Unchecked Power: The Constitutional Regulation of Arrest Reconsidered
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last twenty years the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has had a profound impact on almost every facet of the criminal investigative process. Arrest provides a conspicuous exception. This article casts a probing light on police arrest powers in Canada. exposing justifiable concerns about how these powers are sometimes used. Gaps in existing intake and bail procedures are explored, revealing how a police officer's partisan assessment of the grounds for an arrest can often control an individual's custodial status long into the criminal process.A reconsideration of the constitutional treatment of arrest highlights why the Charter has yet provided a meaningful check on police arrest decisions. The article questions the current reading of section 9, the right not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, for failing recognize that unlawful arrests are inherently arbitrary. The author also explores how other Charter guarantees - including the right to be secure against unreasonable seizure, the right have the validity of a detention determined by way of habeas corpus and the right be denied one's liberty and security interests except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice - could be interpreted augment section 9 and mandate the creation of procedural safeguards protect against unjustified arrests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".