Divorced from (Technological) Reality: A Response to the Supreme Court of Canada's Reasons in R. v. Fearon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article critically examines the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Fearon, which allows police officers to search an arrestee’s cell phone incident to arrest. We assert that the majority in Fearon did not take into consideration the current (and constantly evolving) technological realities associated with cell phones, and especially smart phones. This oversight has resulted in a decision which is difficult to implement and carries the risk for future violations of constitutional rights. We argue that permitting the search of cell phones incident to arrest is unnecessary given that the law already contains doctrinal tools, such as exigent circumstances, which allow police officers to search a cell phone without a warrant when necessary. Ultimately, unless one of these exceptions applies, police should be required to obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone. They should not have the power to search a cell phone incident to arrest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.041 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".