Trial courts take direction from previous appellate level decisions. However, as can be seen below, trial courts have generated the most police powers out of all three levels we categorized in this section. Trial court judges are essential to the fact finding process within the criminal justice system. Once the facts have been agreed upon in a trial, they are accepted by appellate courts if there is an appeal by the losing side at the trial level. This suggests that trial courts have an impact on appellate level decisions and the facts and arguments heard at the trial level are often relied upon during the appeal process.
Trial courts take direction from previous appellate level decisions. However, as can be seen below, trial courts have generated the most police powers out of all three levels we categorized in this section. Trial court judges are essential to the fact finding process within the criminal justice system. Once the facts have been agreed upon in a trial, they are accepted by appellate courts if there is an appeal by the losing side at the trial level. This suggests that trial courts have an impact on appellate level decisions and the facts and arguments heard at the trial level are often relied upon during the appeal process.
Common Law Police Powers Deployed from 2020-2021:
Common Law Police Powers Deployed from 2020-2021:
In the past 35 years, the Supreme Court of Canada has generated several key police powers that have changed the criminal law landscape. Alongside warrantless roadside detentions (R v Dedman), the Supreme Court has provided police with the ability to detain individuals during a police investigation and search incident to the investigatory detention for police safety (R v Mann). The Supreme Court has also provided police with the power to use sniffer-dogs without a warrant (R v Kang-Brown, R v AM), and warrantless cell phone searches incident to arrest (R v Fearon).
Exigent Circumstances:
The cases on this page highlight the expansion of police powers dealing with exigent circumstances. Emergency forcible entry (R v Godoy), police safety checks (R v MacDonald), and forcible removal from the home (R v Alexson) are but three examples out of the 22 cases on this page that have generated police powers related to exigent circumstances since Dedman. Click on the cases below for more information about the rulings:
= Entry without warrant
= Emergency or forcible entry
= Emergency or forcible removal
= Emergency or forcible detention
= Use of force incident to detention
= Use of force
Macooh (1993)
"Entry without warrant" is an occasion where police enter a private property without the authorization of a warrant or consent from the owners of the property.
"Emergency or forcible entry" is any occasion where the police enter an area or building that would normally be considered private property due to emergency exigent circumstances or in a manner that uses physical force.
​
"Emergency or forcible removal" refers to occasions where an individual is removed from a private property due to an immediate emergency or using force.
​
"Emergency or forcible detention" refers to occasions where the police apprehend and detain an individual in a manner that uses force or is in response to an immediate emergency. Detention is often for the reason of public or police safety. This includes physical or psychological detention.
​
"Use of force incident to detention" is any occasion where an individual is detained and force is used subsequent to this detention.
​
"Use of force" refers to any occasion where police use force on an individual. This category is for occasions where force is used on an individual who is not arrested or otherwise detained by the police.