Bib's i have questions!
Discussion
A friend has asked me to ask you a coupla questions on his behalf, but first a little background info.
He was driving along a fairly fast "a" road (at night) and up ahead he noticed a vehicle travelling the same direction as him.
As the car (some 1000 yards) in front went around the corner, he noticed the brake lights come on.
Being of a suspicious nature, he slowed down, half suspecting a talivan or maybe an accident.
As it happens it wasnt a talivan, but an ANPR unit.
He went thru the anpr unit and continued, and as he was just going around another bend and out of sight, he noticed a set of headlights pull out from somewhere in the vicinity of the anpr van.
Being young and having no sense, he put his foot down, to put some distance between the headlights that he felt were (in his words ) " coming after me".
His speed obviously had risen considerably, and then he saw in front the reflective markings of pursuit motorbikes, parked up in the shadows.
At this point he put the brakes on and hauled it down to a lesser speed, as hurtling up behind him came the set of "extremely" bright headlights.
The car behind sat around 10 feet from the rear of his in attempt to make him speed up.
Luckily for him, he suddenly gained some sense and just "dipped the mirror to ignore em", while travelling at a slower speed.
The car behind continued to be aggresively close for some distance and as he rounded the next set of bends, a police check point loomed large, and the car behind put on its hidden blues.
So he pulled into the layby and waited to see what would happen.
Apparently, the anpr was unable to read the plate, hence the pursuit vehicle.
Questions were asked regarding his identity and his documents, but he dosent carry them. A video camera was also used by the police to take video of him, which he says was "a bit opressive and unnerving".
The cops then made some comment regarding his speed, but as they had no speed measuring equipment set up, they said that he would otherwise have gotten a ticket.
Then they just let him go.
Questions.
1) Why didnt they try to ascertain his identity? -
-His name and adress wasnt asked/cross checked against the PNC, just PNC.
2) How come the car wasnt searched?
3) What happens to the video taken of him? Can he get it off them or see it destroyed?
4) What recourse has he got regarding the way the police vehicle was tailgating him and trying to make him commit an offence?
Be very interested to see your views on this one, as i can only think that maybe his name came up as flagged in some way with instructions to let him alone by a higher authority perhaps?
A weird one.
He was driving along a fairly fast "a" road (at night) and up ahead he noticed a vehicle travelling the same direction as him.
As the car (some 1000 yards) in front went around the corner, he noticed the brake lights come on.
Being of a suspicious nature, he slowed down, half suspecting a talivan or maybe an accident.
As it happens it wasnt a talivan, but an ANPR unit.
He went thru the anpr unit and continued, and as he was just going around another bend and out of sight, he noticed a set of headlights pull out from somewhere in the vicinity of the anpr van.
Being young and having no sense, he put his foot down, to put some distance between the headlights that he felt were (in his words ) " coming after me".
His speed obviously had risen considerably, and then he saw in front the reflective markings of pursuit motorbikes, parked up in the shadows.
At this point he put the brakes on and hauled it down to a lesser speed, as hurtling up behind him came the set of "extremely" bright headlights.
The car behind sat around 10 feet from the rear of his in attempt to make him speed up.
Luckily for him, he suddenly gained some sense and just "dipped the mirror to ignore em", while travelling at a slower speed.
The car behind continued to be aggresively close for some distance and as he rounded the next set of bends, a police check point loomed large, and the car behind put on its hidden blues.
So he pulled into the layby and waited to see what would happen.
Apparently, the anpr was unable to read the plate, hence the pursuit vehicle.
Questions were asked regarding his identity and his documents, but he dosent carry them. A video camera was also used by the police to take video of him, which he says was "a bit opressive and unnerving".
The cops then made some comment regarding his speed, but as they had no speed measuring equipment set up, they said that he would otherwise have gotten a ticket.
Then they just let him go.
Questions.
1) Why didnt they try to ascertain his identity? -
-His name and adress wasnt asked/cross checked against the PNC, just PNC.
2) How come the car wasnt searched?
3) What happens to the video taken of him? Can he get it off them or see it destroyed?
4) What recourse has he got regarding the way the police vehicle was tailgating him and trying to make him commit an offence?
Be very interested to see your views on this one, as i can only think that maybe his name came up as flagged in some way with instructions to let him alone by a higher authority perhaps?
A weird one.
deltaf said:.
Questions were asked regarding his identity
deltaf said:
1) Why didn’t they try to ascertain his identity? - His name and address wasn’t asked/cross checked against the PNC, just PNC.
I'm not sure what you mean - maybe they asked his name and address, and were happy with the details provided against the PNC record for the vehicle (assuming car is registered to him).
deltaf said:
2) How come the car wasn’t searched?
Call me a bluff old traditionalist if you like, but under what grounds?
deltaf said:
3) What happens to the video taken of him? Can he get it off them or see it destroyed?
It will be retained until at least his ID is confirmed (if there is any question of his correct ID), and if any proceedings were to follow, it would have to be retained for "x" years under rules of evidence etc - DVD will probably know better.
deltaf said:
4) What recourse has he got regarding the way the police vehicle was tailgating him and trying to make him commit an offence?
He can make an official complaint through the usual channels - in writing to HQ discipline department, or personal visit to Police station concerned.
deltaf said:
I can only think that maybe his name came up as flagged in some way with instructions to let him alone by a higher authority perhaps?
Does he have a funny handshake...?
ANPR team possibly looking for specific person/vehicle, which resembled your friend/his vehicle, when they realised it wasn't him, let him go?
Now is it Del-Taf, or Delta-F?
deltaf said:
Questions.
1) Why didnt they try to ascertain his identity? -
-His name and adress wasnt asked/cross checked against the PNC, just PNC.
2) How come the car wasnt searched?
3) What happens to the video taken of him? Can he get it off them or see it destroyed?
4) What recourse has he got regarding the way the police vehicle was tailgating him and trying to make him commit an offence?
Be very interested to see your views on this one, as i can only think that maybe his name came up as flagged in some way with instructions to let him alone by a higher authority perhaps?
A weird one.
Kind of a tricky one this and i can only really guess at the answers as my way of dealing could be different to the officers at the scene.
1) Maybe they didnt need to try to identify him.When we do PNC checks against the vehicle we can ask the operator to do a person check on the registered keeper. But as they didnt ask for his name or address then this would be tricky... Did they ask date of birth?? And if there were no offences commited then the requirement to get details may not have been there for the issue of a DPSI (new name for HORT/1)
2) Why would they have needed to search the car?? To be able to search under S1 of pace then he would have needed reasonable grounds to suspect stolen or prohibited articles may be found. Or for S23 that drugs maybe found.
3)Im not sure about the video to be honest. Why would he want the video?? as it may contain details of other offences so they could only show him his section of the video or give a copy of this. They certainly wont destroy the tape. AND that being said why would he want the tape destroyed??
4) As for recourse i dont think he has alot to be honest but if he feels it necesary then he could make a complaint about the manner of driving. But he did say that he put his foot down to get away from the lights as they were "comming after him" the method of driving used by the officers may be linked to this fact.
HTH
Gareth
Thanks for the replies Dibble and Slider, much appreciated! 
Regarding the PNC; His name was NOT asked. They only asked for his documents and ID, but when he said he didnt carry them, they didnt push for a positive ID on him! Seems a trifle weird to me, as how would they know who was driving it unless they checked by asking him? For all they knew, it could have been stolen not 10 minutes ago.
Delta-F Dibble.
Maybe i should switch handles...its all too confusing..lol
The video was taken by a copper who apparently sidled up to the front of the car while his mate distracted the driver, thereby gaining footage of the driver.
The driver has NO police record or driving record at all (maybe thats the reason for the interest?
)
From what ive been told, he was addressed by at least 3 different cops, the last one being a smiley, "far too friendly chappy altogether", who asked him about his speed and what speed he was doing, before letting him on his way.
I cannot understand why they didnt check his Identity unless they already knew he was driving it, but how could they? Unless he was already under surveillence; and the car isnt his; its his brothers!
Curious-er and curious-er.
Apparently the stealth number plate i designed for him works quite well then, as the anpr didnt read it, despite it being clearly visible, of standard font and height and spacing!
Wonder if it works for traffic masters and specs too?
Once again, thanks for the responses, ill pass em on.
Regarding the PNC; His name was NOT asked. They only asked for his documents and ID, but when he said he didnt carry them, they didnt push for a positive ID on him! Seems a trifle weird to me, as how would they know who was driving it unless they checked by asking him? For all they knew, it could have been stolen not 10 minutes ago.
Delta-F Dibble.
Maybe i should switch handles...its all too confusing..lol The video was taken by a copper who apparently sidled up to the front of the car while his mate distracted the driver, thereby gaining footage of the driver.
The driver has NO police record or driving record at all (maybe thats the reason for the interest?
) From what ive been told, he was addressed by at least 3 different cops, the last one being a smiley, "far too friendly chappy altogether", who asked him about his speed and what speed he was doing, before letting him on his way.
I cannot understand why they didnt check his Identity unless they already knew he was driving it, but how could they? Unless he was already under surveillence; and the car isnt his; its his brothers!
Curious-er and curious-er.
Apparently the stealth number plate i designed for him works quite well then, as the anpr didnt read it, despite it being clearly visible, of standard font and height and spacing!
Wonder if it works for traffic masters and specs too?
Once again, thanks for the responses, ill pass em on.
deltaf said:
Questions.
1) Why didnt they try to ascertain his identity? -
-His name and adress wasnt asked/cross checked against the PNC, just PNC.
What does that mean? Was it or not?
deltaf said:
2) How come the car wasnt searched?
The police would have had to suspect something to search the car under either PACE or the misuse of drugs act. If they didn't suspect anything, no need to search.
deltaf said:
3 What happens to the video taken of him? Can he get it off them or see it destroyed?
No
deltaf said:
4) What recourse has he got regarding the way the police vehicle was tailgating him and trying to make him commit an offence?
None...how can you prove the car was trying to make him commit an offence. Like the Bib said, they didn't have vascar or anything. I would imagine the Bib drove in such a manner to get a good look inside the vehicle before pulling it over.
Your friend didn't help himself by the manner of his driving and was literally asking for a pull..IMHO
Street
Hi Street.
No, his name was NOT asked. Therefore how did they know who was driving?
Whyd they not ascertain who he was?
Strikes me as a not very smart thing to do after just having pulled someone, dont you think?
So why the pull if nothing suspected? He wasnt doing anything outa the ordinary before the anpr van.
Why cant he get the video taken without his consent back? He hadnt done anything. What happens to it now? Does it get put on computer? If so, its covered by Data protection act? See it within a reasonable timeframe? Why do they need it? No offence was committed.
Someone driving a few feet off of the back, on a quiet, unlit, country road, with the headlights full on would suggest an attempt to encourage someone to speed up, wouldnt you agree?
The manner of his driving was perfectly safe before the guy behind decided to play at starsky and hutch.
If the bibs (unmarked) wanted to "get a look" inside the vehicle, they should have just put on the blues and pulled him over there and then....far safer for all concerned id say.
Thanks for your help though, appreciated.
No, his name was NOT asked. Therefore how did they know who was driving?
Whyd they not ascertain who he was?
Strikes me as a not very smart thing to do after just having pulled someone, dont you think?
Streetcop said:
If they didn't suspect anything, no need to search.
So why the pull if nothing suspected? He wasnt doing anything outa the ordinary before the anpr van.
Why cant he get the video taken without his consent back? He hadnt done anything. What happens to it now? Does it get put on computer? If so, its covered by Data protection act? See it within a reasonable timeframe? Why do they need it? No offence was committed.
Streetcop said:
None...how can you prove the car was trying to make him commit an offence. Like the Bib said, they didn't have vascar or anything. I would imagine the Bib drove in such a manner to get a good look inside the vehicle before pulling it over.
Your friend didn't help himself by the manner of his driving and was literally asking for a pull..IMHO
Someone driving a few feet off of the back, on a quiet, unlit, country road, with the headlights full on would suggest an attempt to encourage someone to speed up, wouldnt you agree?
The manner of his driving was perfectly safe before the guy behind decided to play at starsky and hutch.
If the bibs (unmarked) wanted to "get a look" inside the vehicle, they should have just put on the blues and pulled him over there and then....far safer for all concerned id say.
Thanks for your help though, appreciated.
/osprepracticemodeon
I am sorry to hear that you have received such a poor level of service. Customer focus is our primary concern. The vehicle you have described as following you, should it emerge as having been a police vehicle, displayed actions that need addressing.
I would like to explain that your vehicle wasn't searched because the officers did not have suspicion to do so, and I'd like to reassure you that the officers were more than happy with your identification, illustrated by your timely release from the scene. The video taken is for your protection as well as theirs and would have shown any alleged offences after the stop more clearly, as well as any policy breaches by the officers concerned. As no offences were disclosed the video will be over-recorded in due course. Unfortunately it is not policy to allow you to witness this, but again this is a policy I could discuss with my command team.
If you have any specific complaints about the inappropriate behaviour of an officer I will gladly take a complaint from you. I could suggest a meeting with the chief inspector on traffic to discuss policy and arrange for a refresher course for the driver to bridge his developmental needs. I will of course take sole responsibility for this problem and monitor progress. I will also update you fully at regular intervals as to the progress of the investigation.
/osprepracticemodeoff
I am sorry to hear that you have received such a poor level of service. Customer focus is our primary concern. The vehicle you have described as following you, should it emerge as having been a police vehicle, displayed actions that need addressing.
I would like to explain that your vehicle wasn't searched because the officers did not have suspicion to do so, and I'd like to reassure you that the officers were more than happy with your identification, illustrated by your timely release from the scene. The video taken is for your protection as well as theirs and would have shown any alleged offences after the stop more clearly, as well as any policy breaches by the officers concerned. As no offences were disclosed the video will be over-recorded in due course. Unfortunately it is not policy to allow you to witness this, but again this is a policy I could discuss with my command team.
If you have any specific complaints about the inappropriate behaviour of an officer I will gladly take a complaint from you. I could suggest a meeting with the chief inspector on traffic to discuss policy and arrange for a refresher course for the driver to bridge his developmental needs. I will of course take sole responsibility for this problem and monitor progress. I will also update you fully at regular intervals as to the progress of the investigation.
/osprepracticemodeoff
See, if you got stopped in Sandford, everything would be fine
(To explain to you non-BiBs out there...Ospre is the set of exams we take to get promoted. This scenario is very similar to the practical exams we get in part 2 of the sgts and inspectors. Seemed like a good time to practice)
(To explain to you non-BiBs out there...Ospre is the set of exams we take to get promoted. This scenario is very similar to the practical exams we get in part 2 of the sgts and inspectors. Seemed like a good time to practice
)deltaf said:
Hi Street.
No, his name was NOT asked. Therefore how did they know who was driving?
Whyd they not ascertain who he was?
Strikes me as a not very smart thing to do after just having pulled someone, dont you think?
I agree with you deltaf. It's very unusual not to ask him his name...I could only presume your friend had forgot that he's told it to them or something..
deltaf said:
If they didn't suspect anything, no need to search.
So why the pull if nothing suspected? He wasnt doing anything outa the ordinary before the anpr van.
Different powers and legislation. Sect 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 allows the officer (without any suspicion of any offence being committed) the right to stop any driver. Actually searching the vehicle afterwards required suspicioun of offences.
deltaf said:
Why cant he get the video taken without his consent back? He hadnt done anything.
The police comply with the same rules as other users of CCTV. ie: you are caught on camera 100s of times per day...if you go into WHSmiths and ask for a copy of their cctv capturing you purchasing 'What Car' they will refuse..
delta said:
Someone driving a few feet off of the back, on a quiet, unlit, country road, with the headlights full on would suggest an attempt to encourage someone to speed up, wouldnt you agree?
Again, I agree with you. However, I'm often suspicious or sceptical about some things that I hear 3rd hand, nowadays.
deltaf said:
Thanks for your help though, appreciated.
You're always welcome mate...
Street
[/quote]
s you have to come out with to get part two under your belt...Streetcop said:
Why cant he get the video taken without his consent back? He hadnt done anything.
The police comply with the same rules as other users of CCTV. ie: you are caught on camera 100s of times per day...if you go into WHSmiths and ask for a copy of their cctv capturing you purchasing 'What Car' they will refuse..:
[pedantmode] Not strictly true Street, they (WHS) and us (the cops) have to comply with the various data protection legislation. This doesn't just cover CCTV and computers, it also covers pretty much any sort of permanent record - such as a card index system or similar.
If you want a copy of the tape (or other data held) of yourself buying "Practical Caravanner" or "Dog Groomer Weekly" in Smiths, you send off a tenner to their office of data protection with enough detail for them to be able to find you on the CCTV/record. The firm then has to send you a copy.
The firms are obliged by law to publicise who holds the stuff when it has been recorded, which is why there has recently been a proliferation of signs pretty much everywhere there is CCTV - they usually read something like "This system is operated to reduce crime/detect offenders and is operated by..."
Have a look next tiome your in TescWaitSafeBurys, or on a petrol station forecourt.
The usual exemptions apply of course about "sensitive" material held on subjects - no use applying to MI5 for an unedited copy of your file...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff