Woman Sues Photography Company for Turning Over her Pot harvest Pics to Cops

[Terminator]

OTTAWA -- If only she'd had a Polaroid camera.
A southern Ontario woman suing Black's Photography over pictures of her marijuana plants will have to produce the photos in court.
Agnieska Wojtanowska says Black's violated her Charter rights back in 2001 when a worker handed the photos over to police.
Drug charges were later dropped when the pictures were excluded as evidence because they were obtained without a search warrant.
The woman then sued Black's and the police for improper seizure of the photos. But she didn't want to produce them in a Kitchener, Ont. courtroom, citing privacy concerns.
She appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada after an Ontario Superior Court judge ordered her to disclose the pictures as key evidence.
The high court gave no reasons Thursday for refusing to hear the case, as is usual for applications for leave to appeal. It generally accepts cases deemed to be of national importance or on specific disputes in the law.
The high court's dismissal essentially means the lower-court judge's ruling stands, and the photos must be shown.

[tapout]

Drug charges were later dropped when the pictures were excluded as evidence because they were obtained without a search warrant.
.

thats stupid. if a private citizen, acting under no direction of the police, approaches the police and gives them evidence that they have obtained through their own measures, what the hell are the police supposed to do...if the employee developed the pictures and they were all full of child porn, isnt he gonna turn them over to the police? are the police not to accept the evidence or investigate the photos? stupid.

[Odd]

As much as I think the employee in this case is a douche, this case seems pretty clear. Heck anyone who doesn't realize their best photos are passed around has had to be living under a rock since the 50's and many are developed right out in the open. With well publicized child porn related cases her defense about illegal search is damn flimsy too.

Since film photography is dying off fast I wondered how this scenario plays out with different technologies. What if a photo of illegal activity is taken with a cell phone and someone at the phone carrier sees it while looking for nude wife photos to add to his collection? The privacy expectation is different and he was breaking at least corporate policy to obtain them. Is that the same?

How about a walled garden site where only members have access? (Facebook set to private, Verified section here) If the picture is copied out of the private section and posted publicly in violation of the site's TOS does that change anything?

Heck, just in general how does it work when someone obtaining pictures illegally (the phone company perv, trespassing, hidden cam, whatever) turns over evidence? I know, wandered completely off the original subject.

[Ducky]

Once upon a time I worked for a photo lab. I don't know if it was state law, but there was a sign posted that any photographs containing illegal activities - including child pornography - would be turned over to police with the owner's contact information.

[Five-0]

Wait, it there a client film developer relationship that I'm not familiar with? If you are dumb enough to document your criminal activity you deserve to get caught. Having said that, I love stupid people. God bless'em they keep me in business.

[lewisipso]

thats stupid. if a private citizen, acting under no direction of the police, approaches the police and gives them evidence that they have obtained through their own measures, what the hell are the police supposed to do...if the employee developed the pictures and they were all full of child porn, isnt he gonna turn them over to the police? are the police not to accept the evidence or investigate the photos? stupid.

Absolutely agreed. I'll go one better than that. Since the photos were obtained by a private party not police how does a private party obtain a search warrant?

[CT209]

Well it is Canada- difference laws, different rights and a very different form of government and Constitution.

We will just have to remember to move our pot plants to Canada before letting someone take pictures of them.

[mack]

There is no expectation of privacy when you take your film to be developed. How can there be, there isn't anything like Doctor/Patient priviliedge here. At least I've never heard of a Film Processor/Client priviledge, lol.