Why There Should Be No Constitutional Right to Contact Counsel from a Police Car
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada has yet to consider whether there is a constitutional right to use a cell phone to contact legal counsel while detained in a police car. This article argues that it should not be recognized as a constitutional right for three principal reasons. First, recent judicial interpretations of the constitutional right to counsel have foreclosed the possibility of detained and arrested persons using their own cell phones to call a lawyer from a police car. Second, allowing detainees to use their cell phones to contact counsel can create unreasonable risks to public safety and undermine the privacy interests of the accused. Third, pre-existing mechanisms adequately protect the accused against self-incrimination while generating fewer risks than permitting a detainee to use her cell phone to call a lawyer. Traditional and emerging constitutional requirements related to section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are satisfied by the process of the immediate transport of detained or arrested persons to a police station to contact a lawyer.
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 | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".