How to verify police search warrant
Discussion
Nigel Worc's said:
The real big point is an innocent chap had his door kicked in, and was arrested, and held in custody.
La Liga seems to think that is somehow acceptable.
Although mistakes do and will happen, I don't believe that can ever be acceptable, and those that made the mistakes should be held to account.
So you cant see then, that the Police had evidence (albeit unknown to them at the time, incorrect evidence) that a person responsible for a crime is at a certain address. That address may contain destroyable evidence and indeed the person responsible for that crime. The police act on this information and kick the door in to preserve evidence and effect the arrest, and take the suspect in. You think that part is unacceptable? I dont.La Liga seems to think that is somehow acceptable.
Although mistakes do and will happen, I don't believe that can ever be acceptable, and those that made the mistakes should be held to account.
It transpires the arrested gent is innocent and its a matter of mistaken identity or whatever. Yes...this is bad, and I can see why this might get peoples backs up. But whats the alternative? Not to act on information and evidence in the fear it may be wrong? How many people would then get away with crimes because the police are afraid to go out and arrest them in case a mistake is made?
As for being held accountable...this is very much not the case. The Police, at every level are scrutinised internally and externally more than you could possibly realise.
I am genuinely interested in how you would run things better?
Mk3Spitfire said:
Nigel Worc's said:
The real big point is an innocent chap had his door kicked in, and was arrested, and held in custody.
La Liga seems to think that is somehow acceptable.
Although mistakes do and will happen, I don't believe that can ever be acceptable, and those that made the mistakes should be held to account.
So you cant see then, that the Police had evidence (albeit unknown to them at the time, incorrect evidence) that a person responsible for a crime is at a certain address. That address may contain destroyable evidence and indeed the person responsible for that crime. The police act on this information and kick the door in to preserve evidence and effect the arrest, and take the suspect in. You think that part is unacceptable? I dont.La Liga seems to think that is somehow acceptable.
Although mistakes do and will happen, I don't believe that can ever be acceptable, and those that made the mistakes should be held to account.
It transpires the arrested gent is innocent and its a matter of mistaken identity or whatever. Yes...this is bad, and I can see why this might get peoples backs up. But whats the alternative? Not to act on information and evidence in the fear it may be wrong? How many people would then get away with crimes because the police are afraid to go out and arrest them in case a mistake is made?
As for being held accountable...this is very much not the case. The Police, at every level are scrutinised internally and externally more than you could possibly realise.
I am genuinely interested in how you would run things better?
One thing is certain, not apologising and sorting the damage you've caused, toot sweet, then causing an innocent chap to go through an elongated complaints channel, where you just tell him at the end, tough, it's legal for us to do all that, seems a tad odd.
Why would you expect a member of the public to support that ?
Nigel Worc's said:
I'm not sure !
One thing is certain, not apologising and sorting the damage you've caused, toot sweet, then causing an innocent chap to go through an elongated complaints channel, where you just tell him at the end, tough, it's legal for us to do all that, seems a tad odd.
Why would you expect a member of the public to support that ?
That's not quite what they were saying though is it? The fact of the matter is, that they did act lawfully. One thing is certain, not apologising and sorting the damage you've caused, toot sweet, then causing an innocent chap to go through an elongated complaints channel, where you just tell him at the end, tough, it's legal for us to do all that, seems a tad odd.
Why would you expect a member of the public to support that ?
The apology and the repairs could have come sooner I agree, but again maybe there are mitigating circumstances.
As for members of the public supporting anything the police do...I expect that less and less every day given what we have to work with.
Nigel Worc's said:
The real big point is an innocent chap had his door kicked in, and was arrested, and held in custody.
La Liga seems to think that is somehow acceptable.
Although mistakes do and will happen, I don't believe that can ever be acceptable, and those that made the mistakes should be held to account.
Thanks for arguing my side of the story.La Liga seems to think that is somehow acceptable.
Although mistakes do and will happen, I don't believe that can ever be acceptable, and those that made the mistakes should be held to account.
I wasnt even home when they kicked in the door. I was at work on a 12 hr shift. I got home to meet my door smashed and my girlfriend and I's bank statements gone plus a small amount of money i had in a drawer.
I would never have been arrested but having never been in trouble before I was naive and thought I could just pop into the local station to find out what was going on, explain myself, collect my bank statements and be on my way. I knew I had done nothing wrong so I had no fear.
I went to the station that same evening and was told the detectives had gone home. I returned the next morning, with a bag of McDonalds in hand and was shocked when I was told I was under arrest. I'll be honest, I cried when I was in the cell.
I was left in my cell and was allowed out once to speak to a solicitor on the phone. It wad at this time some of the officers made jokes about me.
No 2 companies registered in the UK can have exactly the same names. My landlords company was called MagentaPlan Ltd (not real name) and the company they were supposedly after was MagentaPlanOnline.
Similar but not identical. It was claimed someone bought a TV online which wasnt delivered. Even if identical, a little bit of elementary detective work would have pointed them to the right company.
Eclassy said:
Nigel Worc's said:
The real big point is an innocent chap had his door kicked in, and was arrested, and held in custody.
La Liga seems to think that is somehow acceptable.
Although mistakes do and will happen, I don't believe that can ever be acceptable, and those that made the mistakes should be held to account.
Thanks for arguing my side of the story.La Liga seems to think that is somehow acceptable.
Although mistakes do and will happen, I don't believe that can ever be acceptable, and those that made the mistakes should be held to account.
I wasnt even home when they kicked in the door. I was at work on a 12 hr shift. I got home to meet my door smashed and my girlfriend and I's bank statements gone plus a small amount of money i had in a drawer.
I would never have been arrested but having never been in trouble before I was naive and thought I could just pop into the local station to find out what was going on, explain myself, collect my bank statements and be on my way. I knew I had done nothing wrong so I had no fear.
I went to the station that same evening and was told the detectives had gone home. I returned the next morning, with a bag of McDonalds in hand and was shocked when I was told I was under arrest. I'll be honest, I cried when I was in the cell.
I was left in my cell and was allowed out once to speak to a solicitor on the phone. It wad at this time some of the officers made jokes about me.
No 2 companies registered in the UK can have exactly the same names. My landlords company was called MagentaPlan Ltd (not real name) and the company they were supposedly after was MagentaPlanOnline.
Similar but not identical. It was claimed someone bought a TV online which wasnt delivered. Even if identical, a little bit of elementary detective work would have pointed them to the right company.
I find it absurd that the Police can be so wrong, but still deemed lawful.
Which is why I'm asking what could they possibly have done to make the situation unlawful ?
Nigel Worc's said:
One thing is certain, not apologising and sorting the damage you've caused, toot sweet, then causing an innocent chap to go through an elongated complaints channel, where you just tell him at the end, tough, it's legal for us to do all that, seems a tad odd.
Why would you expect a member of the public to support that?
They did apologise. Read the letter again. They haven't told him "tough" - they've said the circumstances could only be known after the investigation was completed. This isn't that uncommon. Plenty of people who are investigated never see a court. Why would you expect a member of the public to support that?
Should we be apologising to the drink-driver example earlier if they don't meet the evidential threshold for a charge?
Nigel Worc's said:
It isn't that I'm arguing your side of the story as such, just because I don't know you at all, let alone if you are telling the absolute truth.
I find it absurd that the Police can be so wrong, but still deemed lawful.
Which is why I'm asking what could they possibly have done to make the situation unlawful ?
Because it's not about right and wrong in hindsight, it's about making decisions at the time and whether or not they were reasonable and lawful on the information available and circumstances at the time the decisions had to be made. I find it absurd that the Police can be so wrong, but still deemed lawful.
Which is why I'm asking what could they possibly have done to make the situation unlawful ?
Is that really that hard to understand?
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 1st July 00:44
La Liga said:
hey did apologise. Read the letter again. They haven't told him "tough" - they've said the circumstances could only be known after the investigation was completed. This isn't that uncommon. Plenty of people who are investigated never see a court.
Should we be apologising to the drink-driver example earlier if they don't meet the evidential threshold for a charge?
Yes, if you want an honest opinion, if you've arrested him and you are wrong.Should we be apologising to the drink-driver example earlier if they don't meet the evidential threshold for a charge?
Where is the harm ?
I doubt you'd hold him for eight hours first though !
Nigel Worc's said:
Yes, if you want an honest opinion, if you've arrested him and you are wrong.
Where is the harm ?
I doubt you'd hold him for eight hours first though!
But you're not "wrong" - you're going through an investigatory process to fact / truth find to reach a conclusion. If the conclusion is no further action, that doesn't mean the process is wrong. Where is the harm ?
I doubt you'd hold him for eight hours first though!
You're not saying, "you are guilty of this offence" - because that would open a "right and wrong" outcome. You're saying, "I have reasonable suspicion you've committed this offence and need to investigate it further". That isn't a "right and wrong" scenario if powers are used lawfully. Do I take this type of thinking for granted?
You have no idea about times in custody and initial evidence development.
It actually sounds as if it were to happen today the police would be more likely to interview voluntarily.
La Liga said:
Nigel Worc's said:
One thing is certain, not apologising and sorting the damage you've caused, toot sweet, then causing an innocent chap to go through an elongated complaints channel, where you just tell him at the end, tough, it's legal for us to do all that, seems a tad odd.
Why would you expect a member of the public to support that?
They did apologise. Read the letter again. They haven't told him "tough" - they've said the circumstances could only be known after the investigation was completed. This isn't that uncommon. Plenty of people who are investigated never see a court. Why would you expect a member of the public to support that?
Should we be apologising to the drink-driver example earlier if they don't meet the evidential threshold for a charge?
Nigel Worc's said:
It isn't that I'm arguing your side of the story as such, just because I don't know you at all, let alone if you are telling the absolute truth.
I find it absurd that the Police can be so wrong, but still deemed lawful.
Which is why I'm asking what could they possibly have done to make the situation unlawful ?
Because it's not about right and wrong in hindsight, it's about making decisions at the time and whether or not they were reasonable and lawful on the information available and circumstances at the time the decisions had to be made. I find it absurd that the Police can be so wrong, but still deemed lawful.
Which is why I'm asking what could they possibly have done to make the situation unlawful ?
Is that really that hard to understand?
Edited by La Liga on Tuesday 1st July 00:44
Eight hours to realise all of this ?
Which parts actually justify it to you ?
Nigel Worc's said:
It is so hard to understand just because so much seems obviously wrong, wrong company name, wrong location, and I'm guessing here, but wrong personal name also?
Eight hours to realise all of this?
Which parts actually justify it to you?
No idea as I don't have the information / circumstances in which the decisions were made. I'm not going to make judgements on superficial information and a couple of letters - even though the letters suggest the Met are confident they acted reasonably and lawfully in the circumstances. Eight hours to realise all of this?
Which parts actually justify it to you?
Eclassy, why didn't you sue the Met if any of the powers were used unlawful or your detention excessive? It'd only need to be proven on the balance of probabilities. I see no reason why you can't still do so now.
Thanks for the discussion anyway, and I realise things are never quite as black and white as they seem on a forum.
That travel one needs sorting though, whether we don't arrest, or the yanks accept "innocent after arrest".
It wasn't a bed of roses in yanky detention either, as the t
ts just won't talk to you or even give you a clue why you are there, but they do apologise well, and they don't arrest you !
That travel one needs sorting though, whether we don't arrest, or the yanks accept "innocent after arrest".
It wasn't a bed of roses in yanky detention either, as the t
ts just won't talk to you or even give you a clue why you are there, but they do apologise well, and they don't arrest you !Indeed, all the best.
Nigel Worc's said:
That travel one needs sorting though, whether we don't arrest, or the yanks accept "innocent after arrest".
Couldn't agree more. It's totally unacceptable for someone arrested and released without any further action to have limitations on their travel. Mk3Spitfire said:
La Liga said:
ouldn't agree more. It's totally unacceptable for someone arrested and released without any further action to have limitations on their travel.
And yes, this. An example of something that we as a country, haven't quite got right yet.It's no wonder Wavy Dave may think that Magna Carta is a chain of Builders Merchants!
Mk3Spitfire said:
Thanks for not descending into personal insults, random irrelevant links, or a general Police bashing! 
Mk3Spitfire said:
As to Eclassless suffering as a consequence.
Mk3Spitfire said:
IF this is the only thing Eclassless has ever come to note for then it's wrong it affects his travel status
I am not sure he gets it. Distinct lack of empathy and propensity to play point scoring that looks remarkably like the petty office politics I've known police 'officers' and personnel to play.
If it's any consolation I don' think he's BiB even though he demonstrates a Chief Constable like willingness to dig himself into a hole. I did flash my headlights and mouth 'speed camera' as our vehicles passed in opposite directions too. I tried.
If it's any consolation I don' think he's BiB even though he demonstrates a Chief Constable like willingness to dig himself into a hole. I did flash my headlights and mouth 'speed camera' as our vehicles passed in opposite directions too. I tried.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff