Police Discretion And Accountability
Police discretion refers to the decision-making power granted to police officers to determine:
Whether to enforce laws
How much force to use
Whether to arrest, warn, or mediate
How to allocate investigative resources
Whether to initiate certain procedures or divert offenders
While discretion is essential for effective policing, it must be balanced with legal accountability to prevent abuse, discrimination, or arbitrary action.
Courts across various jurisdictions have shaped the boundaries of permissible police discretion and established mechanisms for accountability to ensure compliance with constitutional, statutory, and human rights standards.
Key Case Laws on Police Discretion and Accountability
1. R v. Beare, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387 (Canada)
Facts:
Police exercised broad discretion during fingerprinting and identification procedures. The accused argued that police discretion in applying identification standards violated constitutional protections.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Supreme Court of Canada held that police discretion is inherent in law enforcement, but it must not be arbitrary.
Any discretionary action must align with the principles of legality, fairness, and reasonableness.
Significance:
Confirmed that discretion is not unlimited.
Established judicial oversight to prevent misuse of discretionary powers.
2. R v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All ER 659 (UK)
Facts:
Police officers interfered with an individual’s property while investigating a suspected crime. The issue was whether the interference was justified.
Judicial Interpretation:
The court established the Waterfield Test, which is still used in common law countries.
Police actions are lawful if they:
Fall within the general scope of police duties; and
Involve only a justifiable use of powers.
Significance:
Established a foundational test for evaluating police discretion.
Ensures accountability by requiring police actions to be justified and proportionate.
3. R v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 (Canada)
Facts:
Police detained Grant, questioned him, and found him in possession of drugs and a gun. He argued the detention was arbitrary.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Supreme Court found that improper police detention violated the Charter right against arbitrary detention.
Introduced the Grant Test for excluding evidence due to police misconduct.
Accountability focuses on systemic police practices, not just individual officers.
Significance:
Strengthened accountability by making unlawfully obtained evidence inadmissible.
Clarified that police discretion in detentions must respect constitutional rights.
4. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (USA)
Facts:
Lyons was placed in a chokehold by police during a traffic stop and sought an injunction to stop the LAPD from using the technique.
Judicial Interpretation:
Although the injunction was denied on procedural grounds, the case highlighted police use of force policies and public concern regarding abusive discretion.
The court indirectly acknowledged the need for oversight of police tactics.
Significance:
Influenced later reforms in police use-of-force standards in the U.S.
Emphasized the need for judicial mechanisms to check police power.
5. R v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52 (Canada)
Facts:
Police conducted a “pat-down” search during an investigative detention. The accused argued that the search exceeded lawful discretion.
Judicial Interpretation:
Court held that investigative detentions are allowed, but:
Must be based on reasonable suspicion.
Searches must be strictly limited to safety purposes, not evidence collection.
Significance:
Placed clear restrictions on discretionary searches.
Ensured accountability through strict constitutional standards.
6. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (USA)
Facts:
Police stopped a vehicle for a minor traffic violation but used the stop to conduct a drug investigation. Accused claimed racial profiling.
Judicial Interpretation:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that as long as there is an objective legal reason for the stop, police discretion is valid—even if officers have ulterior motives.
Significance:
Controversial: expanded police discretion, making profiling harder to challenge.
Highlighted a major gap in accountability mechanisms.
7. R v. Reeves, [2018] SCC 56 (Canada)
Facts:
Police accessed a shared computer without proper consent procedures and collected evidence.
Judicial Interpretation:
Court held that police must respect privacy rights, even in digital spaces.
Failure to follow procedure violates Charter rights.
Significance:
Strengthened accountability in the digital era.
Limited police discretion in technology-based investigations.
8. The Queen v. Kokkinakis (European Court of Human Rights, 1993)
Facts:
Although not a policing case directly, it involved state persecution and arbitrary police actions toward a minority religious group.
Judicial Interpretation:
ECHR stressed that police discretion must comply with human rights norms.
States must avoid discrimination, arbitrary detention, or unjustified interference.
Significance:
Set European standards for police accountability.
Emphasized proportionality and non-discrimination.
Key Themes from Judicial Interpretations
1. Discretion Must Be Lawful and Reasonable
Courts consistently hold that police discretion must align with legal duties and constitutional standards.
2. Accountability Mechanisms Are Essential
Cases like Grant and Mann show that courts use tools like evidence exclusion to discipline improper police behavior.
3. Protection of Charter/Constitutional Rights
Judicial scrutiny ensures that rights to liberty, privacy, and equality are respected.
4. Limits on Use of Force
Cases such as Lyons highlight the need for oversight to prevent excessive force.
5. Digital-Era Accountability
Cases like Reeves demonstrate that police must adapt discretion to modern privacy expectations.
6. Potential for Abuse
Whren shows that broad discretion can enable racial profiling when not properly checked.
Conclusion
Courts worldwide treat police discretion as a necessary tool for effective policing, but one that must be controlled through constitutional limits, evidence exclusion, oversight mechanisms, and human rights standards. Judicial decisions establish that accountability ensures fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory use of police power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments