How to verify police search warrant

How to verify police search warrant

Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

55 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
Mk3Spitfire said:
And yes, this. An example of something that we as a country, haven't quite got right yet.
It's not us who decide the immigration policies of other countries.

We don't stop / make it difficult for people to visiting us because they've been arrested and no further action was taken. This is the same for most countries.

Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

129 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
La Liga said:
t's not us who decide the immigration policies of other countries.
No. But we do keep on record peoples arrest history regardless of the innocence. I don't know how immigration works, but from the above conversation it appears that merely bring arrested affects visas. This is what I meant by us not having it quite right.

Greendubber

13,234 posts

204 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
La Liga said:
as it a mess up? The third paragraph seems to suggest not. I noted the letter says "identical" as oppose to Eclassy's "similar" when describing the company names.
'Identical' didn't suit his argument though.

So police swear out warrant for an address that a company with an identical name to one they are investigating are registered at. Investigation reveals they are not the same people, impossible to tell pre investigation/execution of the warrant and subsequent searches etc. Police offer to pay, landlord fixes it himself.

So clearly a 'rubber stamped' warrant.

anonymous-user

55 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
Mk3Spitfire said:
La Liga said:
t's not us who decide the immigration policies of other countries.
No. But we do keep on record peoples arrest history regardless of the innocence. I don't know how immigration works, but from the above conversation it appears that merely bring arrested affects visas. This is what I meant by us not having it quite right.
I'm not even convicted they even matter. I've done a little digging and looking at the ACPO policy here. I've found it linked from here, which is the ACPO page dealing with immigration to countries such as he US.

ACPO policy 1.4 said:
Any non conviction events, for example acquittals and arrests, will be 'stepped down' when the relevant entry is made on the PNC. This will ensure that such sata is only open to inspection by the police.
ACPO policy 1.6 said:
Applications from non police agencies to access nominal records on the PNC will be considered by a Panel chaired by the ACPO lead for Recording and Disclosure of Convictions
Based on that, it seems to me we don't disclose non convictions.


Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

129 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
That's exactly how I assumed it would work...like a crb. I wouldn't have thought arrests alone would show up on visa applications. Poor Eclassy seems to have experienced different though. Maybe he could clear it up?

tenpenceshort

32,880 posts

218 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
La Liga said:
ased on that, it seems to me we don't disclose non convictions.
There is a duty to disclose at least arrests (conviction irrelevant) when applying for a visa to enter the US. There is a discrepancy in the wording, in this country at least, as to whether those arrests are purely for offences involving 'moral turpitude' or just arrests in general. The implication being, if you declare a relevant arrest, you no longer qualify for the Visa Waiver Programme and must normally attend interview.

I have had conflicting advice on the moral turpitude issue, with the embassy in London seeming to advise all arrests, yet other sources saying otherwise.

So there is a potential for confusion and travel inconvenience in the event of an arrest, whether this lead to NFA or otherwise.

Another implication is on an enhanced disclosure for employment or other activities, where information on the PNC other than convictions can be disclosed, if relevant. Though case law has reduced what information can be disclosed, an arrest in these circumstances may have future employment implications, whether this lead to NFA or otherwise.

anonymous-user

55 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
tenpenceshort said:
There is a duty to disclose at least arrests (conviction irrelevant) when applying for a visa to enter the US. There is a discrepancy in the wording, in this country at least, as to whether those arrests are purely for offences involving 'moral turpitude' or just arrests in general. The implication being, if you declare a relevant arrest, you no longer qualify for the Visa Waiver Programme and must normally attend interview.
Is that both for visiting and residing? And does an arrest prevent you from entering the US?



tenpenceshort

32,880 posts

218 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
La Liga said:
s that both for visiting and residing? And does an arrest prevent you from entering the US?
The Visa Waiver Programme applies to visitor visas. Whether an arrest would prevent you entering the US would be a matter for them to decide. The difference would be that if arrested for a relevant offence, rather than simply filling in a form, you have to book an appointment at the embassy, travel to London, spend about £100 on a visa, wait for a decision and hope that you are accepted.

It could be that a malicious complaint or an unlawful and/or over zealous arrest could cost you an awful lot of hassle and expense if the circumstances meant you travel regularly to the US and the arrest was for a relevant offence.

anonymous-user

55 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
Not an ideal situation. But one out of our control.

Although I can't see how they can find out if you don't declare an arrest that doesn't appear would ever be disclosed.




carinaman

21,335 posts

173 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
'Do unto others.....

MK3 Spitfire has previously posted that he was a Special before becoming a Regular. That police officer that was killed doing their job on the M6, was he hit it by a truck?, in 2011/12 was formerly a Special.

So imagine you were a Special at Eclassy's place of work? Imagine Eclassy was a Special with a couple of years under his belt looking to become a Regular and then his place of work gets raided by mistake? Previously in SP&L we've had someone post 'Well if you were driving a car and your mate in it got done for having drugs perhaps you need to choose your friends more carefully'. 'Mud sticks', 'There's no smoke without fire'? Was that Mk3 Spitfire as well as well?

Was it last year TVRBoy posted about whether police officers were bullying his staff over a 13 year old E39 and telling them what price they were going to sell the car at? Were they police officers, or were they impersonating police officers? What's the relevance? Where was it? North Hampshire, Berks. border? Small town England where not much goes on but some much scope for gossip? So someone drives past a cars sales place, perhaps they live locally, and they spot on two separate occasions, men with what look like police laminates around their necks looking at cars and talking to staff?

When the police can add 2 and 2 and make 7, look at raiding EClassy's place on the basis of the same company name alone, why wouldn't Joe Public spot police officers with laminates twice on a car sales forecourt and think 'Clocking?' 'That Gary with the severe hair cut, I knew he was a wrong un, I wonder he's done now?', 'I thought they were doing rather well selling cars, I told you they're money laundering...' So someone hears that in a pub and the next time they're looking at a new to them used car they go somewhere else. It's no different from the name calling and smearing that goes on here or Mitchell's failure to leap over the Downing Street Gates on his push bike is it?

The police getting it wrong here can have more effects than impacting on residency and working abroad and Visa waivers. Some people in real life when they get stuff wrong put their hands up and admit to it. It's easier for the public sector to slope shoulders and smear isn't it and front up some Dame to mouth concerned hand wringing platitudes on the BBC news isn't it?

Usual unaccountable public sector dismissals, denials and sloping shoulders. Just another part of Broken Britain.

So BiB get upset at online name calling here and when Elcassy gives an example of how police getting stuff wrong has negatively impacted on his real, actual life you don't get it? Some BiB or fake BiB should stick to being in the nick hugging radiators and messing around on FaceBork.



Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 1st July 15:21

Greendubber

13,234 posts

204 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
Or people like eclassy could just post the truth from the off rather than skewing facts to support his argument and then later post actual fact that shows things differently.

It's not hard is it, if you're going to make a claim at least make sure it matches the evidence that you're going to later produce to support it.



carinaman

21,335 posts

173 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
Greendubber said:
It's not hard is it, if you're going to make a claim at least make sure it matches the evidence that you're going to later produce to support it.
Funny my Chief Constable couldn't do that either, but they have a Get out of Jail Free card via the 'I believe' phrase. They had over a third of a year to check their facts too. They must be really slow.

tenpenceshort

32,880 posts

218 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
carinaman said:
Funny my Chief Constable couldn't do that either, but they have a Get out of Jail Free card via the 'I believe' phrase. They had over a third of a year to check their facts too. They must be really slow.
Instead of all this hinting stuff all of the time, have you actually posted a full and detailed account of what went on with you?

carinaman

21,335 posts

173 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
Some of the documentation that may have a Magistrates signature on it is with a Solicitor at the moment.

Greendubber

13,234 posts

204 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
carinaman said:
Funny my Chief Constable couldn't do that either, but they have a Get out of Jail Free card via the 'I believe' phrase. They had over a third of a year to check their facts too. They must be really slow.
Yawn.

Greendubber

13,234 posts

204 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
tenpenceshort said:
Instead of all this hinting stuff all of the time, have you actually posted a full and detailed account of what went on with you?
Oh god please spare us

Eclassy

1,201 posts

123 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
  • Identical - similar in every detail; exactly alike
  • Similar - having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical.
  • Any company registered with Companies House must have a unique name. Different companies can not have identical names.
MagentaPlan Ltd is similar to MagentaPlanOnline but is not identical.

Greendubber

13,234 posts

204 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
Eclassy said:
*Identical - similar in every detail; exactly alike

  • Similar - having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical.
  • Any company registered with Companies House must have a unique name. Different companies can not have identical names.
MagentaPlan Ltd is similar to MagentaPlanOnline but is not identical.
Thank you for explaining what those 2 words meant....

So the letter from the Met is incorrect then? Because either it is or you are.

anonymous-user

55 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
Invalid companies house post based on fake names.


Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 1st July 18:50

Carnage

886 posts

233 months

Tuesday 1st July 2014
quotequote all
To be fair to him, he says on the previous page he's not used the real company name.

On another note, I'd love to hear the root of carinaman's issues.