Unlike the American legal system, British law permits police to procure evidence without worrying about how it is obtained and to place public order above the guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly. Although police cannot legally enter premises without permission of the occupant, most individuals do not understand that they can resist, and by virtue of consent, the action ceases to be a legal wrong. However, if an individual complies with a police order to go to the station house, the exercise of authority can be held unlawful if the policeman did not have the power of arrest. Warrants are generally required for searches of private premises, but police authority to seize objects not named in the warrant remains a subject of controversy. According to recent decisions, such seizures are warranted if the crime is serious and giving up the object is reasonable. However, 'serious' and 'reasonable' prove relative terms in practice. Although legal rules require that statements made by accused persons must be voluntary, evidence of this nature obtained through illegal police action is frequently ruled admissible. Likewise, the ambiguous definition of unlawful assembly allows police the discretionary power to determine that a particular action will precipitate a breach of the peace, whether the individual taking the action is aware of the possibility or not. Furthermore, with the approval of local and central government, police can temporarily impose total bans on processions to keep violent disturbances of neighborhoods. As a result, nonthreatening as well as dangerous gatherings are prohibited. It is concluded that recent cases have created a grey area in which supposedly trivial wrongs do not take the policeman outside the course of his duty, with consequent criminal liability for those who obstruct, resist, or use force against him. Notes are provided.