View source for Role of Law Enforcement

{{LevelZero}}
{{HeaderPeaceOfficers}}

==General Principles==
{{seealso|Peace Officers}}

Law enforcement should expect to deal with often "sophisticated criminal" and so should not be expected to be governed by "the Marquess of Queensbury rules". <Ref>
R v Rothman, [1981] 1 SCR 640, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mjl7 1981 CanLII 23] (SCC), per Lamer J ("It must... be borne in mind that the investigation of crime and the detection of criminals is not a game to be governed by the Marquess of Queensbury rules. The authorities, in dealing with shrewd and often sophisticated criminals, must sometimes of necessity resort to tricks or other forms of deceit, and should not through the rule be hampered in their work.")<br>
</ref>

'''Trickery'''<br>
The police are expected to sometimes resort to "tricks or other forms of deceit" when engaged in the investigation of crime.<Ref>
Rothman{{ibid}}
</ref>

Unless the police engage in "dirty tricks", courts should not be engaging in determining "good taste or preferred methods of investigation".<ref>
R. v. Skinner, [http://canlii.ca/t/1pfl7 1992 CanLII 4015] (MB QB), per Scollin J, at p. 14<br>
R v Figliola, [http://canlii.ca/t/fskp5 2012 ONSC 4560] (CanLII), per Whitten J, at para 95<Br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===Police Powers===
* [[Investigative Detention]]
* [[Warrantless Arrests]]
* [[Warrant Arrests]]
* [[Section 487 Search Warrants|Authorized Searches Under s. 487]]
* [[Seizure of Property|Seizure of Property]]

===Authority by Police Type===
{{seealso|Peace Officers}}

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is the national police force.<Ref>
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (RCMPA), R.S.C., 1985, c. R-10, s. 3<br>
</ref> 
They are peace officers for all jurisidctions in Canada.<ref>
s. 3 and 11.1 RCMPA<br>
</ref>

RCMP peace officers have "''primary'' investigative jurisdiction concerning crimes committed in relation to national security or designated protected persons or designated protected sites".<ref>
R v Seguin, [http://canlii.ca/t/gsm8c 2016 ONCJ 441] (CanLII) at para 50<br>
Security Offences Act, RSC 1985, c S-7 at s. 2 and 6<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Note Taking==
The taking of notes during the course of an investigation is not simply as an aide memoire. They have an obligation to make notes.<ref>
Wood v. Schaeffer, 2013 SCC 71 (CanLII) at para 67 ("...police officers do have a duty to prepare accurate, detailed, and comprehensive notes as soon as practicable after an investigation")<br>
</ref>

It is important for the judicial fact finding process that significant facts be recorded and not left to the "whim of memory".<Ref>
R v Lozanovski, [http://canlii.ca/t/1k41k 2005 ONCJ 112] (CanLII) at para 14 ("It is important to the proper functioning of the judicial fact finding role that significant facts be recorded by police and not left to the whim of memory.")<br>
</ref>

Where police fail to take contemporaneous notes, their testimony can be considered unreliable and may not be admitted.<Ref>
R v Tweedly, 2013 BCSC 910 (CanLII), per Greyell J, at para 160 ("it is important to recall it has been held innumerable times in our courts that police testimony, without the advantage of contemporaneous notes, is unreliable and often not admitted into evidence for that purpose.")<br>
R. v. Zack, [1999] O.J. No. 5747 (Ont. C.J.) at para 6 ("In my view, the absence of the questioned observations in his notebook lead to the conclusion that those observations were not, in fact, made at the time but are perhaps something that over the course of time the officer has come to believe that he saw")
</ref>

Intentional failure to make notes may have negative consequences if it associated with a Charter breach.<ref>
R. v. Vu, [2013] 3 SCR 657, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1r8p 2013 SCC 60] (CanLII), para 70 - Officer intentionally avoided taking notes
</ref>
However, there is no known principle that says that incomplete notes, by themselves, amounts to a breach of an accused right to full answer and defence under s. 7 adn 11(d) of the Charter.<Ref>
R v Bailey, 2005 ABCA 61 (CanLII) at para 43 to 44<Br>
</ref>

Police should not be seen to thwart the objectives of Stinchcombe by making less accurate notes.<ref>
R. v. Eagle, [1996] O.J. No. 2867 (Ont. C.J.) referencing the "Martin Report" ("The statement should emphasize that disclosure requirements after Stinchcombe cannot be thwarted by making less accurate or less comprehensive notes.")<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Special Authorizations==
{{seealso|Acting in Authority}}

* [[Powers to Suppress Riots]]
* [[Authorizations to Commit Illegal Acts]]
==See Also==
* [[Abuse of Process by Law Enforcement]]
* [[State and Police Misconduct as a Sentencing Factor]]
* [[Peace Officers]]