This study investigates the degree to which judicial police officers adhere to the legal powers vested in them. A comparative analysis is employed to assess the judicial authority conferred upon these officers within Jordanian legal frameworks and to evaluate their level of compliance. Furthermore, the research explores the legal consequences associated with jurisdictional violations, including the potential for legal redress through appeals and the associated responsibilities of the individuals involved. The study extends its scope by comparing these findings with the practices in selected regional and international jurisdictions that delegate similar judicial powers to police officers. In addition, it examines relevant rulings issued by the Jordanian Court of Cassation, which nullify actions deemed unlawful. The discussion also encompasses the range of penalties applicable for overstepping legal authority, such as criminal, disciplinary, and civil liabilities. The findings indicate a notable lack of adherence by judicial police officers to procedural safeguards, particularly concerning the detention duration outlined in Article 100 of the Jordanian Code of Criminal Procedure. Evidence also points to unauthorised home entries conducted without a warrant endorsed by the Public Prosecutor and a disregard for procedural requirements, such as the necessity for the homeowner’s presence during searches, the inclusion of female officers, and the attendance of either the neighbourhood headman or two local residents. These breaches undermine individual liberties, especially during minor infractions such as traffic violations, where arrest or detention is unwarranted. Consequently, legal proceedings undertaken in such contexts should fall within the jurisdiction of the Public Prosecutor rather than that of public security officers.