Sentences with phrase «to a lawful arrest»

In fact, in one recent United States Supreme Court case from California, the Justices sharply limited police officer's authority to conduct searches following lawful arrests.

Police who have a warrant for your arrest may place you under lawful arrest and detain you.

Legally, as soon as you are subject to «excessive force,» you are allowed to defend yourself as you would against any assault, even if that force is being used in the course of an otherwise lawful arrest.

(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

«When you interfere with a police officer making a lawful arrest, you with your cameras attempt to really get into it — I'm not talking about standing back 10, 15 feet — or incite by yelling and screaming, raising the tension level, then you are creating circumstances that are dangerous for the public and dangerous for the police officers,» Bratton said after an event in Manhattan.

As you can see, violence is only self - defence if it is a) to prevent a crime, or b) to assist with a lawful arrest.

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

[1] The police have a common law power to search incident to a lawful arrest.

The objective test for reasonable suspicion must be met before a lawful arrest can be made.

Lower courts in both Canada and the US have been deeply divided on the application of their respective Supreme Courts» precedents on whether the police need a warrant to search the contents of a smart / cell phone seized during a lawful arrest.

the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

(d) It is no offense to detain or move another under this section when it is for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or detaining an individual lawfully arrested.

In practice, almost any restraint by a police officer would not obviously be outside the immunity for a lawful arrest sufficient to give rise to the duty to report a felony.

(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority of reasonable suspicion of having committed and offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

That means that by driving in this state, you consent to a chemical test of your breath or blood upon a lawful arrest upon suspicion of driving under the influence.

(«[The border search exception] is a longstanding, historically recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment's general principle that a warrant be obtained, and in this respect, is like the similar «search incident to lawful arrest» exception...»).

A «frisk» search incidental to a lawful arrest reconciles the public's interest in the effective and safe enforcement of the law and its interest in ensuring the freedom and dignity of individuals since it constitutes a minimal intrusion on individual rights which is necessary to ensure that criminal justice is properly administered.»

In R. v. Fearon, 2015 SCC 77, a bare majority held that the common law police power to search incident upon a lawful arrest survived the Charter «s protection of the right of privacy, albeit with some limitations as imposed by Justice Cromwell (for the majority).

I have written before on this blog about the Supreme Court of Canada's split 4 - 3 ruling in R v Fearon, [2014] 3 SCR 621 where Justice Thomas Cromwell for the majority reached the startling conclusion that a police fishing expedition of a cell phone incidental to a lawful arrest complies with s. 8 of the Charter of Rights so long as the police take notes for post facto review.

In R. v. Fearon (2014), the Supreme Court of Canada maintained that there is a lower expectation of privacy during times of lawful arrest.

The number yielded by the machine is NOT admissible, nor is its conclusion admissible for anything beyond justifying a lawful arrest.

Can the police search such phones under the common law power to «search incident to a lawful arrest».

In the relevant case, the facts point to the appearance of a lawful arrest (even if were to turn out to be judged unlawful).