ManitobaAn application for Winnipeg police to be allowed to search their own evidence locker shows the legal framework for search warrants is behind the times, a Manitoba judge says.’Bizarre’ situation shows need for better framework for search warrants, says lawyerArturo Chang · CBC News · Posted: Oct 18, 2025 7:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 6 hours agoWinnipeg police filed an application to search their evidence control unit for three seized phones as part of a drug trafficking investigation. A Manitoba judge says the application shows how outdated the legal framework for search warrants is in Canada. (igorstevanovic/Shutterstock)An application from Winnipeg police to allow them to search their own evidence locker shows the legal framework for search warrants is behind the times, a Manitoba judge says.Provincial court Judge Victoria Cornick said search and seizure provisions in the Criminal Code are an “outdated structure that was never designed” to deal with electronic data.”The clearest example of the current dysfunctional approach are the search warrant applications seeking to search a police agency’s exhibit locker for a previously seized cellular telephone,” she said in a decision issued earlier this month.The exhibits filed as part of the Winnipeg Police Service’s application are “dramatic, but not uncommon examples of the spectrum of approaches taken by judicial officers to resolve the issue,” Cornick said. Winnipeg police were seeking permission to search their evidence control unit for three seized phones as part of a drug trafficking investigation, according to the decision. No other details into that probe were provided, and police said they can’t comment on the ruling.A 2013 Supreme Court ruling said police need specific authorization to search for data on a computer device — but there is no scheme that spells out exactly how to do that, Cornick’s decision said.Cornick said she would deal with the police service’s particular application in a separate decision, but said some limited direction was needed on the search warrant process.The issue stems from “whether to treat computer systems as a ‘place’ or a ‘thing’ within the search warrant framework,” Cornick’s decision said.Computers treated as ‘places’The Criminal Code allows judges to authorize searching “places” to seize “things” that provide evidence of a crime. Police are required to report to a judge when a particular thing has been seized, and whether they intend to return it or keep it, with the judge getting the final say.But the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling said police need a separate, specific warrant to search data in a computer system if they hadn’t asked for it beforehand because of the significant risk to a person’s privacy. It said those devices should be treated as “places,” to a certain extent.That would make the data “things,” subject to the same reporting requirements as physical items.Cornick said the Supreme Court decision did not set out a comprehensive approach for how search warrants for devices would work, but that relegating highly private data to the terms and conditions of another search warrant won’t do.”Characterizing data as an ‘other’ or a search for an intangible thing in an imaginary place is to diminish the privacy interests at stake, and to ignore the Supreme Court’s direction,” she said.”It is easier to accept the premise that a computer system such as a cellphone can be a thing in one scenario and a place to be searched in another than it is to accept that the police do not have authority to enter their own exhibit locker,” Cornick said.Cornick said systems should be treated as “places,” if searching for their data has not been authorized as part of a broader search warrant, and that police must report basic information about the data found in the system.She declined to endorse “boilerplate” or standardized terms and conditions, saying the court can’t account for unique situations or further innovations in technology.’The law isn’t keeping up to technology’The Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys said the decision matters more for practical reasons than as a major legal change.”The law isn’t keeping up to technology, and I believe [Cornick’s] phrase was that we are trying to push a square peg into a round hole,” association president Michael Desautels told Radio-Canada in an email. “All that to say this decision helps. It provides clarity and direction to police.”University of Manitoba associate law professor Brandon Trask said the “very rare” decision is a starting point.But a better framework is still needed for search warrants, he said, adding the situation “sounds a bit bizarre” because it is.”There’s so much inconsistency based on different interpretations of what the Supreme Court of Canada has said in a couple of different cases,” Trask said. Electronic devices, he added, are “essentially gold mines as far as the prosecution is concerned,” since during an investigation, police “can get so much from a cellphone.” “This is a step towards the courts recognizing the importance of properly characterizing that sort of a device.”With files from Radio-Canada’s Gavin Boutroy
Winnipeg police make application to search own evidence locker under ‘dysfunctional’ warrant rules: judge
