But the warrant still has to originally exist with, presumably, a timestamp that shows it existed prior to the search. And modification of the timestamp or lack of such a feature would be a good way to get the evidence thrown out?

▲

freeone3000 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That’s not how evidence works in Canada. Illegally obtained evidence is still evidence - you simply also have a tort against the officer for breaching your rights.

▲

dataflow 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It would be inadmissible if the court deems it to impact the fairness of the trial, no? https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec...

	▲	godelski 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You used a conditional so I assume you also know how such a system can fail. It's not hard to figure out how that can be exploited, right? You can't rely on that conditional being executed perfectly every time, even without adversarial actors. But why ignore adversarial actors?
	▲	sunir 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Maybe. Courts aren’t magic machines that do the right thing.

▲

mnkyprskbd 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The existence of a category of warrants that allows operation that is indistinguishable from warrantless searches creates a kind of legal hazard and personal risk that is hard to overlook. Police lie on the regular.

	▲	SecretDreams 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is a good perspective, thank you.

▲

dataflow 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't get why people downvoted you, this is a very reasonable question.

	▲	godelski 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There were two commenters that responded 15 minutes prior to your comment. I'd suggest starting there if you want to understand. Then if you disagree with those, you can comment and actually contribute to the conversation ;)
	▲	linkregister 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I agree with you. However, talking about downvotes is not interesting and against guidelines. Improperly down voted comments typically even out in the end anyway.