Wayne Millard: Dellen Millard Charged With Murder In The First Degree #1

[Tamarind]

Wouldn't accessory before the fact basically be aiding and abetting? (Not sure.) Either way, I think MWJ would have had to know a murder was planned when he sold the gun in order to be charged with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting



So far, we haven't heard of any accessory charges for MWJ. But if that was the case, that would bring us right back to the exceptions to confidentiality.

JMO

Wouldn't accessory before the fact basically be aiding and abetting? (Not sure.) Either way, I think MWJ would have had to know a murder was planned when he sold the gun in order to be charged with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting



So far, we haven't heard of any accessory charges for MWJ. But if that was the case, that would bring us right back to the exceptions to confidentiality.

JMO

Do we know how the information came about that tells of a gun being sold by MWJ in the first place? Is it that he admitted it voluntarily or were his prints on the gun?

 

[Alethea Dice]

Apparently, the charge was weapons trafficking.

On Tuesday, three men were brought before a Toronto court to face charges of weapons trafficking.

When contacted by the Star on Friday, Mathew Odlum, 27, confirmed his charge of trafficking a firearm was linked to the police case against Millard.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/04/12/tim_bosma_murder_case_laura_babcock_dead_before_she_was_reported_missing_police_allege.html

From the same article, it seems MWJ also has two other firearm trafficking charges from February and September of 2012. But the charge for the three men together was that they trafficked a gun between June 1, 2012 and July 30, 2012.

What's odd with the timing is that two days later, the charges for WM and LB were added. The gun is alleged to have been sold sometime from a month before to a month after LB went missing. And yet, it's being alleged that it was used to kill WM, with no mention of LB. Did the "source" get the name wrong for the connection, or do police believe it was used for both?

The same source has told The Spectator that three men in Etobicoke have been charged with gun trafficking for allegedly selling a firearm to Dellen Millard, which police believe he then used to murder his father.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4460278-clairmont-police-believe-body-of-accused-bosma-killer-s-girlfriend-was-incinerated/

 

[Alethea Dice]

Do we know how the information came about that tells of a gun being sold by MWJ in the first place? Is it that he admitted it voluntarily or were his prints on the gun?

I don't believe we know that yet.

 

[Arnie M]

...

--Wayne Millards death , whether by suicide , or a staged suicide would require the gun be there

--If the gun was not there police would not accept it was a suicide (obviously)

--If the gun was the one supplied by MWJ it would be an unregistered illegal weapon (obviously)

--Police (coroner ?) would have kept the gun , probably pondering where WM got it from

--That would be at least one good reason for the coroner to keep the WM file "open" since his death

--We could expect that family members (DM) would have been questioned about the origins of the gun

--Most likely DM denied having any knowledge of the gun , and there would be a record of that in the (suicide) report

--Now that police allege the gun was purchased by DM it implies he was not telling the truth about WM's "suicide"

--For police to connect DM & MWJ to the gun indicates they know a lot more .... enough to lay murder charges .

..

 

[Tamarind]

Apparently, the charge was weapons trafficking.





http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/04/12/tim_bosma_murder_case_laura_babcock_dead_before_she_was_reported_missing_police_allege.html

From the same article, it seems MWJ also has two other firearm trafficking charges from February and September of 2012. But the charge for the three men together was that they trafficked a gun between June 1, 2012 and July 30, 2012.

What's odd with the timing is that two days later, the charges for WM and LB were added. The gun is alleged to have been sold sometime from a month before to a month after LB went missing. And yet, it's being alleged that it was used to kill WM, with no mention of LB. Did the "source" get the name wrong for the connection, or do police believe it was used for both?



http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4460278-clairmont-police-believe-body-of-accused-bosma-killer-s-girlfriend-was-incinerated/

Dellen Millard hasn't spoken to LE apparently, but somehow this gun is now allegedly connected to him. Are we to believe that these Mathews kept names of who they sold items to, I wonder. I can't imagine gun traffickers keeping lists of gun recipients. JMO That leaves fingerprints. In this scenario it would imply that the Mathews and DM's prints were on the gun in question. But, no gun was alleged to have been used in the TB or LB cases. Taking the same stance that MWJ and Co are presumed innocent it begs the question ' How and why would they be charged with trafficking a gun within a specific period of time?' Unless there was a witness to this transaction. I am betting that weapons dealers do not give receipts, so who would know and who would tell? Not the sellers and I am guessing not the buyers. IF the gun that killed WM either by suicide or homicide is alleged to have once been in the hands of the Mathews, how was it linked to them? If the gun never changed hands does that mean the previous holders could be responsible for something other than weapons trafficking? Did someone buy the weapon with an alias, but then who would relay that information. The list of questions in this case keeps getting longer and logic is non existent IMO

Either the gun was bought with a cheque or a receipt given (not likely) or someone is claiming they saw the transaction (again unlikely, unless a paid informant IMO) JMO

 

[Tamarind]

...

--Wayne Millards death , whether by suicide , or a staged suicide would require the gun be there

--If the gun was not there police would not accept it was a suicide (obviously)

--If the gun was the one supplied by MWJ it would be an unregistered illegal weapon (obviously)

--Police (coroner ?) would have kept the gun , probably pondering where WM got it from

--That would be at least one good reason for the coroner to keep the WM file "open" since his death

--We could expect that family members (DM) would have been questioned about the origins of the gun

--Most likely DM denied having any knowledge of the gun , and there would be a record of that in the (suicide) report

--Now that police allege the gun was purchased by DM it implies he was not telling the truth about WM's "suicide"

--For police to connect DM & MWJ to the gun indicates they know a lot more .... enough to lay murder charges .

..

I was with you until the last two lines.
The last line does not make sense to me simply because if we assume that DM truthfully tells police he has no knowledge of the origin of the gun his father used to kill himself, and that gun is found to have belonged to MWJ and co, then that implies that they are either connected to the murder OR they were questioned in connection with the murder and said they sold it to the son. That now becomes a he said she said. There is always the possibility that WM was holding the gun and another hand was over the top to make sure the job was done. Was WM being robbed or blackmailed or threatened? I see nothing pointing to DM from this. I do see that the police would use anything to escalate their case against DM by implying (your word) that DM was responsible for his fathers murder. JMO

 

[swedie]

Dellen Millard hasn't spoken to LE apparently, but somehow this gun is now allegedly connected to him. Are we to believe that these Mathews kept names of who they sold items to, I wonder. I can't imagine gun traffickers keeping lists of gun recipients. JMO That leaves fingerprints. In this scenario it would imply that the Mathews and DM's prints were on the gun in question. But, no gun was alleged to have been used in the TB or LB cases. Taking the same stance that MWJ and Co are presumed innocent it begs the question ' How and why would they be charged with trafficking a gun within a specific period of time?' Unless there was a witness to this transaction. I am betting that weapons dealers do not give receipts, so who would know and who would tell? Not the sellers and I am guessing not the buyers. IF the gun that killed WM either by suicide or homicide is alleged to have once been in the hands of the Mathews, how was it linked to them? If the gun never changed hands does that mean the previous holders could be responsible for something other than weapons trafficking? Did someone buy the weapon with an alias, but then who would relay that information. The list of questions in this case keeps getting longer and logic is non existent IMO

Either the gun was bought with a cheque or a receipt given (not likely) or someone is claiming they saw the transaction (again unlikely, unless a paid informant IMO) JMO

This???

Tony Leitch, the Hamilton Crown attorney prosecuting the Bosma case, says the project involves "one of the largest computer seizures in Ontario criminal law history."

After Millard and Smich were originally arrested, search warrants were executed to seize computers and cellphones which the OPP have analyzed, he says.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...ed-bosma-killer-s-girlfriend-was-incinerated/

 

[Alethea Dice]

This???

Tony Leitch, the Hamilton Crown attorney prosecuting the Bosma case, says the project involves "one of the largest computer seizures in Ontario criminal law history."

After Millard and Smich were originally arrested, search warrants were executed to seize computers and cellphones which the OPP have analyzed, he says.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...ed-bosma-killer-s-girlfriend-was-incinerated/

That was my first thought too. Could someone selling illegal guns really be dumb enough to do the deal online? :facepalm:

 

[Tamarind]

That was my first thought too. Could someone selling illegal guns really be dumb enough to do the deal online? :facepalm:

Somehow I doubt it. My guess would be that those involved in receiving larger wads of cash would be selling the guns via word of mouth. That's if we believe that a gun was sold in this case. I think the only connection that makes sense and that may or may not be the actual situation here, is that MWJ and co at one time were in possession of the gun. If it is an illegal gun, the only way that I see it being proven to have been in their hands is IF that gun was involved in a crime prior to the alleged selling. I don't see how anyone would know that any item was once in the hands of someone specific unless it had previously been connected to them or by way of someone talking and even that is unlikely because they would need to have some way of identifying the item other than make model and scratched out serial number JMO

 

[Tamarind]

This???

Tony Leitch, the Hamilton Crown attorney prosecuting the Bosma case, says the project involves "one of the largest computer seizures in Ontario criminal law history."

After Millard and Smich were originally arrested, search warrants were executed to seize computers and cellphones which the OPP have analyzed, he says.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...ed-bosma-killer-s-girlfriend-was-incinerated/

No gun apparently used in the Bosma case.

 

[Carli]

My question is what kind of gun or guns were trafficked? Do I recall that we saw a shotgun or facsimile thereof in the reporter's original photograph taken through the window of the Maple Gate residence? Remember the credit card picture? Do I have that wrong? My goodness, that picture was taken by a reporter after DM was arrested in May/13 fully 6 months following his father's death. Would the murder weapon still be on the premises? In any case didn't we somehow come to the conclusion that WM died from a shotgun (or other long gun) blast to his head (somewhere thereupon.) However the photograph featuring MWJ holding a wad of cash in one hand and a gun to his own head is obviously meant to represent a handgun. (It actually turns out to be a cigarette lighter.) The gun holster allegedly ordered by DM online was for a hand gun.

Here's the skinny on Canadian laws re basic gun types.

http://www.firearmstraining.ca/classes.htm

Note that shotguns are not restricted weapons in Canada and I don't think selling one would not be illegal although you're supposed to have a firearms licence if you own one.

I think the 3 Ms are charged with hustling restricted weapons which brings us back around to my question. If LE considers the 3Ms to be the source of the restricted weapon that killed WM, then the murder (or suicide) weapon must have either been some kind of automatic or semi-automatic long gun or a handgun. MOO. IMHO. etc.

An earlier Globe article references nearly 100 original charges again MWJ and friends

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...t-loaded-ak-47-seized-police/article16222661/

This Post article notes that WMJ various narcotics and firearms charges include possession of an AK-47 assault rifle!

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...accused-of-selling-him-alleged-murder-weapon/

Do we have any idea what sort of gun killed WM?

 

[Archangel7]

My question is what kind of gun or guns were trafficked? Do I recall that we saw a shotgun or facsimile thereof in the reporter's original photograph taken through the window of the Maple Gate residence? Remember the credit card picture? Do I have that wrong? In any case didn't we somehow come to the conclusion that WM died from a shotgun (or other long gun) blast to his head (somewhere thereupon.) However the photograph featuring MWJ holding a wad of cash in one hand and a gun to his own head is obviously meant to represent a handgun. (It actually turns out to be a cigarette lighter.) The gun holster allegedly ordered by DM online was for a hand gun.

Here's the skinny on Canadian laws re basic gun types.

http://www.firearmstraining.ca/classes.htm

Note that shotguns are not restricted weapons in Canada and I don't think selling one would not be illegal although you're supposed to have a firearms licence if you own one.

I think the 3 Ms are charged with hustling restricted weapons which brings us back around to my question. If LE considers the 3Ms to be the source of the restricted weapon that killed WM, then the murder (or suicide) weapon must have either been some kind of automatic or semi-automatic long gun or a handgun. MOO. IMHO. etc.

An earlier Globe article references nearly 100 original charges again MWJ and friends

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...t-loaded-ak-47-seized-police/article16222661/

This Post article notes that WMJ various narcotics and firearms charges include possession of an AK-47 assault rifle!

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...accused-of-selling-him-alleged-murder-weapon/

Do we have any idea what sort of gun killed WM?

To sell any NON restricted gun legally you would have to own it or posses it. To do that you must have a POSSESSION and Acquisition License......To buy a NON restricted gun legally you must have a Possession and ACQUISITION License.

Same with a Restricted guns but with a RPAL instead of a PAL.
Really makes no difference all the RPAL and PAL do is criminalize law abiding citizens and the thugs get guns illegally anyway.

One the shotgun at DM's...there is a time period an executor can possess a gun from the estate without a RPAL/PAL legally. Just a thought.

 

[Carli]

Tnx for the clarification AA. (But note automatic weapons are not only restricted but absolutely prohibited in Canada.) Re the shotgun at Maple Gate, if this was the murder weapon or even remotely suspected of being such, I would have thought LE would have long since removed such an essential piece of evidence. As I recall the reports and picture taking that day - already some time after DM had been arrested, indicates something of a circus was going on with people roaming all over the place. (Reports about the mess throughout the house, etc.) Puzzling that this possible murder scene was not secured, albeit several months after the fact. MOO. IMO. What do you think happened there? Maybe LE just had not yet put the death of WM on the radar screen yet. Still they had a fellow in custody charged with murder. It might seem possible, if not probable, that some evidence associated with the TB murder might be found at his home. MOO. But maybe they'd already been and gone and, if so, did not consider the shotgun to be a possible murder weapon. IMO.

 

[Carli]

This???

Tony Leitch, the Hamilton Crown attorney prosecuting the Bosma case, says the project involves "one of the largest computer seizures in Ontario criminal law history."

After Millard and Smich were originally arrested, search warrants were executed to seize computers and cellphones which the OPP have analyzed, he says.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...ed-bosma-killer-s-girlfriend-was-incinerated/

Hey, Swedie, hopefully the yardstick used to measure "one of the largest computer seizures in Ontario criminal law history" is not the same one they used to measure the massive MillardAir hangar chop shop with its "hundreds of stolen vehicles"- no make that fewer than ten - ok, so would you believe one motorbike? :drumroll: :hills:

Joking aside, here's an interesting recent Supreme Court judgement that might potentially find its way into this case - depending upon the circumstances of the seizure and the warrants involved.

http://www.canadianappeals.com/2013...w-on-search-warrants-and-computers-in-r-v-vu/

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released a unanimous judgment in R. v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60, in which it ruled that authorities must obtain specific authorization in a search warrant in order to search computers located on premises covered by the warrant. In this case, the police collected incriminating evidence against Mr. Thanh Long Vu from two laptops and a cellular phone on the basis of a search warrant that did not specify that the police had authority to search these devices.

Once the police obtain a warrant to search a location for evidence, it has long been settled law that they can look for that evidence in receptacles like cupboards or cabinets, where it might reasonably be located. Justice Cromwell, writing for the Court, asked whether Canada’s law of search and seizure should treat a computer as if it were a receptacle and answered:

In my view, it should not. Computers differ in important ways from the receptacles governed by the traditional framework and computer searches give rise to particular privacy concerns that are not sufficiently addressed by that approach. One cannot assume that a justice who has authorized the search of a place has taken into account the privacy interests that might be compromised by the search of any computers found within that place. This can only be assured if, as is my view, the computer search requires specific pre-authorization.

The decision proceeds at length to describe the vast amounts of information computers store, and the ways in which computers create information without users’ knowledge and retain information that users try to erase. The Court also pointed out that the physical presence of a receptacle, such as a cabinet, distinguishes it from electronic devices connected to the internet. While documents accessible by virtue of being inside a cabinet are always at the same location as the cabinet that holds them, if a computer is connected to the Internet it becomes a portal to almost infinite information shared between different users and stored on various servers around the world. The searches of the computer and phone were therefore found to be unlawful and to have breached s. 8 of the Charter.
​

 

[swedie]

Hey, Swedie, hopefully the yardstick used to measure "one of the largest computer seizures in Ontario criminal law history" is not the same one they used to measure the massive MillardAir hangar chop shop with its "hundreds of stolen vehicles"- no make that fewer than ten - ok, so would you believe one motorbike? :drumroll: :hills:

Joking aside, here's an interesting recent Supreme Court judgement that might potentially find its way into this case - depending upon the circumstances of the seizure and the warrants involved.

http://www.canadianappeals.com/2013...w-on-search-warrants-and-computers-in-r-v-vu/

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released a unanimous judgment in R. v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60, in which it ruled that authorities must obtain specific authorization in a search warrant in order to search computers located on premises covered by the warrant. In this case, the police collected incriminating evidence against Mr. Thanh Long Vu from two laptops and a cellular phone on the basis of a search warrant that did not specify that the police had authority to search these devices.

Once the police obtain a warrant to search a location for evidence, it has long been settled law that they can look for that evidence in receptacles like cupboards or cabinets, where it might reasonably be located. Justice Cromwell, writing for the Court, asked whether Canada’s law of search and seizure should treat a computer as if it were a receptacle and answered:

In my view, it should not. Computers differ in important ways from the receptacles governed by the traditional framework and computer searches give rise to particular privacy concerns that are not sufficiently addressed by that approach. One cannot assume that a justice who has authorized the search of a place has taken into account the privacy interests that might be compromised by the search of any computers found within that place. This can only be assured if, as is my view, the computer search requires specific pre-authorization.

The decision proceeds at length to describe the vast amounts of information computers store, and the ways in which computers create information without users’ knowledge and retain information that users try to erase. The Court also pointed out that the physical presence of a receptacle, such as a cabinet, distinguishes it from electronic devices connected to the internet. While documents accessible by virtue of being inside a cabinet are always at the same location as the cabinet that holds them, if a computer is connected to the Internet it becomes a portal to almost infinite information shared between different users and stored on various servers around the world. The searches of the computer and phone were therefore found to be unlawful and to have breached s. 8 of the Charter.
​

Do you know for a fact MA was not a chop shop? Please provide a link if so. Apparently one stolen motorcycle is theft = a crime in the eyes of the law. And it was found in MA's hangar which puts him in possession of it.

Maybe we should included some important facts about the case you are referring to to have a better understanding of that case. You are comparing apples to oranges IMO.

Come on now, in such large cities where there are many of these types of seizures and searches going down on a daily basis, where LE, judges and forensics probably run them through like they are on an assembly line, you don't have faith in LE to know the proper procedures when taking electronic devices into their possession, what rules apply before searches can be done to them?? With these laws seemingly always changing, I bet the big city LE are right on top of these laws. I for one am not worried and I don't think you should be either.

Oh and another thing, the whole chop shop thing...that's peanuts compared to the three murder charges DM is facing. We're speaking of probably 75 years of being in "the hole". :yow: MS, 40 years to life. MOO.

Police entering a home with a search warrant have no right to examine any computers they find unless a judge has given them specific permission, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled unanimously./B]

In a British Columbia case involving a man police suspected of diverting electricity from B.C. Hydro for a marijuana-growing operation, a judge had granted a search warrant that made no mention of access to computers. The police seized two computers anyway in an attempt to prove that the man, Vu Thanh Long, lived in the house. The trial judge threw out that evidence, saying that in the digital age, it was inconceivable a warrant could implicitly authorize a computer search.

If they do not have a warrant specifying a computer search, police are entitled to seize and hold computers while they seek a judge’s authorization to look at their contents, the court said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...omputers-supreme-court-rules/article15309690/

 

[ABro]

Never underestimate stupid. Remember Millard's eBay holster purchases? ( sorry can't cut and paste)

 

[Tamarind]

Never underestimate stupid. Remember Millard's eBay holster purchases? ( sorry can't cut and paste)

Did the one buying use the DM email that was apparently being used by another? I wonder which employees of MA had use of company cards? Just wondering. So many questions, so few answers. IMO

 

[Tamarind]

Do you know for a fact MA was not a chop shop? Please provide a link if so. Apparently one stolen motorcycle is theft = a crime in the eyes of the law. And it was found in MA's hangar which puts him in possession of it.

Maybe we should included some important facts about the case you are referring to to have a better understanding of that case. You are comparing apples to oranges IMO.

Come on now, in such large cities where there are many of these types of seizures and searches going down on a daily basis, where LE, judges and forensics probably run them through like they are on an assembly line, you don't have faith in LE to know the proper procedures when taking electronic devices into their possession, what rules apply before searches can be done to them?? With these laws seemingly always changing, I bet the big city LE are right on top of these laws. I for one am not worried and I don't think you should be either. :therethere:

Oh and another thing, the whole chop shop thing...that's peanuts compared to the three murder charges DM is facing. We're speaking of probably 75 years of being in "the hole". :yow: MS, 40 years to life. MOO.

Police entering a home with a search warrant have no right to examine any computers they find unless a judge has given them specific permission, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled unanimously./B]

In a British Columbia case involving a man police suspected of diverting electricity from B.C. Hydro for a marijuana-growing operation, a judge had granted a search warrant that made no mention of access to computers. The police seized two computers anyway in an attempt to prove that the man, Vu Thanh Long, lived in the house. The trial judge threw out that evidence, saying that in the digital age, it was inconceivable a warrant could implicitly authorize a computer search.

If they do not have a warrant specifying a computer search, police are entitled to seize and hold computers while they seek a judge’s authorization to look at their contents, the court said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...omputers-supreme-court-rules/article15309690/

Would you happen to know the statistics of how many unlawfully seized computers are eventually viewed with a valid warrant?

 

[Alethea Dice]

My question is what kind of gun or guns were trafficked? Do I recall that we saw a shotgun or facsimile thereof in the reporter's original photograph taken through the window of the Maple Gate residence? Remember the credit card picture? Do I have that wrong? My goodness, that picture was taken by a reporter after DM was arrested in May/13 fully 6 months following his father's death. Would the murder weapon still be on the premises? In any case didn't we somehow come to the conclusion that WM died from a shotgun (or other long gun) blast to his head (somewhere thereupon.) However the photograph featuring MWJ holding a wad of cash in one hand and a gun to his own head is obviously meant to represent a handgun. (It actually turns out to be a cigarette lighter.) The gun holster allegedly ordered by DM online was for a hand gun.

Here's the skinny on Canadian laws re basic gun types.

http://www.firearmstraining.ca/classes.htm

Note that shotguns are not restricted weapons in Canada and I don't think selling one would not be illegal although you're supposed to have a firearms licence if you own one.

I think the 3 Ms are charged with hustling restricted weapons which brings us back around to my question. If LE considers the 3Ms to be the source of the restricted weapon that killed WM, then the murder (or suicide) weapon must have either been some kind of automatic or semi-automatic long gun or a handgun. MOO. IMHO. etc.

An earlier Globe article references nearly 100 original charges again MWJ and friends

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...t-loaded-ak-47-seized-police/article16222661/

This Post article notes that WMJ various narcotics and firearms charges include possession of an AK-47 assault rifle!

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...accused-of-selling-him-alleged-murder-weapon/

Do we have any idea what sort of gun killed WM?

I think the whole conversation regarding a shotgun being used was speculation based on the picture that was taken of the shotgun through the window. I thought it was taken from outside either at the time LE was doing the search of the house, or shortly after their search. I can't imagine that LE would have left the gun that was used, unless there was a licence for it and it was returned after the death was ruled a suicide.

I don't think we can assume that it was a restricted weapon that was sold or used in the death of WM. The charges that included the AK-47 were a different set of charges with a different set of friends. A weapon is illegal no matter whether it's prohibited, restricted, or non-restricted, if the owner has no licence for it.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Hey, Swedie, hopefully the yardstick used to measure "one of the largest computer seizures in Ontario criminal law history" is not the same one they used to measure the massive MillardAir hangar chop shop with its "hundreds of stolen vehicles"- no make that fewer than ten - ok, so would you believe one motorbike? :drumroll: :hills:

Joking aside, here's an interesting recent Supreme Court judgement that might potentially find its way into this case - depending upon the circumstances of the seizure and the warrants involved.

http://www.canadianappeals.com/2013...w-on-search-warrants-and-computers-in-r-v-vu/

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released a unanimous judgment in R. v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60, in which it ruled that authorities must obtain specific authorization in a search warrant in order to search computers located on premises covered by the warrant. In this case, the police collected incriminating evidence against Mr. Thanh Long Vu from two laptops and a cellular phone on the basis of a search warrant that did not specify that the police had authority to search these devices.

Once the police obtain a warrant to search a location for evidence, it has long been settled law that they can look for that evidence in receptacles like cupboards or cabinets, where it might reasonably be located. Justice Cromwell, writing for the Court, asked whether Canada’s law of search and seizure should treat a computer as if it were a receptacle and answered:

In my view, it should not. Computers differ in important ways from the receptacles governed by the traditional framework and computer searches give rise to particular privacy concerns that are not sufficiently addressed by that approach. One cannot assume that a justice who has authorized the search of a place has taken into account the privacy interests that might be compromised by the search of any computers found within that place. This can only be assured if, as is my view, the computer search requires specific pre-authorization.

The decision proceeds at length to describe the vast amounts of information computers store, and the ways in which computers create information without users’ knowledge and retain information that users try to erase. The Court also pointed out that the physical presence of a receptacle, such as a cabinet, distinguishes it from electronic devices connected to the internet. While documents accessible by virtue of being inside a cabinet are always at the same location as the cabinet that holds them, if a computer is connected to the Internet it becomes a portal to almost infinite information shared between different users and stored on various servers around the world. The searches of the computer and phone were therefore found to be unlawful and to have breached s. 8 of the Charter.
​

I would hope they would have gotten the proper warrants to search the computers. They ran into this problem as well with the oft referenced Rafferty trial. The computer searches were not allowed as they did not have the proper separate warrants IIRC.

JMO