Case information

Criminal law — Evidence — Wiretap — Can a person be “known” to the police within the meaning of s. 185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code in the absence of any information capable of corroborating that person’s identity or existence?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

There was a large-scale police investigation which included wiretap authorizations, general warrants, and search warrants targeting Mr. Maric and others who were suspected of drug trafficking. A central part of the police investigation was information provided by a confidential informant. The police intercepted communications from Mr. Maric’s cell phone, relying on the “resort to clause” in the initial warrant. Mr. Maric brought a pre-trial Garofoli application, challenging the constitutionality of various searches and the interception of private communications conducted under the authority of various wiretap authorizations, general warrants and search warrants. Mr. Maric sought to exclude the evidence obtained through these authorizations under s. 24(2) of the Charter. The court concluded that the initial wiretap, reauthorization and expansion wiretap were authorized. The court held that the initial wiretap was properly authorized, and that police knew of Mr. Maric and had reasonable grounds to believe that the interception of his communications would assist in the investigation of the offences. The court dismissed the application. Mr. Maric was convicted of conspiring to traffic cocaine. The appeal was dismissed.