R v Campbell is a case that will determine whether individuals are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to their electronic communications received by another. This case also revisits the boundaries of the common law doctrine of exigent circumstances, in a situation where the police, without a warrant, impersonated the recipient of the text messages to carry out a suspected drug transaction.

On June 14, 2017, the Guelph Police Service Drug Unit arrested “Gammie”, a known drug user. Incident to the arrest, the police searched Gammie’s car and seized his cell phone. Shortly after, the police observed four text messages from “Dew” on the locked screen, which revealed a potential drug transaction. Given the police’s belief that a fentanyl transaction was in progress, an officer impersonated Gammie and exchanged text messages with Dew. A couple hours later, the Appellant, Dyane Alexander Campbell, arrived with a package of heroin mixed with an unknown quantity of fentanyl.  The Appellant was arrested and his cellphone containing the complete exchange of text messages with Gammie was seized.

The police believed they could proceed without a warrant because they felt Dew would abandon the deal if Gammie broke off communication and that the drugs would be sold to someone else with the risk that the fentanyl might end up on the streets.        

To shield the doctrine of exigent circumstances from police abuse, the BCCLA has intervened in this appeal to urge the Supreme Court of Canada to confirm that the police cannot create or maintain an urgent circumstance under the doctrine to skirt the prior judicial authorization process.  The emergency must be bona fide and marked by a degree of immediacy that overrides the accused’s privacy interests and the state’s obligation to obtain a warrant.