Stop and search - what are my rights?
Discussion
shoehorn said:
And if you are trying to tell me that all police force staff are whiter than white then you are obviously massively naive.
I'm not saying they are. What I am saying though, is that I would put money on the fact that I have been a police officer for longer than you have, and have mote of an understanding of how the system works. Your cliche gives me the impression that you're either fifteen, and have heard people talk about how things were 30 years ago, or that you're perhaps of a more mature age group when things were very different.
If I "want" to search someone, it's bevause I've seen them acting suspiciously, or smell of blow, or they match the description of an offender etc. we are too highly scrutinised to go around searching people with no grounds. I'm sure it still happens in a very few rare cases, but in today's climate, it's not worth the risk.
There is an entire department just waiting to take complaints from members of the public like yourself, and the cliche of "closing ranks" or whatever phrase you want to use, is gone, and rightly so.
Luckily for you, c-man will be able to drag up a link from circa 1995 which might support your view, so watch this space.
Mk3Spitfire said:
^^
There's certainly someone here with a chip on their shoulder. I fear you have very little knowledge about this, and it shows in your post.
In fairness to him I've been involved in police internal disciplinary hearings and to say that the rules were "misinterpreted" to suit would be putting it politely. There's certainly someone here with a chip on their shoulder. I fear you have very little knowledge about this, and it shows in your post.
However, I've also been stopped and searched loads of times, even had the sniffer dog try to nick my lunch. The officer was not best pleased but I just said no worries and I was on my way...
Jasandjules said:
In fairness to him I've been involved in police internal disciplinary hearings and to say that the rules were "misinterpreted" to suit would be putting it politely.
However, I've also been stopped and searched loads of times, even had the sniffer dog try to nick my lunch. The officer was not best pleased but I just said no worries and I was on my way...
Why were you stop searched, were you given the grounds etc? If not, did you do anything about it?However, I've also been stopped and searched loads of times, even had the sniffer dog try to nick my lunch. The officer was not best pleased but I just said no worries and I was on my way...
The problem for all the "if you've done nothing wrong..." / "I'm a law abiding chap..." type responses is that the rules are written widely enough to be open to abuse.
That's not suggesting that they are abused, simply that the possibility is there, and it seems that every other piece of new legislation increases that possibility.
All of the checks and balances are entirely reliant on the people carrying out those checks and balances acting in a decent, reasonable, and non-political way. Thankfully, that seems to be what happens but it may not always be and it's almost impossible to remove a power once it starts being abused if those abusing it are the ones who make the rules!
That's not suggesting that they are abused, simply that the possibility is there, and it seems that every other piece of new legislation increases that possibility.
All of the checks and balances are entirely reliant on the people carrying out those checks and balances acting in a decent, reasonable, and non-political way. Thankfully, that seems to be what happens but it may not always be and it's almost impossible to remove a power once it starts being abused if those abusing it are the ones who make the rules!
Mk3Spitfire said:
Why were you stop searched, were you given the grounds etc? If not, did you do anything about it?
With the tuna sarnie? No, I wasn't given a reason, I didn't ask. Two blokes with MP5s slung across their chests and a very happy springer asked if they could search my trolley bag. I said of course. The dog was going mental, tail furiously wagging etc... Then on top of the books in my bag was my Tuna Roll, the dog was all over it and I said, "Uh, that's my Tuna sarnie he's after".. The look on the cops face was just soooo funny I couldn't help but smile.
Did I do anything about it? Nope, nor when I was searched because a local rapist was around the area, nor when I was stopped because there were burglaries in the area (who presumably also wore a nice grey suit whilst robbing) and so on.
To be frank, I don't mind being searched particularly, at least every time so far they've been utterly polite.
Mk3Spitfire said:
I'm not saying they are. What I am saying though, is that I would put money on the fact that I have been a police officer for longer than you have, and have mote of an understanding of how the system works.
Your cliche gives me the impression that you're either fifteen, and have heard people talk about how things were 30 years ago, or that you're perhaps of a more mature age group when things were very different.
If I "want" to search someone, it's bevause I've seen them acting suspiciously, or smell of blow, or they match the description of an offender etc. we are too highly scrutinised to go around searching people with no grounds. I'm sure it still happens in a very few rare cases, but in today's climate, it's not worth the risk.
There is an entire department just waiting to take complaints from members of the public like yourself, and the cliche of "closing ranks" or whatever phrase you want to use, is gone, and rightly so.
Luckily for you, c-man will be able to drag up a link from circa 1995 which might support your view, so watch this space.
At the time of the stop - do you tell the stopee what you expect to find on them, and why you suspect they have those items ( drugs, prohibited articles) on them. Your cliche gives me the impression that you're either fifteen, and have heard people talk about how things were 30 years ago, or that you're perhaps of a more mature age group when things were very different.
If I "want" to search someone, it's bevause I've seen them acting suspiciously, or smell of blow, or they match the description of an offender etc. we are too highly scrutinised to go around searching people with no grounds. I'm sure it still happens in a very few rare cases, but in today's climate, it's not worth the risk.
There is an entire department just waiting to take complaints from members of the public like yourself, and the cliche of "closing ranks" or whatever phrase you want to use, is gone, and rightly so.
Luckily for you, c-man will be able to drag up a link from circa 1995 which might support your view, so watch this space.
Acting suspiciously alone cant be grounds for search under PACE can it?
Smelling of Cannabis cant be used as a primary reason for stop search in my force any more.
Bigends said:
At the time of the stop - do you tell the stopee what you expect to find on them, and why you suspect they have those items ( drugs, prohibited articles) on them.
Acting suspiciously alone cant be grounds for search under PACE can it?
Smelling of Cannabis cant be used as a primary reason for stop search in my force any more.
If you read my first post you will find reference to GOWISELY. That answers many of your questions, (which I am by now not surprised you have to ask). The smell of Cannabis is an indication to me that the subject may be in possession of said drug. It will form the grounds to my search, which probably would suffice on its own, but which is usually coupled with furtive behaviour/glazed eyes etc. it depends largely what the acting suspiciously amounted to, and what the circumstances were, but in a lot of cases, yes it would give me sufficient grounds for a S1 search. Acting suspiciously alone cant be grounds for search under PACE can it?
Smelling of Cannabis cant be used as a primary reason for stop search in my force any more.
Bigends said:
Smelling of Cannabis cant be used as a primary reason for stop search in my force any more.
I understand this has been proposed during a recent consultation. I fail to see how it could be legally binding without a change in the legislation. It would seem a mixed message from the state. They've wasted their time putting cannabis back to a class B from a class C (instead of legalising it like they should), but they don't want to take advantage of its greatest weakness in terms of detecting the offences. Although the proposal of not making it a primary reason isn't attributed so I shouldn't really accuse the state of mixed messages unless they formally act upon it.
Bigends said:
Acting suspiciously alone cant be grounds for search under PACE can it?
It would depends on the circumstances. Beggarall said:
Just back from gym where I watched a BBC programme about Oxford Street.
This is the oddest thing in the entire thread. I'm clearly very rich as I have a television in my house, so I don't need to go to the gym. I also have a small hand held electronic butler to control the television.Bigends said:
Landshark said:
This a million times over!!!!
The current rules are there to prevent the Police form stopping any searching anyone they feel like without GOOD REASON -that all. If you refuse the search and they had no reasonable grounds in the first place then it'll be a struggle for them to justify the arrest. Only 10% of searches resulted in arrest last year which indicates there were probably no grounds for many of the searches in the first place
Mk3Spitfire said:
If you read my first post you will find reference to GOWISELY. That answers many of your questions, (which I am by now not surprised you have to ask). The smell of Cannabis is an indication to me that the subject may be in possession of said drug. It will form the grounds to my search, which probably would suffice on its own, but which is usually coupled with furtive behaviour/glazed eyes etc. it depends largely what the acting suspiciously amounted to, and what the circumstances were, but in a lot of cases, yes it would give me sufficient grounds for a S1 search.
Iwas in when the stop search rules were introduced - (just GOWISE back then) -so yes I know them inside out. In relation to someone merely acting suspiciously and refusing the search - you must suspect they either have stolen items /theyre going equipped or have drugs on them and then arrest on suspicion of possession of one of these and not just refusing the search- is that still the case or not? I Think the tack that some forces are taking is that the smell of Cannabis only indicates they may have smoked Cannabis or merely been in the presence of someone whos smoked it and this is not evidence they may still be in possession
Bigends said:
Landshark said:
Or like most statistics weren't recorded properly, or just plainly misinterpreted!!!
It'll be recorded by the officer searching whether or not the search resulted in arrest- not a case of misinterpreted statsLandshark said:
Bigends said:
Landshark said:
Or like most statistics weren't recorded properly, or just plainly misinterpreted!!!
It'll be recorded by the officer searching whether or not the search resulted in arrest- not a case of misinterpreted statsMk3Spitfire said:
I'm not saying they are. What I am saying though, is that I would put money on the fact that I have been a police officer for longer than you have, and have mote of an understanding of how the system works.
Your cliche gives me the impression that you're either fifteen, and have heard people talk about how things were 30 years ago, or that you're perhaps of a more mature age group when things were very different.
A prime example of making an assumption with little facts,I am in fact between both of those groups.Your cliche gives me the impression that you're either fifteen, and have heard people talk about how things were 30 years ago, or that you're perhaps of a more mature age group when things were very different.
I may not fully understand hoe the system works but I do know that if you feel the need to stop anyone it`s a certainty there is a law that allows you to do so,based on your opinion of the persons behaviour.
Opinions are subjective and wildly varying.
You can use your opinion to validate any behaviour as suspicious or grounds to legally stop,whats to say you are wrong or right?nothing.
As such its open to abuse,you will always be right even though an opinion is not a fact.
Whether it is legal or not the fact that does remain is that you will be searched if the officer decides he wants to because he can justify it almost any way he likes.
So when it comes down to it you have no rights other than that of an almost certain wasted appeal after the fact,to some out of touch board of pensioners.
Even if you won an appeal you cant then be un-searched,so what is there to gain? again nothing.
As I said I couldn`t give 2 hoots either way,but that is my opinion.
Some others,rightfully in their opinion believe is that its an un-neccessary invasion of their privacy and this just adds to the alienation that he police are supposedly trying to combat.
La Liga said:
A lot of forces have changed to electronic recording so the person searched won't get a copy unless they come and superficially request one.
Aye. Well actually, some forces have decided to fork out for the portable printers too, so you can still give a slip at the roadside. But yes, several others just gave the mobile data systems with no print facility. Bigends said:
Iwas in when the stop search rules were introduced - (just GOWISE back then) -so yes I know them inside out. In relation to someone merely acting suspiciously and refusing the search - you must suspect they either have stolen items /theyre going equipped or have drugs on them and then arrest on suspicion of possession of one of these and not just refusing the search- is that still the case or not?
I Think the tack that some forces are taking is that the smell of Cannabis only indicates they may have smoked Cannabis or merely been in the presence of someone whos smoked it and this is not evidence they may still be in possession
I'm not sure that someone refusing a search should lead to their arrest. That's why the power to use force to search Is available. Arrest should be a last resort.I Think the tack that some forces are taking is that the smell of Cannabis only indicates they may have smoked Cannabis or merely been in the presence of someone whos smoked it and this is not evidence they may still be in possession
As for the cannabis issue...I would argue that the smell of cannabis would indeed indicate they had been smoking the stuff, and as such would give a strong indication that they may have more on them.
I can't see them bringing in legislation to say that the smell of cannabis isn't sufficent grounds for a search per se.
Bigends said:
Only 10% of searches resulted in arrest last year which indicates there were probably no grounds for many of the searches in the first place
The 10% figure doesn't really show the whole picture. Taking drugs for example, you could smell cannabis coming from a group of 4 people, search them all and find the cigarette containing cannabis on one of them. So technically only 25% successful.Also, an arrest isn't the only positive outcome following a stop search - Cannabis warning, PND, caution and report for summons could all be done without arresting anyone. Yet on "Arrested Y/N" is the only statistic recorded on our stop searches.
Mk3Spitfire said:
I'm not sure that someone refusing a search should lead to their arrest. That's why the power to use force to search Is available. Arrest should be a last resort.
As for the cannabis issue...I would argue that the smell of cannabis would indeed indicate they had been smoking the stuff, and as such would give a strong indication that they may have more on them.
I can't see them bringing in legislation to say that the smell of cannabis isn't sufficent grounds for a search per se.
Its not legislation at the moment that you can use the smell of Cannabis in order to form suspicion - just my Chiefs view is it musnt be the only grounds for suspicion. Are officers now deemed expert witnesses in drug detection by smell, the same as they are for drunkenness offences? As for the cannabis issue...I would argue that the smell of cannabis would indeed indicate they had been smoking the stuff, and as such would give a strong indication that they may have more on them.
I can't see them bringing in legislation to say that the smell of cannabis isn't sufficent grounds for a search per se.
Incidentally - hot off the press today
http://www.channel4.com/news/stop-and-search-metro...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff