According to A r t i c l e 199 of the Code of C r i m i n a l Procedure, the s t a t u s of the a p p l i c a n t f o r an a r r e s t warrant i s r e s t r i c t e d to the j u d i c i a l p o l i c e o f f i c e r at the rank of . P o l i c e Inspector or h i g h e r , designated by the N a t i o n a l P u b l i c S a f e t y Commission or the P r e f e c t u r a l P u b l i c S a f e t y Commission. 340. See D.J. Guth and R.H. Vogel, The Canadian Constable: An  Endangered Species? (1985), unpublished. 341. See P.C. Stenning, Legal Status of The P o l i c e (1981), A Study Paper prepared f o r the Law Reform Commission of Canada, at 18-28. 342. See S. Suzuki, K e i j i Sosho Ho (1980), at 69. 343. Code of C r i m i n a l Procedure, A r t i c l e s 121-124 and A r t i c l e 222(1 ). 344. Such requirement a l s o complies with A r t i c l e 35 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n of Japan. 345. In a d d i t i o n to the p a r t i c u l a r s of the persons and p l a c e , the a u t h o r i z a t i o n s h a l l s p e c i f y ; a. the o f f e n c e i n respect of which p r i v a t e communications may be i n t e r c e p t e d . b. a p a r t i c u l a r d e s c r i p t i o n of the type of communication sought to be i n t e r c e p t e d . c. the manner of i n t e r c e p t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y , whether or not the e n t r y i n t o the p l a c e i s a u t h o r i z e d . d. the p e r i o d of time during which i n t e r c e p t i o n i s a u t h o r i z e d . 346. S.M. Waddams, I n t r o d u c t i o n to The Study of Law (1983), at 2. - 120 -BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS B l o u s t e i n , E . J . , " I n d i v i d u a l and Group P r i v a c y " , New Brunswick, T r a n s a c t i o n Books, 1978. Breckenridge, A.C., "The Right to P r i v a c y " , L i n c o l n , U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska Press, 1970. Canadian Committee on C o r r e c t i o n s , "Toward U n i t y : C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e and C o r r e c t i o n s " , 1969. Commission of Inquiry Concerning C e r t a i n A c t i v i t i e s of the Royal Canadian Mounted P o l i c e , "Second Report, Volume 1: Freedom and S e c u r i t y under the Law", 1981. Commission of Inquiry Concerning C e r t a i n A c t i v i t i e s of the Royal Canadian Mounted P o l i c e , " T h i r d Report: C e r t a i n R.C.M.P. A c t i v i t i e s and the Question of Government Knowledge", 1981. Cohen, S.A., "Invasion of P r i v a c y : P o l i c e and E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e i n Canada", Toronto, C a r s w e l l , 1983. F l a h e r t y , D.H., " P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y i n Two-Way E l e c t r o n i c S e r v i c e s , New York, Knowledge Industry P u b l i c a t i o n s . 1985. Fleming, J.G., "The Law of T o r t s " , Sydney, The Law Book, 6th Ed. 1983. Gibson, D., (ed.), "Aspects of P r i v a c y Law", Toronto, Butterworths, 1980. Gaffman, E., "Asylums: Essays on the S o c i a l S i t u a t i o n of Mental P a t i e n t s and Other Inmates", New York, Doubleday, 1968. Goode, S., "The Right to P r i v a c y " , New York, F r a n k l i n Watts, 1983. G r i f f i t h s , C.T., K l e i n , J.F. § Verdun-Jones, S.N., " C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e i n Canada", Toronto, Butterworths, 1980. Hirano, R., " K e i j i Sosho Ho", Tokyo, Yuhikaku, 1958. Ho f s t a d t e r , S.H. § Horowitz, G., "The Right of P r i v a c y " , New York, C e n t r a l Book, 1964. Itoh, H. £ Beer, L.W., "The C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Case Law of Japan: S e l e c t e d Supreme Court D e c i s i o n s , 1961-79", S e a t t l e , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington Press, 1978. - 121 -Itoh, M., "Kenpo", Tokyo, Kobundo, 1982. K a s u l i s , T.P., "Zen A c t i o n Zen Person", Honolulu, U n i v e r s i t y Press of Hawaii, 1981. Keeton, W.P., (ed.), "Prosser and Keeton on The Law of T o r t s " , St. P aul, West P u b l i s h i n g , 5th ed., 1984. K e l l y , W. £ K e l l y , N., " P o l i c i n g i n Canada", Toronto, Macmillan, 1976. K l a r , L (ed), "Studies i n Canadian T o r t Law", Toronto, Butterworths, 1977. Law Reform Commission of Canada, "Working Paper 47: E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e " , 1986. Linden, A.M., "Canadian T o r t Law", Toronto, Butterworths, (3d ed.), 1981. Manning, M. "The P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act", Toronto, Butterworths, 1974. Manning, M., "Wiretap Law i n Canada", Toronto, Butterworths, 1978. Matsuo, K. , (ed.), "Jokai K e i j i Sosho Ho", Tokyo, Kobundo, 1984. Matsuo, K., " K e i j i Sosho Ho", Tokyo, Kobuno, 1979. Matsuo, K. § Tamiya, H., " K e i j i Sosho Ho no Kiso C h i s h i k i " , Tokyo, Yuhikaku, 1966. McCalla, W., "Search and S e i z u r e i n Canada", Aurora, Canada Law Book, 1984. N a t i o n a l P o l i c e Agency, Japan, "The P o l i c e of Japan", 1985. N a t i o n a l P o l i c e Agency, Japan, "White Paper on P o l i c e 1983", 1983. N a t i o n a l P o l i c e Agency, Japan, "White Paper on P o l i c e 1984", 1984. Onta r i o Law Reform Commission, "Report on P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y i n O n t a r i o " , 1968. Parker, L.C., "The Japanese P o l i c e System Today", Tokyo, Kodansha I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1984. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of Attorney General, "1983 Annual Return: Invasion of P r i v a c y Part IV.1 of the C r i m i n a l Code", 1984. - 122 -Province of Quebec, "Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Problems", 1956. Rule, J . , McAdam, D., S t e a r s , L. § Uglow, D., "The P o l i t i c s of P r i v a c y " , New York, E l s e v i e r , 1980. Salhany, R.E., "Canadian C r i m i n a l Procedure", Aurora, Canada Law Book, 4th ed., 1984. Stenning, P . C , "Legal Status of The P o l i c e " , a Study Paper prepared f o r the Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1981. Suzuki, S., " K e i j i Sosho Ho", Tokyo, S e i r i n Shoin, 1980. Tamiya, H. , ( e d . ) , " K e i j i Sosho Ho, V o l . 1", Tokyo, Yuhikaku, (1975). Waddams, S.M., " I n t r o d u c t i o n to The Study of Law", Toronto, C a r s w e l l , 1983. Watt, D., "An A n a l y s i s of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act", P o l i c e A n a l y s i s D i v i s i o n , Co-ordinated Law Enforcement U n i t , M i n i s t r y of the Attorney General, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976. Watt, D., "Law of E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e i n Canada", Toronto, C a r s w e l l , 1979. Westin, A.F., " P r i v a c y and Freedom", New York, Atheneum, 1967. Young, J.B., (e d . ) , " P r i v a c y " , C h i c h e s t e r , John Wiley § Sons, 1978. Younger, Kenneth, (Chairman), "Report of the Committee on P r i v a c y " , London, Her Majesty's S t a t i o n e r y O f f i c e . Zelermyer, W. , "Invasion of P r i v a c y " , Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 1959. ARTICLES Atrens, J . , "Comment on the P r i v a c y Act", (1968), 26 Advocate, 183. Atsumi, T., "Tocho, Wiretapping", (1972), Enshu K e i j i Sosho Ho, 74. Beck, S.M., " E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e and the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e " , (1968), 46 Canadian Bar Review, 643. Beer, L.W., "Defamation, P r i v a c y and Freedom of Ex p r e s s i o n i n Japan", (1972), 5 Law i n Japan, 203. - 123 -Beer, L.W., "Japan's C o n s t i t u t i o n a l System and i t s J u d i c i a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n " , (1984), 17 Law i n Japan, 8. Benn, S.I., "The P r o t e c t i o n and L i m i t a t i o n of P r i v a c y " , (1978), 52 A u s t r a l i a n Law J o u r n a l , 601. B l o u s t e i n , E . J . , " P r i v a c y as an Aspect of Human D i g n i t y : an Answer to Dean Pr o s s e r " , (1964), i n I n d i v i d u a l and Group P r i v a c y , 1. Brent, A.S., "Tendering Intercepted Communications as Evidence", (1980), 44 RCMP Gazette, No.2, 7. Burns, P., "A R e t r o s p e c t i v e View of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act: A F r a g i l e Rede i s Recked", (1979), 13 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Law Review, 123. Burns, P., " E l e c t r o n i c Eavesdropping and the Federal Response: Cloning a Hybrid.*", (1975), 10 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Law Review, 36. Burns, P., " P r i v a c y and the Common Law: A Tangled Skein U n r a v e l l i n g ? " , (1980), i n Aspects of P r i v a c y Law, Gibson, D., (ed.), 21. Burns, P., "The Law and P r i v a c y : The Canadian Experience", (1976), 54 Canadian Bar Review, 1. Cohen, S.A., "Invasion of P r i v a c y : P o l i c e and E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e i n Canada", (1982), 27 M c G i l l Law J o u r n a l , 619. C r a i g , E.P., " E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e : S e t t i n g the L i m i t s " , (1975), 24 U n i v e r s i t y of New Brunswick Law J o u r n a l , 29. D e l i s l e , R.J., " E v i d e n t i a r y I m p l i c a t i o n s of B i l l C-176", (1974), i n The P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act, Manning, M., 116. Deutscher, D., "The P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act: Whose P r i v a c y i s i t P r o t e c t i n g ? " , (1980), i n Aspects of P r i v a c y Law, Gibson, D., (ed.), 141. F l a h e r t y , D.H., " P r o t e c t i n g P r i v a c y i n P o l i c e Information Systems: Data P r o t e c t i o n i n The Canadian P o l i c e Information Center", (1986), 36 U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Law J o u r n a l , 116. Fr a n k e l , S.D., " S u r r e p t i t i o u s E n t r y : i t s L e g a l i t y and E f f e c t on A d m i s s i b i l i t y " , (1979), 22 C r i m i n a l Law Q u a r t e r l y , 112. Fra n k e l , S.D., "The R e l a t i o n s h i p of Known and Unknown Persons to the A d m i s s i b i l i t y of In t e r c e p t e d P r i v a t e Communications", (1979), 21 C r i m i n a l Law Q u a r t e r l y , 465. - 124 -F r a n k e l , S.D., "Wiretaps: An A n a l y s i s of the Case Law to September 1977", (1977), 39 C r i m i n a l Report New S e r i e s , 186. F r i e d , C., " P r i v a c y " , (1968), 77 Yale Law J o u r n a l , 475. Gerety, T., "Redefining P r i v a c y " , (1977), 12 Harvard C i v i l Rights - C i v i l L i b e r t i e s Law Review, 233. Gibson, D., "Common Law P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y " , (1977), i n Studies i n Canadian T o r t Law, K l a r , L., (ed.), 343. Guth, D.J. § Vogel, R.H., "The Canadian Constable: An Endangered Sp e c i e s ? " , (1985), unpublished. Hak, J.W., "The A u t h o r i z a t i o n P r o v i s i o n s of the P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y Act and the A p p l i c a t i o n of S e c t i o n 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms", (1986), unpublished. I s h i d a , T., "Fundamental Human Rights and the Development of Legal Thought i n Japan", (1975), 8 Law i n Japan, 39. Itoh, M., "Issues i n the A f t e r the Banquet D e c i s i o n " , (1967), 1 Law i n Japan, 141. Ja r d i n e , J.W., "Lawful I n t e r c e p t i o n s , Defence A t t a c k s on A u t h o r i z a t i o n s " , (1981), Vancouver, Continuing Legal Education. Kimbrough, R.T., "Annotation: Right of P r i v a c y " , (1942), 138 American Law Reports Annotated, 25. Konvitz, M.R., " P r i v a c y and the Law: A P h i l o s o p h i c a l Prelude", (1966), 31 Law and Contemporary Problems, 272. Kubota, K., "Kokka Kenryoku to P u r a i b a s h i " , (1972), i n Gendai Baisho Ho Koza Vol.2, Itoh, M. , ( e d . ) , 87. Kubota, K., " P u r a i b a s h i no K e n r i " , (1965), i n Nipponkoku Kenpo T a i k e i Vol.7, 145. Kubota, K., " P u r a i b a s h i to Hyogen no J i y u " , (1980), i n Kenpo Hanrei Hyakusen V o l . 1, 68. Manning, M. § Branson, C., "Wiretapping: the m o r a l i t y of snooping", (1977), 1 Canadian Lawyer, 24. Matsumoto, T., "Tocho", (1970), i n Shokoho T a i k e i V o l . 1, 24. McWilliams, P.K., "The I l l e g a l i t y of S u r r e p t i t i o u s E ntry I n t e l l i g e n c e Probes", (1978), 26 C h i t t y ' s Law J o u r n a l , 191. - 125 -M o r i i , A., "Shashin S a t s u e i " , (1981), i n K e i j i Sosho Ho Hanrei Hyakusen, 22. Parker, R.B., "A D e f i n i t i o n of P r i v a c y " , (1974), 27 Rutgers Law Review, 275. Pound, R., "The F i f t e e n t h Amendment and the Right of P r i v a c y " , (1962), 13 Western Reserve Law Review, 34. Prosser, W.L., " P r i v a c y , (1960), 48 C a l i f o r n i a Law Review, 383. Sakamura, S., "Tocho", (1972), i n Sosa Ho T a i k e i Vol.3, 239. Satoh, K., "Gendai Shakai to P u r a i b a s h i " , (1972), i n Gendai Songai-baisho Ho Koza Vol.2, Itoh, M., (ed. ) , 53. Satoh, T., "Sasa Hoho to Shiteno Tocho", i n K e i s a t s u Gakuronshu vol.15, No.4, 51 and No.5, 123. S a t t i n g e r , O.C., " P r i v a c y " , (1972), 62 American Jursprudence Second Ed., 675. Shafer, A., " P r i v a c y " A P h i l o s o p h i c a l Overview", (1980), i n Aspects of P r i v a c y , Gibson, D., (ed. ) , 1. S h i l s , E., " P r i v a c y : Its C o n s t i t u t o n and V i c i s s i t u d e s " , (1968), 31 Law and Contemporary Problems, 281. S h i l s , E., " S o c i a l I n q u i r y and the Autonomy of the I n d i v i d u a l " , (1959), i n The Human Meaning of The S o c i a l Science, Lerner, D., (ed.), 114. Smart, W.B., "The Accused's Right t o , and Use of, Tape Recorded Conversations i n P o s s e s s i o n of the Crown", (1981), Vancouver, Continuing Legal Education. Smith, J . C , "Ajase and Oedipus: Japanese and Western Ideas of the S e l f i n Legal Consciousness", (1986), 20 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Law Review, 341. Stewart, A.M., "Wiretaps and Conspiracy: Overview of the Law", (1981), Vancouver, Continuing Legal Education. S t u a r t , D., "Carte Blanche f o r E e l c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e ? " , (1984), 37 C r i m i n a l Reports T h i r d S e r i e s , 141. Tamiya, H. , "Kyosei Sosa", (1965), i n Sogo Hanken Keiso Vol.16, 307. Tanakadate, S., "Tochoki no Shiyo to P u r a i b a s h i " , (1980), Kenpo Hanrei Hyakusen Vol.1, 170. T i t l e , M., "Canadian Wiretap L e g i s l a t i o n : P r o t e c t i o n or E r o s i o n of P r i v a c y ? " , (1978), 26 C h i t t y ' s Law J o u r n a l , 47. - 126 -V a l e r i o t e , F.M., " J u d i c i a l A u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r Wiretap: An I l l u s o r y P r o t e c t i o n " , (1980), 12 Ottawa Law Review, 215. Velecky, L.C., "The Concept of P r i v a c y " , (1978), i n P r i v a c y , Young, J.B., (ed.) , 13. Warren, S., § Brandeis, L., "The Right to P r i v a c y " , (1890), 4 Harvard Law Review, 193. Westin, A.F., "Science, P r i v a c y and Freedom: Issues and Proposals f o r the 1970's", (1966), 66 Columbia Law Review, 1003. - 127 -

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077692/manifest

Comment

Related Items