Stop and search - what are my rights?
Discussion
Bigends said:
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?
Incidentally - hot off the press today
http://www.channel4.com/news/stop-and-search-metro...
Actually, yes, police officers are generally considered expert witnesses in terms of cannabis identification, hence why for possession of cannabis charges, you don't need to send it off for forensic testing like you would a powder. It's sufficient to state that the officer identified it.Incidentally - hot off the press today
http://www.channel4.com/news/stop-and-search-metro...
As for your link, see the post above re other means of disposal other than arrest.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Actually, yes, police officers are generally considered expert witnesses in terms of cannabis identification, hence why for possession of cannabis charges, you don't need to send it off for forensic testing like you would a powder. It's sufficient to state that the officer identified it.
As for your link, see the post above re other means of disposal other than arrest.
Yep saw that - sure HMIC take that into account when compiling figures - they are pretty thoroughAs for your link, see the post above re other means of disposal other than arrest.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Bigends said:
Yep saw that - sure HMIC take that into account when compiling figures - they are pretty thorough
How can they take it into account without the figures?When an arrest is made as a result of a stop and search, and the person is
taken to the police station, the code of practice directs that the officer carrying
out the search is responsible for ensuring that a record of the search is made as
part of the custody record. However, in some forces we found evidence of
inadequate custody processes, which led to inconsistent recording of stop and
search encounters. Seven forces had a mandatory system to ensure that the
use of stop and search powers that led to arrests was properly recorded as part
of the custody system. The remainder relied on a system that was capable of
being bypassed or neglected, and we found evidence that this resulted in some
searches not being recorded as part of the custody record.
During the course of our last audit they also wanted to know which stops resulted in some sanction against the subject
Mk3Spitfire said:
That doesn't answer any of the issues raised...
About unlawful stop/searces? - I know.Its being misused hence the reforms being put in place. I'm sure you use it properly snd proportinately - a lot dont and the public, on the whole, meekly comply whether they have to or not and I think that how it will always be, though some are wising up now and starting to question the actions of some officers - which should be encouraged.
Bigends said:
About unlawful stop/searces? - I know.
Its being misused hence the reforms being put in place. I'm sure you use it properly snd proportinately - a lot dont and the public, on the whole, meekly comply whether they have to or not and I think that how it will always be, though some are wising up now and starting to question the actions of some officers - which should be encouraged.
Sorry...I thought we were on about the fact that the report doesn't accurately reflect the percentage of POSITIVE searches as opposed to percentage of searches where arrests are made.Its being misused hence the reforms being put in place. I'm sure you use it properly snd proportinately - a lot dont and the public, on the whole, meekly comply whether they have to or not and I think that how it will always be, though some are wising up now and starting to question the actions of some officers - which should be encouraged.
I accept that there are unlawful stop searches taking place...through personal discrimination or harsh targets set by the hierarchy.
It's also worth taking into account that not every negative search means that the subject was innocent of any crime. It just means the officer didn't find it.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Bigends said:
About unlawful stop/searces? - I know.
Its being misused hence the reforms being put in place. I'm sure you use it properly snd proportinately - a lot dont and the public, on the whole, meekly comply whether they have to or not and I think that how it will always be, though some are wising up now and starting to question the actions of some officers - which should be encouraged.
Sorry...I thought we were on about the fact that the report doesn't accurately reflect the percentage of POSITIVE searches as opposed to percentage of searches where arrests are made.Its being misused hence the reforms being put in place. I'm sure you use it properly snd proportinately - a lot dont and the public, on the whole, meekly comply whether they have to or not and I think that how it will always be, though some are wising up now and starting to question the actions of some officers - which should be encouraged.
I accept that there are unlawful stop searches taking place...through personal discrimination or harsh targets set by the hierarchy.
It's also worth taking into account that not every negative search means that the subject was innocent of any crime. It just means the officer didn't find it.
..therfore the grounds for search were iffy??
HMIC WILL be aware of the outcomes from all searches- ive prepared a return myself in the past and have included details of formal cannabis warnings, PND's etc resulting from searches and whether any drugs found were original reason for the search being carried out
Just because the search was negative does not make the search iffy?
And could you show me the proof that PND's/clear ups/reports were taken into account when they were fashioning their results? As, from what you have posted, only 25% of searches resulted in arrest. Surely, if they include the other disposals, it should be "only 25% of searches resulted in a positive outcome". The two are very different.
In any case, I would say 25% is still quite high if you factor in missed searches/those who manage to ditch/eat/conceal items prior to being searched.
And could you show me the proof that PND's/clear ups/reports were taken into account when they were fashioning their results? As, from what you have posted, only 25% of searches resulted in arrest. Surely, if they include the other disposals, it should be "only 25% of searches resulted in a positive outcome". The two are very different.
In any case, I would say 25% is still quite high if you factor in missed searches/those who manage to ditch/eat/conceal items prior to being searched.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Just because the search was negative does not make the search iffy?
And could you show me the proof that PND's/clear ups/reports were taken into account when they were fashioning their results? As, from what you have posted, only 25% of searches resulted in arrest. Surely, if they include the other disposals, it should be "only 25% of searches resulted in a positive outcome". The two are very different.
In any case, I would say 25% is still quite high if you factor in missed searches/those who manage to ditch/eat/conceal items prior to being searched.
I asked if you thought the search was iffy - clearly not.And could you show me the proof that PND's/clear ups/reports were taken into account when they were fashioning their results? As, from what you have posted, only 25% of searches resulted in arrest. Surely, if they include the other disposals, it should be "only 25% of searches resulted in a positive outcome". The two are very different.
In any case, I would say 25% is still quite high if you factor in missed searches/those who manage to ditch/eat/conceal items prior to being searched.
Youll need to ask HMIC about the other bit - perhaps they sould change how they post their findings.
Bigends said:
I asked if you thought the search was iffy - clearly not.
Youll need to ask HMIC about the other bit - perhaps they sould change how they post their findings.
Ok, so let's look at a scenario. Youll need to ask HMIC about the other bit - perhaps they sould change how they post their findings.
Spate of TUMV's...male is seen with a crowbar and pair of gloves, wearing a yellow onesie, breaking into cars. Someone phones in.
PC arrives at location, but subject sees him turn into the street, and chucks the bar and gloves. PC pulls up and sees subject obviously matching description, in the area of the TUMV's, with no excuse as to why he's there, and nervous as hell.
Are you saying if the PC searched that man, it would be "iffy" just because he didn't find whatever subject managed to ditch?
Also...can you confirm the arrest/search/positive outcome question please? Do they, categorically take into account PND's/clear ups/reports etc when producing that 25% figure?
Mk3Spitfire said:
Just because the search was negative does not make the search iffy?
<snip>
Ah, the 'Radiographer's fallacy ' - if the result doesn't show a fracture the X -ray wasn't needed. <snip>
again the request for the X ray by the Doctor / Triage Nurse / ECP is based on suspicions and other evidence, but Question remains ' is it fractured' and you proviide the grounds for the radation exposure by your evidence ( in the case of the X -ray by physical examination) and the reasons for your suspicions ( the history of the event )...
Mk3Spitfire said:
Just because the search was negative does not make the search iffy?
And could you show me the proof that PND's/clear ups/reports were taken into account when they were fashioning their results? As, from what you have posted, only 25% of searches resulted in arrest. Surely, if they include the other disposals, it should be "only 25% of searches resulted in a positive outcome". The two are very different.
In any case, I would say 25% is still quite high if you factor in missed searches/those who manage to ditch/eat/conceal items prior to being searched.
Would you like to borrow my brick wall?And could you show me the proof that PND's/clear ups/reports were taken into account when they were fashioning their results? As, from what you have posted, only 25% of searches resulted in arrest. Surely, if they include the other disposals, it should be "only 25% of searches resulted in a positive outcome". The two are very different.
In any case, I would say 25% is still quite high if you factor in missed searches/those who manage to ditch/eat/conceal items prior to being searched.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Ok, so let's look at a scenario.
Spate of TUMV's...male is seen with a crowbar and pair of gloves, wearing a yellow onesie, breaking into cars. Someone phones in.
PC arrives at location, but subject sees him turn into the street, and chucks the bar and gloves. PC pulls up and sees subject obviously matching description, in the area of the TUMV's, with no excuse as to why he's there, and nervous as hell.
Are you saying if the PC searched that man, it would be "iffy" just because he didn't find whatever subject managed to ditch?
Also...can you confirm the arrest/search/positive outcome question please? Do they, categorically take into account PND's/clear ups/reports etc when producing that 25% figure?
Not at all - perfect grounds for search -male matches the description given therefore a perfectly legit stop and i'd suggest he'd be arrested there and then on the strength of the description and no search powers would be requiredSpate of TUMV's...male is seen with a crowbar and pair of gloves, wearing a yellow onesie, breaking into cars. Someone phones in.
PC arrives at location, but subject sees him turn into the street, and chucks the bar and gloves. PC pulls up and sees subject obviously matching description, in the area of the TUMV's, with no excuse as to why he's there, and nervous as hell.
Are you saying if the PC searched that man, it would be "iffy" just because he didn't find whatever subject managed to ditch?
Also...can you confirm the arrest/search/positive outcome question please? Do they, categorically take into account PND's/clear ups/reports etc when producing that 25% figure?
However. assuming he wasnt - two nights later or even later that same night, a male walking home along that same road minding their own business - no yellow onesie, but out late nothing to link him to the original incident - chances are not only will they be spoken to (rightly so as a poss witness) but theres a good bet they will also be searched with no other grounds other than theyre out late -'been a spate of vehicle crime round here mate' - THATS when the powers misused.
We can bat scenarios around all night
In relation to the figures- I supplied them - and assume they are taken into account.
Bigends said:
Errr - yes they have to - - copy to the prisoner on release then submit a copy via their supervisor who SHOULD be checking the grounds for the search especially if no charge arose from it and sorting out those who continually stop search with no result
Yes they have to, do they/did they always?Bigends said:
HMICsay-
When an arrest is made as a result of a stop and search, and the person is
taken to the police station, the code of practice directs that the officer carrying
out the search is responsible for ensuring that a record of the search is made as
part of the custody record. However, in some forces we found evidence of
inadequate custody processes, which led to inconsistent recording of stop and
search encounters. Seven forces had a mandatory system to ensure that the
use of stop and search powers that led to arrests was properly recorded as part
of the custody system. The remainder relied on a system that was capable of
being bypassed or neglected, and we found evidence that this resulted in some
searches not being recorded as part of the custody record.
During the course of our last audit they also wanted to know which stops resulted in some sanction against the subject
So basically, not all officers recorded the arrest from stop and searches properly?When an arrest is made as a result of a stop and search, and the person is
taken to the police station, the code of practice directs that the officer carrying
out the search is responsible for ensuring that a record of the search is made as
part of the custody record. However, in some forces we found evidence of
inadequate custody processes, which led to inconsistent recording of stop and
search encounters. Seven forces had a mandatory system to ensure that the
use of stop and search powers that led to arrests was properly recorded as part
of the custody system. The remainder relied on a system that was capable of
being bypassed or neglected, and we found evidence that this resulted in some
searches not being recorded as part of the custody record.
During the course of our last audit they also wanted to know which stops resulted in some sanction against the subject
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff