Abstract
This Article explores the Supreme Court of Canada's use of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in limiting police interrogations and compares its case decisions with cases from the Supreme Court of the United States. Part II of this Article examines the purposes and policies underlying sections 10(b), 7, and 24(2) of the Charter. Part III then examines the application of sections 10(b) and 7 in situations where (1) suspects are interrogated by uniformed police officers or other persons known to be in authority, and (2) suspects are interrogated surreptitiously by persons not known to be in authority. In both situations, the Supreme Court of Canada has been more solicitous of the rights of the accused than has the Supreme Court of the United States.
Recommended Citation
Robert Harvie and Hamar Foster, When the Constable Blunders: A Comparison of the Law of Police Interrogation in Canada and the United States, 19 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 497 (1996).
Included in
Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Evidence Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons
