Ads
related to: waterfield test police powers
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
R v Waterfield [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 is an English Court of Appeal decision, a court of binding precedent, outlining the modern limits of the law that authorises a police officer to stop (and then conceivably detain) a person.
In the context of police powers, this doctrine is applied through the 'Waterfield Test', a test which originated in the UK but versions of which have since been adopted by the courts of many other common law jurisdictions, including Canada. Under the test, a police officer could take an action to interfere with a person's liberty or privacy if:
Where section nine has been invoked the Crown must show that the police were acting under a lawful duty arising from either the common law (per the R. v. Waterfield test) or from a statute. Following this, the Crown must show that the conduct itself was a justifiable use of their authority granted under the duty.
News. Science & Tech
The authority for use of police power under American Constitutional law has its roots in English and European common law traditions. [3] Even more fundamentally, use of police power draws on two Latin principles, sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas ("use that which is yours so as not to injure others"), and salus populi suprema lex esto ("the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law ...
Between police and prosecutors, law enforcement officers are arguably already the most powerful people in government, so it's unclear what Trump means by giving them "their power back."
The power of arrest is a mandate given by a central authority that allows an individual to remove a criminal's (or suspected criminal's) liberty. The power of arrest can also be used to protect a person, or persons from harm or to protect damage to property.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Ad
related to: waterfield test police powers