Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
surveyor_101 said:
My understanding is that if in a car with keys your deemed in control.
Assuming this to be the case, so what?(It's "you're", btw)
surveyor_101 said:
If the driver had opened the window reducing suspicion the officer could of taken the keys.
Once more: the PC had no right to those keys, the driver was under no obligation to give them. Did PC Savage even ask for the keys at any time?(It's "could have", btw)
surveyor_101 said:
If the driver had opened the window reducing suspicion the officer could of taken the keys.
Once more: the PC had no right to those keys, the driver was under no obligation to give them. Did PC Savage even ask for the keys at any time?(It's "could have", btw)
RobinOakapple said:
The driver was under the obligation to comply with the lawful requests of a uniformed police officer. The request to get out of the vehicle was lawful.
The request was perfectly lawful (eg I could ask someone to exit their vehicle) but there was no legal obligation to comply with it as he was not under arrest.RobinOakapple said:
The driver was under the obligation to comply with the lawful requests of a uniformed police officer. The request to get out of the vehicle was lawful.
It wasn't and you guys have been told this many times already. You are under no obligation to exit your car during a traffic stop. Just because someone puts on a uniform doesn't mean everything he says is a lawful order. it was a request and the driver was under no obligation to comply with them.
What savage should have done was verify the identity of the driver and if the driver failed to provide details, place him under arrest and tell him to exit the car, if driver fails, then use the necessary amount of force to extract him.
savage failed in applying his training and started off aggressive probably due to prejudice. he started in descending order of escalation. It was a suspected driving offence not a murder, simply verify the driver's identity not smash up the car.
The video actually starts as below:
Leon Fontana: Whats the matter? What's the problem, officer? Why are you stopping me
Mad savage: You are disqualified so you are not allowed to drive so get out of the car so I can check your details ... (MS wanted LF out of the car not because he at this stage feared LF would drive off but simply to check LF's details)
Leon Fontana: I don't wanna get out of the car, you could check my details here..... (LF correctly told MS that his details could be checked in the car. I take this as he was happy to provide his details as required during a traffic stop.
Mad savage:No!
Leon Fontana: Why? what's the problem?
Mad savage:I am afraid you are going to drive off at this moment in time...... (why did he have this suspicion the driver was going to drive off. The driver was blocked in. Was it a reasonable suspicion? Does MS fear every one he stops is going to drive off. What about LF made him think he would drive off?)
Leon Fontana: My keys are here, My keys are out the ignition, officer, This is my key here (shows MS), my property, I am putting it on the side as you can see (places key on dash) so what's the problem?
Mad savage paces around a bit, listens to his radio, shows no obvious worry that he feared the driver would drive off and then the video most of you have seen starts.
At this stage mad savage should have accepted defeat and just checked the driver's details. If he was who he suspected him to be, then do the necessary, If as he would have found out had he gone about it the right way that it was the wrong person, swallow his pride and let Mr Fontana on his way and perhaps wait for his chance to catch him pushing his scooter down the high street to get one back on him.
surveyor_101 said:
Alpinestars said:
You said stop meant stop driving, which I think you said meant getting out of the car. That's wrong. That's my main point. The stop bit relates to the vehicle. Not the driving. So he complied with S163. No question.
My understanding is that if in a car with keys your deemed in control.If the driver had opened the window reducing suspicion the officer could of taken the keys.
S163 is all about STOPPING THE VEHICLE. In the same way you stop at a STOP sign - no more, no less. There is no requirement to turn off the engine, put the keys on the dash, get out of the car etc etc. He very clearly stopped the vehicle, so complied with S163.
Alpinestars said:
Control has nothing to do with it.
S163 is all about STOPPING THE VEHICLE. In the same way you stop at a STOP sign - no more, no less. There is no requirement to turn off the engine, put the keys on the dash, get out of the car etc etc. He very clearly stopped the vehicle, so complied with S163.
I believe under S163 if the Officer has REASONABLE GROUNDS to suspect your not supposed to be behind the wheel, they can swiss army knife you arse out! S163 is all about STOPPING THE VEHICLE. In the same way you stop at a STOP sign - no more, no less. There is no requirement to turn off the engine, put the keys on the dash, get out of the car etc etc. He very clearly stopped the vehicle, so complied with S163.
You can remain in your car in some circumstances, but drop you window and don't act all slim shadey!
Hello officer talk to me through my 1 inch gap as I have nothing to hide! Yea right
You don't risk a driver fleeing in locked car with keys.
Thats were the legal definition needs to be checked! My understanding is if officer has reasonable
Police everyday stop feeling cars or suspect cars based on intelligence and they sometimes use force without stating the driver is under arrest until the are being cuffed and on the ground. This myth that they can't and should say pretty please with sugar on top is farcical. If the police don't want you in your car your coming out.
On motorway for example its very dangerous to stand on the hard shoulder with a guy like leon playing guess who! Without any docs!
When stopped bu the police I have always been asked out the car. If you want to be freeman of land on them I tend to find they have the last laugh!
This is all going around in circles. To me it's really not that difficult and it is not about legal detail.
Driver- may have set out to be awkward (although video does not show that). Certainly I would get out on request. But he is not a public servant, he is just someone a police officer has to deal with in the course of his day. Police officers are trained to deal with difficult individuals.
However, the police officer is supposed to be a professional and behave accordingly, not try to generate a confrontation, regardless of whether he was having a bad day, or had had a previous encounter with the driver.
Is this the sort of police officer anyone would want to meet?
Driver- may have set out to be awkward (although video does not show that). Certainly I would get out on request. But he is not a public servant, he is just someone a police officer has to deal with in the course of his day. Police officers are trained to deal with difficult individuals.
However, the police officer is supposed to be a professional and behave accordingly, not try to generate a confrontation, regardless of whether he was having a bad day, or had had a previous encounter with the driver.
Is this the sort of police officer anyone would want to meet?
surveyor_101 said:
Hello officer talk to me through my 1 inch gap as I have nothing to hide! Yea right
I would wager that the awkward customers have nothing to hide more often than not. Imagine you've got something illegal in the car or are trying to hide your identity. Surely survival instinct would kick in for most people and they would be nice, polite and courteous towards the police in the hope that they give you some discretion and don't discover what you're hiding.If I was a cop I'd be more suspicious of the overly nice customers as opposed to the cheeky/awkward ones.
surveyor_101 said:
Alpinestars said:
Control has nothing to do with it.
S163 is all about STOPPING THE VEHICLE. In the same way you stop at a STOP sign - no more, no less. There is no requirement to turn off the engine, put the keys on the dash, get out of the car etc etc. He very clearly stopped the vehicle, so complied with S163.
I believe under S163 if the Officer has REASONABLE GROUNDS to suspect your not supposed to be behind the wheel, they can swiss army knife you arse out! S163 is all about STOPPING THE VEHICLE. In the same way you stop at a STOP sign - no more, no less. There is no requirement to turn off the engine, put the keys on the dash, get out of the car etc etc. He very clearly stopped the vehicle, so complied with S163.
You can remain in your car in some circumstances, but drop you window and don't act all slim shadey!
Hello officer talk to me through my 1 inch gap as I have nothing to hide! Yea right
You don't risk a driver fleeing in locked car with keys.
Thats were the legal definition needs to be checked! My understanding is if officer has reasonable
Police everyday stop feeling cars or suspect cars based on intelligence and they sometimes use force without stating the driver is under arrest until the are being cuffed and on the ground. This myth that they can't and should say pretty please with sugar on top is farcical. If the police don't want you in your car your coming out.
On motorway for example its very dangerous to stand on the hard shoulder with a guy like leon playing guess who! Without any docs!
When stopped bu the police I have always been asked out the car. If you want to be freeman of land on them I tend to find they have the last laugh!
The law is very very clear on this point. S163(1) is about stopping THE VEHICLE, not driving. If you want to corroborate the legal reading, read S163(2), Stop THE BIKE, not stop riding. Also look at other sections in the same act where it talks about having to stop at signs where police officer requires traffic to stop. They are not as explicit as saying stop THE VEHICLE/BIKE. It's just stop. You don't read that and think every time a PC is directing traffic and directs you and others to stop, you stop the car and get out.
Under S165 if the driver does not give his name and address, he commits a crime. The officer can then arrest him for that. For the millionth time, there was no arrest.
RobinOakapple said:
surveyor_101 said:
If the driver had opened the window reducing suspicion the officer could of taken the keys.
Once more: the PC had no right to those keys, the driver was under no obligation to give them. Did PC Savage even ask for the keys at any time?(It's "could have", btw)
LocoCoco said:
frankenstein12 said:
Rovinghawk said:
frankenstein12 said:
The officer may have therefore felt there were grounds to place him under arrest for the actions of the persons whos name he had given.
So why didn't he arrest if he felt he had grounds to do so?Chap in car gives false name leading officer to believe chap in car is wanted. It then transpires false name was given and officer has no grounds for arrest....
Quite simple really.
The power to arrest for giving a false name is simply in order to detain until the officer satisfies themselves of the persons real identity.
frankenstein12 said:
I believe it is actually an offence (Someone know who can verify?) However I get the impression plod never actually charge anyone for doing so as its largely pointless to do so as it wastes so much time over something totally irrelevant.
The power to arrest for giving a false name is simply in order to detain until the officer satisfies themselves of the persons real identity.
Interesting points.The power to arrest for giving a false name is simply in order to detain until the officer satisfies themselves of the persons real identity.
How many times have we seen people give false names on police fly on the wall promotional TV programmes? The police officers given false names on police TV documentary advertorials don't go into some sort of hissy fit meltdown do they?
It's my understanding that PCSOs can detain someone for up to 45 minutes for a Constable to attend be it to search someone for drugs or stolen goods, or prove their identity. PCSOs don't have the power of arrest do they?
Is it needed to arrest someone to detain them to verify their identity?
PCSOs have no more powers than you or I and we can detain, or attempt to detain people while we await the police to attend without arresting them.
Or does 'I am effecting a Citizen's Arrest to detain you until the police arrive' mean the detainee is arrested?
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 5th October 15:43
dondadda said:
RobinOakapple said:
The driver was under the obligation to comply with the lawful requests of a uniformed police officer. The request to get out of the vehicle was lawful.
It wasn't and you guys have been told this many times already. You are under no obligation to exit your car during a traffic stop. Just because someone puts on a uniform doesn't mean everything he says is a lawful order. it was a request and the driver was under no obligation to comply with them...
Referring to an edited video is pointless.
Rovinghawk said:
RobinOakapple said:
You are wrong. You can say you are right as often as you like but that won't make you right.
Please show anything that proves a person not under arrest as in this case has to exit a vehicle for checks to be made.Simple as that.
But in any case, please show that he was not obliged to exit the vehicle.
RobinOakapple said:
Who says he wasn't under arrest?
But in any case, please show that he was not obliged to exit the vehicle.
The Met said there was no arrest. But in any case, please show that he was not obliged to exit the vehicle.
And one can't prove a negative. Read the RTA, nowhere does it say a driver has to get out following a stop under S1. Your turn now, where does it say he has to exit?
carinaman said:
frankenstein12 said:
I believe it is actually an offence (Someone know who can verify?) However I get the impression plod never actually charge anyone for doing so as its largely pointless to do so as it wastes so much time over something totally irrelevant.
The power to arrest for giving a false name is simply in order to detain until the officer satisfies themselves of the persons real identity.
Interesting points.The power to arrest for giving a false name is simply in order to detain until the officer satisfies themselves of the persons real identity.
How many times have we seen people give false names on police fly on the wall promotional TV programmes? The police officers given false names on police TV documentary advertorials don't go into some sort of hissy fit meltdown do they?
It's my understanding that PCSOs can detain someone for up to 45 minutes for a Constable to attend be it to search someone for drugs or stolen goods, or prove their identity. PCSOs don't have the power of arrest do they?
Is it needed to arrest someone to detain them to verify their identity?
PCSOs have no more powers than you or I and we can detain, or attempt to detain people while we await the police to attend without arresting them.
Or does 'I am effecting a Citizen's Arrest to detain you until the police arrive' mean the detainee is arrested?
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 5th October 15:43
No need to arrest to verify details, however there is a necessity to arrest to confirm identity.
Not quite true about the PCSO powers. They do have more power than a MOP. Interestingly the Chief Con decides which powers a PCSO will have, so this will likely differ depending on force.
A "citizens arrest" a non warranted mop can arrest where an indictable offence is being committed or has been committed. So slightly different to a warranted officer.
Bigends said:
Yet more PCs (like a couple on here) who flounder when told that they have no legal right to demand a driver get out of his car under circumstances when checking his details. He had the right to give his name from his seat and produce docs within 7 days. 
Mk3Spitfire said:
The offence would be obstructing an officer in the course of their duty. Has to be an act, not an omission. So providing false details would be made out. Up to the individual officer to justify an arrest, or lack thereof.
No need to arrest to verify details, however there is a necessity to arrest to confirm identity.
Not quite true about the PCSO powers. They do have more power than a MOP. Interestingly the Chief Con decides which powers a PCSO will have, so this will likely differ depending on force.
A "citizens arrest" a non warranted mop can arrest where an indictable offence is being committed or has been committed. So slightly different to a warranted officer.
Thank you for the response.No need to arrest to verify details, however there is a necessity to arrest to confirm identity.
Not quite true about the PCSO powers. They do have more power than a MOP. Interestingly the Chief Con decides which powers a PCSO will have, so this will likely differ depending on force.
A "citizens arrest" a non warranted mop can arrest where an indictable offence is being committed or has been committed. So slightly different to a warranted officer.
Mk3Spitfire said:
A "citizens arrest" a non warranted mop can arrest where an indictable offence is being committed or has been committed. So slightly different to a warranted officer.
I wonder how many MoPs know about indictable offences, and which are. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff