A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF CONFUSION HAS ARISEN FOLLOWING THE BRITISH CASE OF BROWN (1977), IN THAT THE DECISION WOULD IMPLY THE EXISTENCE OF A POLICE POWER TO DETAIN THAT IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO THE POWER OF ARREST. SUCH A DISTINCTION BETWEEN POLICE ABILITIES IS UNSETTLING IN THAT STRICT GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED CONCERNING THE EXERCISE OF THE ARREST POWER, BUT NO PRESENT STANDARDS EXIST FOR THE PROPER EXERCISE OF THE NEW APPARENT AUTHORITY. THE CAREFUL DEFINITION OF THE TERMS ARREST AND DETENTION FOR QUESTIONING ARE CRUCIAL TO THE ACCURATE TRANSFER OF LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL INTENT INTO PROPER POLICE PROCEDURE. THE POLICE MUST BE MADE AWARE OF THEIR FULL AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE CRIMES, AS WELL AS BEING AWARE OF THEIR LIMITATIONS AND LIABILITIES IN MATTERS OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT. THE PUBLIC ALSO MUST REALIZE ITS RIGHTS CONCERNING PARTICIPATION IN THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROCESS; MANY POLICE FUNCTIONS ARE CARRIED OUT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF CITIZENS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS. DUE TO THE WIDESPREAD INCIDENCE OF ABUSES, AND THE GENERAL CONFUSION CONCERNNG THE CORRECT USE OF THE IMPLIED AND ACTUAL POWERS OF THE POLICE, ANY REFORM MUST OCCUR WITHIN THE WIDER CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE PRETRIAL PROCEDURE. THE DOCUMENT SURVEYS BRITISH CASE LAW AND LITERATURE CONCERNING THE NATURE OF UNLAWFUL ARREST, AND THE NEED FOR PRECISE DEFINITIONS THAT DO MORE THAN EQUATE ARREST WITH DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY. (TWK)