PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Kingston police justify this gross invasion of privacy as a means of catching "distracted drivers." Just think about all those drivers who eyes are going to wander to the sky and beyond to see if there are any drones spying on them. Talk about distraction!
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
---------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "But legal experts argue it's an invasion of privacy that amounts to an unreasonable search, and violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Dominic Naimool, a local lawyer who's passionate about privacy issues, said he was surprised and concerned when he heard drones were being used to monitor drivers. "In Canada, the court has been consistent in explaining to us that invasions of privacy, if they ever are justified, need to be necessary and as minimal as possible." Naimool said while police have a job to do, their methods must be balanced against people's rights. "These things tend to happen slowly and then suddenly," he said. "To see drones being widely used in an era where we're currently contending with things like widespread facial recognition and indiscriminate surveillance, that was concerning."
—————————————————————————
Second quote of the day: "Former Ontario privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian also hadn't hear of the approach being used before, describing it as "absurd." While red light cameras, photo radar and even planes flying above highways have been used to enforce traffic laws before, Cavoukian said drones are far more intrusive. "People are allowed to have privacy when they're in cars," she said. "If you're being filmed at a close range by a drone ... your privacy is out the door. You have no privacy."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "He (Lawyer Naimool) contacted the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) to share his worries. Earlier this week, the organization wrote a letter to Fraser calling for police to immediately stop using drones to record drivers inside their vehicles. The organization argued the practice violates Canadians' freedom from unreasonable search and seizure under Section 8 of the Charter. The CCF also warned Kingston Police it intends to take the service to court if it doesn't stop. "There are a lot of Kingston residents who are concerned about this, who find it creepy and are asking whether it's legal, and in our view it isn't," said Josh Dehaas, a constitutional lawyer with the group. Dehaas said he's unaware of any other police service in Canada or the U.S. using drones in a similar way. "Kingston's on the cutting edge of, in our opinion, violating rights," he said."
————————————————————————————————
STORY: "Kingston Police's use of a drone to catch distracted drivers stirs backlash," by Reporter Dan Taekema, published by CBC News, on May 17, 2025. (Dan Taekema is CBC’s reporter covering Kingston, Ont. and the surrounding area. He’s worked in newsrooms in Chatham, Windsor, Hamilton, Toronto and Ottawa.)
SUB-HEADING: "Lawyer says new tactic is unconstitutional, threatens litigation if police don't stop."
PHOTO CAPTION:Kingston Police announced they'd ticketed 20 motorists for distracted driving after using a drone to zoom in and record them using their phones on May 7."
PHOTO CAPTION: "Chief Scott Fraser said Kingston Police did not seek legal advice before using drones to catch distracted drivers because the evidence they gathered was the same as with past approaches."
GIST: "Drivers at three busy intersections in Kingston, Ont., had no way of knowing they were being watched earlier this month, but high above them police hovered, zooming in to catch those using their phones while behind the wheel.
By the end of the day on May 7, officers had handed out 20 tickets for distracted driving — each alleged violation captured on video by a drone flying overhead.
It was the first time Kingston Police had used the tactic, and as residents heard what was going on, debate began to swell on social media between those who felt it had crossed a line and others who believed a novel approach was needed.
Chief Scott Fraser said the police service is simply using new technology to gather the same photos investigators have always used as evidence of texting and driving.
But legal experts argue it's an invasion of privacy that amounts to an unreasonable search, and violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Constitutional group threatens court action
Dominic Naimool, a local lawyer who's passionate about privacy issues, said he was surprised and concerned when he heard drones were being used to monitor drivers.
"In Canada, the court has been consistent in explaining to us that invasions of privacy, if they ever are justified, need to be necessary and as minimal as possible."
Naimool said while police have a job to do, their methods must be balanced against people's rights.
"These things tend to happen slowly and then suddenly," he said. "To see drones being widely used in an era where we're currently contending with things like widespread facial recognition and indiscriminate surveillance, that was concerning."
He contacted the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) to share his worries. Earlier this week, the organization wrote a letter to Fraser calling for police to immediately stop using drones to record drivers inside their vehicles.
Lawyer says residents find it 'creepy'
The organization argued the practice violates Canadians' freedom from unreasonable search and seizure under Section 8 of the Charter. The CCF also warned Kingston Police it intends to take the service to court if it doesn't stop.
"There are a lot of Kingston residents who are concerned about this, who find it creepy and are asking whether it's legal, and in our view it isn't," said Josh Dehaas, a constitutional lawyer with the group.
Kingston Police shared this photo of the service's traffic safety unit, along with a media release about how it had used a drone to ticket distracted drivers earlier this month. (Supplied by Kingston Police)
Dehaas said he's unaware of any other police service in Canada or the U.S. using drones in a similar way.
"Kingston's on the cutting edge of, in our opinion, violating rights," he said.
Former Ontario privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian also hadn't hear of the approach being used before, describing it as "absurd."
While red light cameras, photo radar and even planes flying above highways have been used to enforce traffic laws before, Cavoukian said drones are far more intrusive.
"People are allowed to have privacy when they're in cars," she said.
"If you're being filmed at a close range by a drone ... your privacy is out the door. You have no privacy."
Police ask, 'What's the difference?'
Fraser said the service has used drones for years for everything from crash reconstruction to monitoring crowds during St. Patrick's Day celebrations.
While he's aware of the debate the enforcement blitz has stirred up, Fraser said residents have also stopped him in person or sent letters saying they appreciate the effort to stop distracted driving.
"All you have to do is drive around for five minutes and everyone is on their phone despite the three day licence suspension, despite a $600-plus fine," said the chief.
Chief Scott Fraser said Kingston Police did not seek legal advice before using drones to catch distracted drivers because the evidence they gathered was the same as with past approaches. (Dan Taekema/CBC)
He pointed out that in the past, police have used buses and vans to peer down on passing motorists who might be texting while driving. Fraser said the images they capture using such methods are "indistinguishable" from the evidence collected by drones.
"What's the difference of me sitting in a truck looking down in your window than a drone at 120 feet looking down in your window?" he asked.
The chief said the intent was never to snoop at what's on a driver's phone screen, nor anything else that might be going on inside their vehicle.
"If we thought this was intrusive violation of a person's privacy, then we would have sought permission or authorization to do it," he said. "But we're not obtaining anything that we wouldn't obtain anyways."
As for the threat of litigation, Fraser said the service will assess the CCF's arguments and consider the its opinion, and if the court rules police shouldn't use drones to catch distracted drivers, the police service will comply.
Naimool said he wants police to realize their approach is no minor invasion of privacy, and that it should be examined through a legal lens.
"My hope is that the Kingston Police reconsider when they are deploying surveillance technology [and] the significant impact that it can have, not only on the residents of the community, but also the precedent that they set," he said."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
