Pubdate: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 Source: Winnipeg Free Press (CN MB) Copyright: 2010 Winnipeg Free Press Contact: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/send_a_letter Website: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/502 COURT ERODES HOME PRIVACY A man's home is not his castle, any longer, nor is a woman's home her private domain. In a split decision that should concern Canadians, the Supreme Court of Canada Wednesday issued a ruling that allows police to intrude on the sanctity of homes without a warrant. It is, as Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Morris Fish said in a dissenting opinion, an "incremental but ominous step toward the erosion of the right to privacy." The case involved Daniel Gomboc, a Calgary man suspected of using his home as a marijuana grow-op because police thought they could smell marijuana and there was condensation on the plastic-covered windows, steam coming from the vents and no snow on the roof. Police asked the company that supplied power to the house to measure the consumption -- grow-ops use an inordinate amount of electricity -- and used those records to obtain a search warrant. Gomboc was convicted of growing marijuana and trafficking in it, a verdict that was overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal on the grounds that the police request for the power company to install a sophisticated monitoring device in his home violated his right to privacy. In a split decision, the Supreme Court disagreed, with the majority stating that "the Constitution does not cloak the home in an impenetrable veil of secrecy" and to expect that it should would be "impractical" and "unreasonable." Canadians learned long ago not to expect that cloak from their Supreme Court. Previous court decisions already allow police to root through our garbage and inspect our electrical bills without warrants. The division within the court was clear. Chief Justice McLachlin argued that the Gomboc case takes this intrusion further. A "reasonable person" who subscribes to a cable service should not have to expect that the state could then monitor his viewing habits or his email or that it would "authorize the police to enter our homes, physically or electronically... without prior judicial authorization." The majority on the court disagreed with her, however, overturning the Alberta Court of Appeal's earlier ruling that Canadians have a broad right to privacy in their homes and that "the state has no business in the homes of the nation without invitation or judicial authorization." After Wednesday's ruling, unfortunately, Canadians can no longer expect such privacy in what the two dissenting judges called their "most private of dwellings." - --- MAP posted-by: Matt