Police had no right to seize hidden bedside camera from Airbnb condo, judge says

A police officer had no right to enter a condo rented to an Airbnb guest who found a video camera hidden in a clock pointed at the bed, an Ontario judge has ruled.

The decision effectively ended the voyeurism prosecution of theToronto condo owner, who had argued police had breachedhis rights by going into the apartment and seizing the camera without a warrant, even though the aggrieved guest had invited an officer in.

"The police not only breached [his]rights by entering and searching the apartment without a warrant, but they continued tobreach his rights by seizing his property and searching it,"Ontario court judge Joseph Bovard said in the decision.

"Admitting evidence that was obtained in such a manner would bring the administration of justice into disrepute."

The case arose in September 2018 when Robert Wallenberg, in town for the Toronto International Film Festival, rented the downtown Airbnb apartment from him for 10 days. After discovering the hidden camera, Wallenberg contacted Airbnb, which advised him to go to a hotel and call police.

Court records show Wallenberg let the officer, identified as Const. Lewis, into the apartment and showed him the clock-camera. On advice of a detective, Lewis seized the gadget and placed it in aproperty locker at the police station.

Owner argued police violated his rights

Another officer later inspected the camera briefly, then applied for a warrant to search the device.

After finding stored video of people engaged in various activities in the bedroom, including one man masturbating on the bed and others, including the condo owner, in various states of undress, police charged the owner with voyeurism.

Lewis testified he made no attempt to contact the owner beforeentering the condo.

He said he believed he was justified in going inat Wallenberg's invitation because the Airbnb guest had the key andtemporary ownership of the unit. He said he seized the device on the advice of the detective to preserve potential evidence.

In his analysis, Bovard said a key issue in deciding whetherpolice had breached the condo owner's charter right against unreasonable search and seizure was whether the owner had a reasonable expectation ofprivacy in the condo unit.

Owner had 'reasonable expectation of privacy'

Bovard concluded the condo owner did havea reasonable expectation ofprivacy, given evidence that he was the sole owner of the apartment, it was filled with his possessions, and he used it himself at times.

"In these circumstances, [the owner] had a subjective expectation of privacy in the apartment," Bovard concluded. "[He] had areasonable expectation of privacy in the clock-camera and in the contents of the SD memory card."

"Whatever rights Mr. Wallenberg had over the apartment, he couldnot waive [the owner's]privacy rights in the apartment and itscontents," Bovard said.

The judge also concluded the officer's suspicion of possible criminal activity did not give him the right to seize the clock-camera or allow police to inspect it without a warrant.

Bovard said he realized that excluding the evidence would gut the prosecution's case, but said he had to do so anyway given the cumulative charter violations.