Privacy vs. Public Safety in Kingston’s Drone Enforcement

Balancing Privacy and Public Safety: A Rebuttal to the Canadian Constitution Foundation

1. Introduction: Manufactured Outrage

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) has accused Kingston Police of infringing on privacy rights by using drones in a distracted driving blitz. While civil liberties groups are vital to democracy, this criticism is misplaced. In this case, the CCF is sounding alarms over a lawful, measured public safety initiative. Let’s separate fear from fact.

2. What Kingston Police Actually Did

On May 7, 2025, Kingston Police deployed drones at three major intersections to detect distracted drivers — particularly those using handheld phones. The drones, operated with NAV Canada approval, used zoom cameras to observe infractions. When violations were spotted, ground officers intercepted the offenders.

This was not mass surveillance. It was targeted enforcement of existing laws in high-risk zones, with oversight and transparency built in.

3. Privacy vs. Public Safety: The Legal Reality

A. No Expectation of Privacy on Public Roads
The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently ruled that privacy expectations are limited in public. Cases like R. v. Wise (1992) and R. v. Tessling (2004) affirm that observation of public conduct — especially on roadways — does not equate to unlawful search. A driver texting in plain view is breaking the law, and zoom lenses don’t alter that legal reality.

B. Technology as a Tool, Not a Threat
A drone camera is no different in principle than binoculars or a traffic helicopter. What matters is purpose and use. Here, drones were employed in a narrow, time-limited, and specific context. That’s enforcement, not surveillance creep.

4. The Real Public Menace: Distracted Driving

Transport Canada reports distracted driving contributes to more collisions than impaired driving. In Ontario, it is the leading cause of fatal collisions — surpassing speeding and alcohol-related crashes. A phone behind the wheel is not just a personal risk; it endangers everyone on the road.

By opposing drone enforcement, the CCF risks prioritizing the “right” to break the law over the right of Canadians to travel safely.

5. False Equivalence: Drones Are Not Domestic Spying

Conflating this blitz with invasive surveillance is misleading. The operation did not involve mass data collection, facial recognition, or license plate tracking. It was real-time visual confirmation of visible offences, not covert monitoring or data harvesting.

6. The CCF’s Missed Opportunity

The CCF plays an important role in holding the government accountable. But overstretching the definition of “privacy violation” dilutes legitimate civil liberties debates. Canadians deserve robust oversight of police powers — not reflexive resistance to every modern enforcement tool.

7. Conclusion: Common Sense First

There’s a difference between being watched and being caught. If you’re not breaking the law, you have nothing to fear from drones ensuring safety at busy intersections.

Protecting rights should not come at the expense of public safety — especially when no genuine rights are being violated. As the saying goes:

“Liberty does not mean lawlessness — and freedom should not mean the freedom to crash.”

Data Box: Distracted Driving in Canada

• Distracted driving is responsible for 21% of fatal collisions and 27% of serious injury collisions in Canada (Transport Canada, 2023).

• In Ontario alone, distracted driving has surpassed impaired driving as the leading cause of road deaths since 2017.

• A driver using a phone is 4–6 times more likely to be involved in a collision.

• Fines in Ontario for distracted driving start at $615 and escalate with repeat offences, alongside license suspensions.

Legal Sidebar: Privacy and Public Roads

• Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8: Protects against unreasonable search and seizure — not against being observed in public.

• R. v. Wise (1992): The Court held that monitoring a vehicle on public roads using a tracking device raised privacy concerns, but emphasized the limited expectation of privacy in public driving.

• R. v. Tessling (2004): Thermal imaging of a private home was ruled not to breach privacy rights because it did not reveal intimate details, establishing that not all technological observation constitutes a search.

• Key Takeaway: Observing illegal conduct in plain view on public roads is not a Charter violation.