The Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 was a milestone in history. It enshrined the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution ensuring that Canadian rights and freedoms are respected and honored at all levels of government, in addition to the laws they create and in the programs and services they provide to Canadians. Prior to the drafting of the Charter, Canada was more closely aligned with the crime control model which places emphasis on reducing crime in society through the use of greater police and government powers. However, since the creation of the Charter, today, policing in Canada continues to be shaped by provisions of the Charter that limit officers' discretionary powers. Individual rights have been elevated to constitutional status, meaning they now enjoy a higher order of priority in legal rank. The entrenchment of individual rights and freedoms, particularly rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and arbitrary detention, has placed significant limits on police powers while ensuring due process. This paper will discuss how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has had a positive impact on policing in Canada as it limits the powers of officers, while guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of all individuals, regardless of the crimes they are accused of. Arguably, the impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has changed the way crimes are prosecuted, as well as reshaping the way due process is valued in society. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Since the establishment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, policing in Canada has changed rapidly and continues to be shaped by the Charter's provisions that limit police power. More specifically, sections 8 to 9 of the Charter guarantee the protection of an individual's personal autonomy and legal rights from the actions of the Canadian government. Police officers do not have the power to lawfully search people without a warrant or detain someone without reasonable grounds. Officers can only do this if they have received a legally signed search warrant from a judge. For example, in R. v. Simpson, [1995], police officers observed two individuals leaving a suspected drug deal in a vehicle. The officers responded and immediately stopped the vehicle. Upon questioning, the officer noticed a lump in the occupant's front pocket and asked the occupant to remove the object in which he had found the cocaine. The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, however, the defendant claimed that he was illegally searched without reasonable cause and arbitrarily detained. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that police cannot arrest someone without probable cause, thus dropping all charges against the accused. More importantly in this case, it became clear that the police abused their power and breached the defendant's Charter of Rights and Freedoms (sections 8 and 9) by failing to establish reasonable or probable grounds to carry out the search and carry out the search. arrest. The Charter obliges the police to act within the law, placing significant limits on their powers when it comes to interfering with individual freedoms. Furthermore, another important impact that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has on policing in Canada is the guarantee of individual rights and freedoms, regardless of the crime charged. The Charter was designed to protect every individual andtreat him with humanity and dignity, regardless of how grave or grave the crime he is accused of may be. The Charter ensures that any restrictions on individual freedoms are as minimal as possible, where everyone is treated equally, regardless of the crime charged. Punishments cannot be cruel and unusual and sentences for crimes must reflect the specific circumstances of each individual case.More specifically, under Article 11(d) of the Charter, it is stated that the accused is innocent until until proven guilty in a fair and public trial by an independent and impartial tribunal; guarantee the fundamental rights of individuals regardless of how heinous or heinous the crime may be. For example, the article titled “Luka Magnotta Pleads Not Guilty in Body Parts Case,” published by CTV News, explains that Magnotta was the prime suspect in the horrific murder and dismemberment of Jun Lin, a 33-year-old Chinese citizen found not guilty. for the murder. Magnotta was later arrested and found not guilty of five charges, including first-degree murder. Despite the horrendous crime committed by Magnotta, he was treated fairly and equally under the protection of the charter, which allowed him to remain silent and exercise his right to an attorney. The Charter aims to protect Canadians when dealing with the justice system. They ensure that people involved in proceedings are treated fairly, especially those accused of serious crimes. The trend towards adopting a due process model of justice in Canada was reflected and strengthened by the creation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. More generally, the Charter introduced a new and powerful vocabulary to challenge the substantial limits of criminal law. Due process is a fundamental legal requirement under which the legal rights and fundamental freedoms of each individual must be respected. Due process balances the power of national law and safeguards the rights of the accused throughout the criminal process. In essence, the Charter reshaped due process and forced law enforcement to be more accountable. Due process questions the accuracy and veracity of police investigations and the way they are conducted, deeming them “coercive, obstructing and degrading.” As a result, police performance has adequately changed: when conducting criminal cases, the police must first collect evidence and attempt to determine who exactly is responsible for the crime; they can then arrest and charge that individual. The Charter, the Criminal Code and common law all place limits on the investigative powers of the police and protect the rights of people with whom the police interact. Failure of the police to comply with the law in this regard may result in the exclusion of evidence against a defendant in a criminal trial. Additionally, another important aspect of how due process has influenced the police to be held accountable is that it is the police officer's sole duty to comply whenever dealing with people he or she detains. More specifically, the rights under Article 10 of the Charter ensure that defendants have the opportunity to challenge the legality of their arrest. It is the duty of police officers to provide information to the individual as to the reason for the arrest and to give him the right to a lawyer to obtain immediate legal advice regarding his situation. Under no circumstances may the police use any source of deception or obtain information from defendants using techniques of coercion, threats or even violence. For example, in R. v. Brydges,.