Reid Institute Members be sure to log on to the Members site and the Member's What's New column for the latest Canadian column:

I.The "growing phenomena"
R. v. Oickle and derivative case law have made videotaping the preferred type of "interrogation record" but Oickle did not specify:

1. whether the accused has to consent to videotaping, or
2. what to do if the accused agrees to give a conditional statement, where the accused refuses to be videotaped but agrees to give a written statement.

Electronically recording an interrogation constitutes a seizure. The seizure of all evidence requires a law that authorizes the search for and/or seizure. The three general authorities are: (i) consent; (ii) without a warrant, or; (iii) with a warrant. Canadian case law explains the evidentiary significance of videotaping in relation to proving voluntariness but it does not specifically state whether the same case law acts as a search/seizure authority. Case law creates a rebuttable presumption of involuntariness - an unrecorded confession is presumed to be involuntary - but the question is, "Does the same case law act as the authority to seize the evidence without a warrant and without the accused's consent?" In other words, does a rebuttable presumption serve a dual-purpose of also authorizing the seizure of the videotape without the accused's consent?