“To whom much is given, much is expected” (Luke 12:48, Allen, 2009). This can be applied to policing where police officers are entrusted with extraordinary powers to do their jobs effectively. However, the public expects that while it is important to perform their duties properly, their rights will remain intact during this process (Allen, 2009). Furthermore, the Charter guarantees everyone their rights and freedoms; however, when violated, it can be remedied under section 24 (2) of the Charter (Penny, 2004). This remedy allows the court a discretional power to exclude evidence from court procedures that will affect the fairness of the trial or brings the administration of justice in disrepute (Penny, 2004). Therefore, law enforcement have
…show more content…
The Charter requires the equal treatment of everyone regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, etc.; therefore, excessive policing against one group creates public distrust (Allen, 2009). The article by Jobarb & Levy (2011) explored the stops and searches conducted by police officers to determine if minority groups are targeted more than others. The reports found that police officers abused their powers as minority groups were targeted and stopped more than any other groups. However, McAlister (2011) found that minority groups are not specifically targeted in stops and searches, usually the searches are done randomly. Police officers are aware of the impact this will have on the public; therefore they conduct their duties as impartial as is possible without allowing their biases to influence their decisions. However, the question of equality often arises when cases are blown out of proportion in the media, even though contacts with police officers differ across individuals and situations (Allen, …show more content…
However, the excessive use of police powers can be called into question when a charter rights is violation (Allen, 2009). One such right can be found in section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure (Greenspan, Rosenberg & Henein, 2014). This is a serious Charter violation as it is intrusive and send the message that the state is allowed to seize evidence under any means necessary. This was evident in the R. v. Collins (1987) case where police officers without sufficient grounds apply a throat hold against the accused in a bar based on mere suspicions that were not corroborated with the surveillance of the accused R v Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265. Nonetheless, the officer made a judgement call, which is a subjected to bias, that violated the section 8 Charter rights of the accused to seize evidence that substantiated the trafficking charge R v Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265. The allowance of police misconduct without accountability to perform search and seizures sends the wrong message about the criminal justice system (Allen,
The Charter requires the equal treatment of everyone regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, etc.; therefore, excessive policing against one group creates public distrust (Allen, 2009). The article by Jobarb & Levy (2011) explored the stops and searches conducted by police officers to determine if minority groups are targeted more than others. The reports found that police officers abused their powers as minority groups were targeted and stopped more than any other groups. However, McAlister (2011) found that minority groups are not specifically targeted in stops and searches, usually the searches are done randomly. Police officers are aware of the impact this will have on the public; therefore they conduct their duties as impartial as is possible without allowing their biases to influence their decisions. However, the question of equality often arises when cases are blown out of proportion in the media, even though contacts with police officers differ across individuals and situations (Allen, …show more content…
However, the excessive use of police powers can be called into question when a charter rights is violation (Allen, 2009). One such right can be found in section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure (Greenspan, Rosenberg & Henein, 2014). This is a serious Charter violation as it is intrusive and send the message that the state is allowed to seize evidence under any means necessary. This was evident in the R. v. Collins (1987) case where police officers without sufficient grounds apply a throat hold against the accused in a bar based on mere suspicions that were not corroborated with the surveillance of the accused R v Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265. Nonetheless, the officer made a judgement call, which is a subjected to bias, that violated the section 8 Charter rights of the accused to seize evidence that substantiated the trafficking charge R v Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265. The allowance of police misconduct without accountability to perform search and seizures sends the wrong message about the criminal justice system (Allen,