NCJ Number
199413
Journal
Canadian Police Chief Magazine Dated: Winter 2003 Pages: 9-12
Date Published
January 2003
Length
4 pages
Annotation
This article explains a recent decision (July 2002) of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Canada) regarding the retention of an appellant's fingerprints following the withdrawal of his criminal charges and whether such retention violated section 8 of the Charter
Abstract
In R. v. Dore, the appellant argued that the retention of his fingerprints by the police following the withdrawal of charges constituted a violation of his section 8 Charter right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. The appellant maintained that he retained a privacy interest in his fingerprints following their original seizure by the police upon arrest and that retention of his fingerprints following a withdrawal of the criminal charges constituted an unreasonable seizure and therefore "unconstitutional retention" of the seized fingerprints. The Court found that a reasonable balance could be struck by holding that the right to privacy arises if and when the person asserts his/her privacy interest by asking for the fingerprints to be returned or destroyed. It is at this point that further retention of the fingerprints would become unconstitutional retention unless the police could show that there were other factors that would override the privacy interest. The Court further held that there was no constitutional duty for the police or other government agency to notify a person that he/she may apply to have his/her fingerprints destroyed; however, the Court stated that it would be helpful and appropriate for the authorities to do so. 3 notes