What Police powers to 'detain' someone during a traffic stop
Discussion
Ok, so watching one of these bulls
t facebook videos (someone with a low IQ gets stopped for a traffic offence and shouts "am i detained" for 10 minutes).
So, I looked into it, and it appears a police officer can 'detain' without arrest for only a few small things (mental health, stop/search, breach of peace).
So, if you get stopped, say for a dodgy brake light or something. You're obliged to stop under Sec163 of the RTA.
If you stop, the officer comes over, you reel off your name, address date of birth and then drive off before he can conduct any process, have you done anything wrong? Can you be stopped?
I understand that an officer can arrest for any offence, with necessity criteria being to ascertain name/address etc. So this is useful for example for the driver who refuses to provide details. They can be arrested for speeding, or even a light out or something, or just some document offences.
But if the person confirms who they are, or after confirmation wants to leave, get out of the police vehicle etc, then the officer has no right to "detain" them. is that right?
Now i suppose the officer, if unable to deal with any roadside process because the driver speeds off, could still summons the driver to court, using the details provided, but does it matter that the officer may have not been able to verbal "summon" the driver, give a verbal nip or something like that?
In short - I know if a driver, during any routine (legal) stop, refuses to give their details, they can be arrested (then de-arrested when the details are confirmed and necessity criteria no longer exists). So what happens if they give the officer details, refuse to answer any questions about the offence, then try to leave? Nothing the Police can do I assume?
t facebook videos (someone with a low IQ gets stopped for a traffic offence and shouts "am i detained" for 10 minutes).So, I looked into it, and it appears a police officer can 'detain' without arrest for only a few small things (mental health, stop/search, breach of peace).
So, if you get stopped, say for a dodgy brake light or something. You're obliged to stop under Sec163 of the RTA.
If you stop, the officer comes over, you reel off your name, address date of birth and then drive off before he can conduct any process, have you done anything wrong? Can you be stopped?
I understand that an officer can arrest for any offence, with necessity criteria being to ascertain name/address etc. So this is useful for example for the driver who refuses to provide details. They can be arrested for speeding, or even a light out or something, or just some document offences.
But if the person confirms who they are, or after confirmation wants to leave, get out of the police vehicle etc, then the officer has no right to "detain" them. is that right?
Now i suppose the officer, if unable to deal with any roadside process because the driver speeds off, could still summons the driver to court, using the details provided, but does it matter that the officer may have not been able to verbal "summon" the driver, give a verbal nip or something like that?
In short - I know if a driver, during any routine (legal) stop, refuses to give their details, they can be arrested (then de-arrested when the details are confirmed and necessity criteria no longer exists). So what happens if they give the officer details, refuse to answer any questions about the offence, then try to leave? Nothing the Police can do I assume?
You have to wait long enough for them to make "Such lawful enquiries as they consider appropriate". The driver can go where they like subject to having to produce documents and the usual. S163 is not an Instant one time power so it practically means the car can't go until the officer has finished with it so long as it's not an abuse.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 18th April 10:05
un1corn said:
Ok, so watching one of these bullst facebook videos (someone with a low IQ gets stopped for a traffic offence and shouts "am i detained" for 10 minutes).
So, I looked into it, and it appears a police officer can 'detain' without arrest for only a few small things (mental health, stop/search, breach of peace).
So, if you get stopped, say for a dodgy brake light or something. You're obliged to stop under Sec163 of the RTA.
If you stop, the officer comes over, you reel off your name, address date of birth and then drive off before he can conduct any process, have you done anything wrong? Can you be stopped?
I understand that an officer can arrest for any offence, with necessity criteria being to ascertain name/address etc. So this is useful for example for the driver who refuses to provide details. They can be arrested for speeding, or even a light out or something, or just some document offences.
But if the person confirms who they are, or after confirmation wants to leave, get out of the police vehicle etc, then the officer has no right to "detain" them. is that right?
Now i suppose the officer, if unable to deal with any roadside process because the driver speeds off, could still summons the driver to court, using the details provided, but does it matter that the officer may have not been able to verbal "summon" the driver, give a verbal nip or something like that?
In short - I know if a driver, during any routine (legal) stop, refuses to give their details, they can be arrested (then de-arrested when the details are confirmed and necessity criteria no longer exists). So what happens if they give the officer details, refuse to answer any questions about the offence, then try to leave? Nothing the Police can do I assume?
Is that the video where the guy says he knows the law and the officer asks him what the stopping distance is and the guy flips out because he doesn’t know? And later on continues filming with his phone while he’s driving away?t facebook videos (someone with a low IQ gets stopped for a traffic offence and shouts "am i detained" for 10 minutes).So, I looked into it, and it appears a police officer can 'detain' without arrest for only a few small things (mental health, stop/search, breach of peace).
So, if you get stopped, say for a dodgy brake light or something. You're obliged to stop under Sec163 of the RTA.
If you stop, the officer comes over, you reel off your name, address date of birth and then drive off before he can conduct any process, have you done anything wrong? Can you be stopped?
I understand that an officer can arrest for any offence, with necessity criteria being to ascertain name/address etc. So this is useful for example for the driver who refuses to provide details. They can be arrested for speeding, or even a light out or something, or just some document offences.
But if the person confirms who they are, or after confirmation wants to leave, get out of the police vehicle etc, then the officer has no right to "detain" them. is that right?
Now i suppose the officer, if unable to deal with any roadside process because the driver speeds off, could still summons the driver to court, using the details provided, but does it matter that the officer may have not been able to verbal "summon" the driver, give a verbal nip or something like that?
In short - I know if a driver, during any routine (legal) stop, refuses to give their details, they can be arrested (then de-arrested when the details are confirmed and necessity criteria no longer exists). So what happens if they give the officer details, refuse to answer any questions about the offence, then try to leave? Nothing the Police can do I assume?
Apart from anything else the guy is a heart attack waiting to happen.
The driver is only obliged to give name, address and date of birth and confirm ownership and maybe the use to which the vehicle is being put - sufficient for the stopping officer to check that documents are all in order in relation to what the vehicles being used for. Thats as far as any conversation need go. Any further discussion beyond that or in relation to any offences disclosed is purely optional.
Theres no necessity to get in the back of the Police car whilst the officer deals.
Theres no necessity to get in the back of the Police car whilst the officer deals.
I don't have that much time for the police these days, but I really don't understand why these people have to be so unhelpful, spend 20 minutes filming shouting "am I being detained, am I free to go" how about, just tell them what they want to know, let them do what they need to do, suck it up if you've fallen foul of the law and move on within a few minutes.
pits said:
I don't have that much time for the police these days, but I really don't understand why these people have to be so unhelpful, spend 20 minutes filming shouting "am I being detained, am I free to go" how about, just tell them what they want to know, let them do what they need to do, suck it up if you've fallen foul of the law and move on within a few minutes.
Why do they film themselves arguing with the police ?Because they get their rocks off on it and/ or hope the officer says or does something they can complain about.
Much better to be polite, do what you need to do and be on your way rather than delaying yourself further and looking a complete tit on YouTube.
I haven't looked at the video but I can guess the contents.
pits said:
I don't have that much time for the police these days, but I really don't understand why these people have to be so unhelpful, spend 20 minutes filming shouting "am I being detained, am I free to go" how about, just tell them what they want to know, let them do what they need to do, suck it up if you've fallen foul of the law and move on within a few minutes.
In the good old days when officers would make a judgement call to let you go with a stern word or to give you a ticket it was worth being Mr cordial, showing respect for the law etc, etc; however, correct me if I'm wrong but I hear most people just get given a ticket, so why would they be thankful for that?pits said:
I don't have that much time for the police these days, but I really don't understand why these people have to be so unhelpful, spend 20 minutes filming shouting "am I being detained, am I free to go" how about, just tell them what they want to know, let them do what they need to do, suck it up if you've fallen foul of the law and move on within a few minutes.
It does depend upon your experiences with the Police of course.When I was younger I regularly sped and was regularly stopped - the Police were older than me and I was hoping to get off with a warning / producer so I was always very pleasant.
I only met 2 officers with a poor attitude in perhaps 5 years - 1 was so bad I reported him.
Now I'm older I do find it hard to listen to an Officer who hasn't been alive as long as I've been driving, telling me "that in his experience..." combined with the only time I interact with the Police is either because they are trying to extract money out of me or they are refusing to do anything other than provide a crime no.
However I agree poking a dog with a stick rarely results in the best outcome
The thing is it is not particularly difficult for most people to just politely accept a talking to by the police, even if they feel inside that the way they are being spoken to or the way it is being handled is completely unreasonable / unacceptable.
But for some people it is particularly difficult, because of various factors and thier background and / or mental health.
If there was 10 minute video of someone with obvious mobility problems trying to climb into the backseat of a police 4x4 with the officer berating him and threatening him with arrest if he didn't get in the car, I suspect most of us would be outraged and say the police officer should have found an alternative way to deal with the person, regardless what the stop was for and if he had actually committed an offence.
For some people the mental barriers can make it is similarly difficult maybe even more difficult, to comply with a police officer's instructions under a particular set of circumstances, but because people's mental health can be completely invisible other people don't see the barriers and watch these sort of videos and assume that the people are 'low IQ' or deliberately being difficult or trying to frustrate the process to get away with something.
Of course for the police they have the problem that they do also regularly have to deal with people who are just deliberately being difficult and / or trying to frustrate the process to get away with something. It must be extremely difficult to differentiate, especially as in many cases there will be a certain amount of overlap, but if they want to truly be fair to all people regardless of thier physical and mental abilities it should be theirs and the government's challenge to overcome, not the individuals.
But for some people it is particularly difficult, because of various factors and thier background and / or mental health.
If there was 10 minute video of someone with obvious mobility problems trying to climb into the backseat of a police 4x4 with the officer berating him and threatening him with arrest if he didn't get in the car, I suspect most of us would be outraged and say the police officer should have found an alternative way to deal with the person, regardless what the stop was for and if he had actually committed an offence.
For some people the mental barriers can make it is similarly difficult maybe even more difficult, to comply with a police officer's instructions under a particular set of circumstances, but because people's mental health can be completely invisible other people don't see the barriers and watch these sort of videos and assume that the people are 'low IQ' or deliberately being difficult or trying to frustrate the process to get away with something.
Of course for the police they have the problem that they do also regularly have to deal with people who are just deliberately being difficult and / or trying to frustrate the process to get away with something. It must be extremely difficult to differentiate, especially as in many cases there will be a certain amount of overlap, but if they want to truly be fair to all people regardless of thier physical and mental abilities it should be theirs and the government's challenge to overcome, not the individuals.
V8RX7 said:
or they are refusing to do anything other than provide a crime no.
Thing is, that's the best you can hope for these days. Gone are the days of investigation and dealing with crimes. Nobody fault other than a government that rips the arse out of public services and expects things to carry on. Thing is, it's the public services that get the grief for it.
un1corn said:
Thing is, that's the best you can hope for these days. Gone are the days of investigation and dealing with crimes.
Bit of a generalisation. My cars were stolen from my drive in 2016. They found bits of mine and it they uncovered a chop shop in Birmingham. A lot of other crimes connected apparently investigated with a multi-force team.They are awaiting trial and mine is one of the crimes they are seeking a conviction for. Gang of 6 people with a long list of charges, including dangerous driving and resisting arrest...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff