Stop and search - what are my rights?

Stop and search - what are my rights?

Author
Discussion

Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

127 months

Saturday 13th December 2014
quotequote all
Bigends said:
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 required
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.
Well you're hapoy to bat statistics about without really knowing what they are saying, so I thought id try your hand at scenarios.

I'm not sure that in your scenario, that many officers would search. Your posts tend to indicate your experience is full of unlawful/dodgy encounters. Maybe not all forces are as bad as the one you "served" in.

Landshark

2,117 posts

180 months

Saturday 13th December 2014
quotequote all
Bigends said:
Landshark said:
So basically, not all officers recorded the arrest from stop and searches properly?
In a nutshell- yes
So I was correct with the below statement then??


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 stats

Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

127 months

Saturday 13th December 2014
quotequote all
Landshark said:
Would you like to bang your head against Furrys brick wall biggrinwink
Aha! In that case, yes, furry id love to bang my head against your wall. As wrong as that sounds.

Landshark

2,117 posts

180 months

Saturday 13th December 2014
quotequote all
Mk3Spitfire said:
Landshark said:
Would you like to bang your head against Furrys brick wall biggrinwink
Aha! In that case, yes, furry id love to bang my head against your wall. As wrong as that sounds.
laugh

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Saturday 13th December 2014
quotequote all
Mk3Spitfire said:
FurryExocet said:
Would you like to borrow my brick wall?
I'm sorry..,it's been a long day, you'll have to explain that one for me...
wall, brick, heads, for the banging of against ...

photosnob

1,339 posts

117 months

Saturday 13th December 2014
quotequote all
Two things.

First id play along and let them search me. I don't carry things which would cause me problems and it's easier than getting into a confrontation and being arrested. When dealing with the police you are never likely to win - the power is in there hands.

Secondly - I do think officers should state whether they would like or require something. Years ago I used to be more militant so to speak. Regularly I'd be told I needed to give my details... When I asked whether they had reasonable grounds to believe I had committed an arrestable offence invariably they would back down. If they had simply just said I'd like rather than you need to it would have been more comfortable for all, and I'd have been more likely to play along then.

The problem is - most people don't realise either police powers (ie talking about search warrants when someone has been arrested) or police responsibilities (they can't demand details unless they have grounds). That's lead to a lot of angry young people getting frustrated and angry (generally black and Asian kids in big cities). It's not good for anyone.

But yep - my advice now would be to play along nicely smile and just submit. It makes life easier.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Sunday 14th December 2014
quotequote all
Mk3Spitfire said:
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.
So they're not innocent, you just couldn't prove them guilty?

The law is that they are innocent in this case.

9mm

3,128 posts

209 months

Sunday 14th December 2014
quotequote all
I quite like being searched (I'm obviously a closet and I often get picked out at airports) and always offer to go halves with anything of value found. Invariably defuses any tension and it has never taken more than a minute or so. Never been searched in the street but it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I must admit I'd probably feel differently if it was happening regularly but then I'd ask myself whether I fitted the profile of a person likely to be of interest. Black on black knife and gun crime is a big problem in London, as is street robbery. I'd therefore be unsurprised to be stopped if I was black, in a little team, cruising the streets in the early hours in an area known for gang violence. Same if was white, black or any other colour and spent a lot of time hanging around cashpoints taking an interest in people withdrawing cash.

shoehorn

686 posts

142 months

Sunday 14th December 2014
quotequote all
photosnob said:
But yep - my advice now would be to play along nicely smile and just submit. It makes life easier.
Easier yes but it still does not make it right.

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Sunday 14th December 2014
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
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.
So they're not innocent, you just couldn't prove them guilty?

The law is that they are innocent in this case.
That's the entire point of the criminal standard of proof.


anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 14th December 2014
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
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.
So they're not innocent, you just couldn't prove them guilty?

The law is that they are innocent in this case.
Nice nice skewed interpretation of an non-existent implication. Where did he say that weren't the case? You put 2 + 2 together and made 5.

He's literally just stated a possible event. One in which does occur and is worth keeping in mind when assessing some of the data that's been presented. Another variable is the person is able to discard whatever before the search is conducted.

Please let me know that means they're innocent if it's discarded and it's not found / proven beyond reasonable doubt to belong to them. I need this point clarifying...



vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Sunday 14th December 2014
quotequote all
mph1977 said:
Rovinghawk said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
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.
So they're not innocent, you just couldn't prove them guilty?

The law is that they are innocent in this case.
That's the entire point of the criminal standard of proof.
Innocence is an assumption, it's the job of the prosecution to show the contrary. Innocence is not tested.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Sunday 14th December 2014
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
Innocence is an assumption, it's the job of the prosecution to show the contrary. Innocence is not tested.
It's a presumption.

allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Sunday 14th December 2014
quotequote all
I presume you assume the role of forum pedant, sir? smile

Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

127 months

Sunday 14th December 2014
quotequote all
allergictocheese said:
I presume you assume the role of forum pedant, sir? smile
Amongst other things.

RH, I see you are unable to clarify Liga's points?

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Sunday 14th December 2014
quotequote all
allergictocheese said:
I presume you assume the role of forum pedant, sir? smile
Is this position within your gift, sir?

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Sunday 14th December 2014
quotequote all
Mk3Spitfire said:
RH, I see you are unable to clarify Liga's points?
I'll clarify my original point- it is not within your powers to decide whether they might be guilty.

If you have found no evidence then the person is not guilty, regardless of any wish to the contrary by you. You don't even have a prima facie case to put to trial, much less a conviction. You are therefore incorrect to state that they might not be innocent. They are innocent until found otherwise by a court.

Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

127 months

Sunday 14th December 2014
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
I'll clarify my original point- it is not within your powers to decide whether they might be guilty.

If you have found no evidence then the person is not guilty, regardless of any wish to the contrary by you. You don't even have a prima facie case to put to trial, much less a conviction. You are therefore incorrect to state that they might not be innocent. They are innocent until found otherwise by a court.
You are quite right. And in your little fantasy world, and going by your logic, there is not a single person, guilty of any crime, who is not behind bars. What a safe place we live in.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Sunday 14th December 2014
quotequote all
Try this concept: innocent until proven guilty. Your assumed superiority does not alter this and never will.

Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

127 months

Sunday 14th December 2014
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
Your assumed superiority
Evidence of this please...