Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Criminal Procedure - Chapter 9 - Cases - Coggle Diagram
Criminal Procedure - Chapter 9 - Cases
S v Miller
Evidence was presented through an oral statement
Officer obtained 2 subpoenas from a magistrate in order to direct 2 cell phone service providers to hand over billing documents of specific phone numbers after the phones had been lawfully seized.
State relied on evidence pertaining to the use of cell phones, records of cell phone communications between the accused and some of the state witnesses.
Took purposive approach in interpreting statutory provisions
Accused was charged with a number of contraventions of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act and the Marine Living Resources Act
The investigation of crime is a legitimate objective
More applicable to prevent private, unauthorised persons from gaining access to your devices
Cell phones were lawfully seized in terms of the CPA
Not applicable to lawful police searches
It was not the purpose of ECTA to criminalise police investigation
Court looks at whether the Electronic Communications and Transactions act were applicable to the search and seizure which was conducted
Police should be granted access to cell phones and all data on the phones
S v Motloutsi
The state argued that the search and seizure was lawful because the police had obtained permission from the owner of the property and were therefore complying with S22 of the CPA
The owner was not in control of the room concerned or of its contents
The police seized blood-stained banknotes in the course of a search of premises without a warrant that they thought linked to a robbery
The delay to get a warrant from the magistrate would have defeated the object of the search
Constitutional and evidential context
The permission of Mr Mvula was not sufficient because he is not legally in possession, ownership or control of the tenants property and the tenant should have been the one to give permission
Search and seizure without a warrant
The court was satisfied that there had been a conscious and deliberate violation of the accused’s constitutional rights and that no extradentary executing circumstances existed and so, applying the approach in the O’Brian decision which was declared inadmissible