• TheReanuKeeves@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    4 days ago

    They don’t use it as admissible evidence, they use it to find out whether someone is worth pursuing in legitimate ways that are more time and effort intensive.

    • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      4 days ago

      That type of investigation would still require a warrant or exigent circumstances at the minimum. Otherwise it’s just fishing…which is a violation of Canada’s privacy laws. They can’t just go rooting through someone’s phone looking for a reason to pursue further investigation.

        • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Aah. I missed this part on my first reading…

          Once a judge approves surveillance, police have carte blanche on methods.

          This would be used on suspects that they have a warrant to investigate.