THUNDER BAY — A Superior Court justice has ruled that a Toronto-area man had no reasonable expectation of territorial privacy at two addresses in the city where police conducted searches leading to multiple charges against him.
Judge FB Fitzpatrick dismissed his application for standing to challenge the execution of a search warrant at a South Cumberland St. apartment and a Lincoln Street apartment, and the warrantless searches of a common area in the Cumberland St. building and of a camera located in an adjacent building.
The case dates back to April 2021, when Thunder Bay Police charged the man with possession of a controlled substance for trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and unauthorized possession of a prohibited weapon.
A unit at the Cumberland Street address was allegedly operated as a safe house, a place where drug dealers keep their products and the proceeds of their sales, while the Lincoln Street location was allegedly operated as a trap house, a place where actual transactions take place.
Police found a wallet containing a driver's licence inside the safe house, as well as a digital scale with a white powdery substance on it, packaging material, cellphones, and almost $17,000 in cash.
Officers conducted a search above the ceiling tiles in a common hallway and laundry room at the safe house, from where they recovered a large amount of cocaine and $27,000 in cash.
They also found a fingerprint on a bag of drugs.
In the trap house, police said they discovered the man and six other individuals, $3,600 in cash, and some drugs, drug paraphernalia and brass knuckles.
At a court hearing this month, the accused argued that the police searches had breached his reasonable expectation of privacy.
In the case of the trap house, Judge Fitzpatrick described his claim on the grounds that he was on the premises at the time as "very weak."
He said, "The evidence points to this location being a trap house. [His] presence in such an environment, carrying an excessive amount of cash, coupled with a small of amount of drugs, drug paraphernalia, and working scales, in my view, does not create a reasonable expectation of privacy on his part. It suggests an illegal use. An illegal use lacking a predicate legal use does not create an expectation of privacy. The facts in this matter do not suggest any [signs] of control or even permission to be there that would give rise to a reasonable expectation of territorial privacy."
With regard to the safe house, the court noted there is no evidence that the apartment was the man's private residence but rather that another person was the actual tenant.
Turning to the warrantless searches of the common areas of the safe house, the judge observed that police had the consent of the building owner and that, in his view, the area above ceiling tiles would not be considered a common area for tenants.
"Whoever placed the items there had no subjective or objective reasonable expectation to privacy in an area that belongs to someone else, a landlord, and where there is no access to this space in the ordinary course of occupation by others," he said.
Finally, Judge Fitzpatrick considered the accused's claim of a breach of privacy related to the police use of video surveillance outside the safe house for one week prior to the execution of the search warrants.
The camera was in an area in public view and did not reveal anything that occurred once a person went beyond a door at the top of a set of stairs.
"[The accused] did not live there," he said, and "he would not have a territorial expectation of privacy for an area that was in plain view of the public...the gathering of information that could be done by anyone who was simply standing by and looking at the stairway does not substantially compromise any reasonable expectation to informational privacy."
None of the charges have been proven in court.
