Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
R v Mann is a 2004 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.. The court held that although there is no general power of detention for investigative purposes, police officers may detain an individual if there are reasonable grounds to suspect in all the circumstances that the individual is connected to a particular crime and that the detention is reasonably necessary on an objective view of the ...
The Canadian system of police powers on reasonable and probable grounds is more clearly defined; a tip from an informer reporting a crime is insufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds. [36] In Australia it depends on the circumstances of the case, rather than on the reasonable and probable grounds itself. [4]
R v Storrey [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the authority of police officers to make arrests. In addition to an officer's subjective belief that there are reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, the Court stipulated the grounds must be objectively justifiable.
Howard Marine and Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation.It explains the test of "reasonable grounds for belief" under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s 2(1), and raises the issue of the reasonableness test under s 3.
The usual definition of the probable cause standard includes “a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person’s belief that certain facts are probably true.” [6] Notably, this definition does not require that the person making the recognition must hold a public office or have public authority, which allows the ...
a credible complaint has been made or a reasonable suspicion exists, and an arrest is necessary to prevent further criminal activity or promote the criminal investigation; a person has been declared a criminal by an authorized state authority. Section 35 specifically bars arrests of persons who are infirm or over the age of 65 without a warrant.
People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96 (N.Y. 1986), was a court case chiefly concerning subjective and objective standards of reasonableness in using deadly force for self-defense; the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in the state) held that a hybrid objective-subjective standard was mandated by New York law.
Cathy E. Moore described the totality of the circumstances test as a "balancing approach" rather than a strict application of "analytical and evidentiary rules", [5] and Michael Coenen wrote that a totality of the circumstances test is the "antithesis" of an "inflexible checklist". [6]