Media, and Charter Challenges
Digital evidence now shows up in almost every criminal case. Sometimes it is a single text message that changes the tone of an allegation. Other times it is location data, screenshots, deleted chats recovered from a backup, or a video that has been reposted so many times that no one can tell what is original anymore.
For people facing charges in Manitoba, the stakes are obvious. A phone can contain years of private life: relationships, finances, health information, and where you have been. And police do not just “look through” a device manually. They may use specialized software to search and organize what they find, review metadata, and pull information behind the information – details like timestamps, locations, account identifiers, and activity patterns that can change how a message or photo is interpreted. When police seize a device or start building a case around online activity, the key question is not just what the data says. It is how the data was obtained, whether it can be trusted, and whether it can be used at all.
This article explains how digital evidence typically enters a criminal file, what can be challenged, and why early strategy matters if you are dealing with police or Crown disclosure. If you need specific advice about your situation, speak with a criminal lawyer Winnipeg clients rely on for confidential guidance.
What “digital evidence” actually includes
Most people think “digital evidence” means texts and phone calls. In practice, it can be much broader.
It can include direct content like messages, photos, videos, emails, and social media posts. It can also include metadata: timestamps, device identifiers, IP addresses, cell tower connections, and location history. In many cases, that background data is what prosecutors point to when they want to show timing, proximity, or pattern.
It is also common for digital material to arrive in fragments. A screenshot without the surrounding messages can be misleading. A forwarded video may have been trimmed. A chat export may not show what was edited, what was unsent, or what was posted from a different device.
How police usually get phone and account evidence
There are a few common pathways.
Sometimes police obtain devices during an arrest or search, then seek authority to examine them. Sometimes they obtain information from third parties through legal demands, which can include telecom records or data held by online platforms. In other files, evidence begins with a complainant’s phone: screenshots, saved messages, and content pulled from an account they had access to.
A critical point is that “we have the messages” does not answer the legal question. Defence work often focuses on what steps were taken to obtain the material, what authorizations exist, and what gaps or assumptions are built into the collection process.
If your situation involves allegations tied to online activity, the legal issues can overlap with technical ones. That is why it can help to involve counsel with experience in defending internet-related offence allegations, where digital collection and attribution are often central to the case.
Charter rights and digital searches often start with section 8
When police search a phone, computer, or cloud account, the Charter issue that often comes up first is section 8, the protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The courts treat digital devices differently than traditional “containers” because of the volume and sensitivity of information they can hold.
For a plain-language overview of how section 8 works, including the idea of a reasonable expectation of privacy and the importance of prior authorization, Justice Canada’s Charterpedia summary is a helpful starting point: Justice Canada’s section 8 guide on search and seizure.
This is where a defence strategy may shift from arguing about facts to arguing about legality. If the search crossed a line, the remedy can be significant. That is one reason people often explore Charter application challenges when digital material is a major part of the Crown’s case.
Warrants, “general” search authority, and what R. v. Vu changed
A recurring issue in digital files is whether police had specific authority to search a computer or device, not just to enter a place where it was found. The Supreme Court of Canada addressed this in R. v. Vu, emphasizing that searching computers and similar devices generally requires clear, prior judicial authorization.
That principle still matters in 2026 because device searches are now routine. The stronger the Crown’s reliance on phone content, the more important it becomes to understand what was authorized, what was actually done, and whether the scope stayed within proper limits.
Social media evidence is easy to collect and easy to distort
Social media evidence often looks simple. A post is a post, right? Not always.
Accounts get shared. Profiles get spoofed. Messages get deleted. Posts get reposted with different captions. A screenshot may be real but incomplete, missing the messages that came before and after. Even when the content is authentic, context can change everything: sarcasm, inside jokes, or a thread that starts one way and ends another.
Defence counsel often focus on authentication and reliability. Who took the screenshot? From which device? Was it altered? Can the original be produced? Are there missing messages that change the meaning? These questions are not technical nitpicking. They go to whether a court can safely rely on what is being presented.
Location data and “always-on” tracking in criminal investigations
Location evidence is one of the most persuasive categories for juries and judges because it feels objective. But it is rarely as clean as people assume.
Cell tower connections can show general areas, not precise dots on a map. App location history can be affected by settings, background processes, and whether the phone was with the person at the time. Wi-Fi connections, Bluetooth, and vehicle systems can add new layers of tracking that the user never thought about.
In a contested case, the defence may look closely at how location conclusions were drawn, whether the data is consistent with other evidence, and whether the interpretation overreaches what the records can truly prove.
AI, deepfakes, and edited media are now a real credibility issue
Deepfakes and AI-assisted editing are no longer rare. In criminal matters, they show up in different ways: altered videos used to threaten someone, fabricated screenshots used to escalate conflict, or edited audio shared to embarrass or intimidate.
Courts do not accept “it looks real” as proof. The real question is whether the Crown can establish reliability and authenticity. That can require a careful review of the source file, the chain of custody, and sometimes expert analysis.
If you are facing a situation where the other side is presenting a clip that feels “off,” it is worth raising the concern early. Waiting until the last minute makes it harder to preserve the right kind of technical information.
What to do if the police seize your phone or ask you to unlock it
The most important point is timing. Digital evidence issues often begin in the first hours after an arrest, when people are stressed and trying to be cooperative without understanding the long-term consequences.
A practical reminder from Simmonds’ Your First 24 Hours bail hearing guide is that those early decisions can shape what happens next. The same is true with digital evidence. Early legal advice can help you avoid mistakes, protect your rights, and set up a clear plan for how to respond to police requests.
If you are under investigation and worried about device evidence, do not try to “fix” things yourself. Deleting content, changing accounts, or asking others to remove posts can create new legal problems and complicate your defence.
When digital evidence overlaps with fraud, identity theft, or financial allegations
Many of the fastest-growing digital files involve money: e-transfers, account takeovers, phishing, marketplace scams, or alleged misuse of employer systems. These cases often rely on logs, IP address trails, and account histories that look persuasive but can be contested.
If the allegation has a financial or business angle, it can be helpful to look at the case through both a legal and technical lens. That is why people often seek counsel experienced with fraud and identity theft allegations, where digital attribution is frequently disputed.
FAQs
Can police search my phone without a warrant in Canada?
Sometimes police may search limited information in narrow circumstances, but phone and device searches raise serious privacy issues and are often contested. The legality depends on the facts, what authority police relied on, and what they actually searched.
Are screenshots enough to prove a message was sent?
Screenshots can be challenged. Courts often look for context, the original source, and signs the image may have been edited or incomplete.
What if someone else posted from my account?
Account access and attribution are common issues in social media cases. Defence strategy may involve challenging whether the Crown can prove who controlled the account at the relevant time.
How can a Charter application affect digital evidence?
If a search was unlawful, a Charter application can seek remedies, including excluding evidence in certain circumstances. These arguments are highly fact-specific and depend on the collection process.
Next step
Digital evidence can feel overwhelming because it is personal and technical at the same time. If you are dealing with police questions, device seizure, or disclosure that includes phone or social media material, early legal advice matters.
You can book a confidential consultation with Simmonds and Associates to discuss what the evidence is, how it was obtained, and what options may be available based on your specific situation.