|
''R v Waterfield'' () 3 All E.R. 659 is a leading English Court of Appeal decision establishing the common law authority of a police officer to stop and detain individuals. This case produced what is known as the waterfield test (also called the common law "ancillary power doctrine") to determine the limit of police authority to interfere with a person's liberty or property. ==Facts== The police were investigating a reported incident of dangerous driving, where a car had rammed into a wall. It turned out that the car was owned by Eli Waterfield and driven by his friend, Geoffrey Lynn, but police were unable to make any arrests without further evidence. One evening, while Lynn sat in the car parked at the local market, two police officers approached him to ask to search his car. Lynn threatened to leave but one of the officers said he would stop him if he tried. Waterfield arrived, told the police that they had no right to impound his car and told Lynn to drive away. The officers blocked Lynn's way, but Waterfield told Lynn to drive through the officers. Lynn drove forward, forcing the officer to jump out of the way. Waterfield and Lynn were charged for assaulting a constable who was in the execution of his duty contrary to the Offences against the Person Act, 1861. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Waterfield」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|