Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Language · 12-16-2006, 08:18 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a police officer have a right to search and detain anyone who is 1) reasonably suspected of a crime or 2) in the act of a crime? I ask because I seem to remember reading about the tort of false imprisonment and this case seemed to flow with that tort.

I'm asking because I also seem to remember that unlike a police officer, a citizen or security guard can only arrest someone if they are in the actual act of commiting a visible crime, and not one that is reasonably suspecte by them.

I know the resolution of this case has already been posted, but based on what I just wrote, if the undercover cops went up and questioned him without calling the police officer that was uniformed, would all of the evidence been thrown out if the accused actually complied, assuming he argued after that he was "psychologically" imprisoned?

Thanks.

12-16-2006, 08:18 PM	#35
Language Scoring Winger Join Date: Nov 2003 Exp:	Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a police officer have a right to search and detain anyone who is 1) reasonably suspected of a crime or 2) in the act of a crime? I ask because I seem to remember reading about the tort of false imprisonment and this case seemed to flow with that tort. I'm asking because I also seem to remember that unlike a police officer, a citizen or security guard can only arrest someone if they are in the actual act of commiting a visible crime, and not one that is reasonably suspecte by them. I know the resolution of this case has already been posted, but based on what I just wrote, if the undercover cops went up and questioned him without calling the police officer that was uniformed, would all of the evidence been thrown out if the accused actually complied, assuming he argued after that he was "psychologically" imprisoned? Thanks.