Need advice on Police search.

The grounds he gave are what I have detailed above. He stated that he thought the bulge was stolen goods. It was a section 1 PACE search so no requirement for a senior officer to approve. That is a section 60 search. The search record clearly states S1 PACE.

My question here is surrounding the grounds. Are they strong enough? If not then was it lawful? Ultimately my thought is this young cop has attempted to get an easy search completed for his probationary portfolio. But that's my opinion and not fact.
He’s doing his job, he explained sec 1 PACE, is that area well known for burglaries or robberies?
Bunch of youths hanging around looking dodgy? More than enough grounds.



I’m surprised he didn’t find any weed, what who said that:???:
 

Nemesis44UK

LE
Book Reviewer
You are becoming too distracted by emotion. What I was seeking, and received, was for people with a deeper understanding of law to discuss if this was lawful. The next steps are not important.

If you want to talk about the law you need to explain principles and arguments in a detached and objective way. I've intentionally shied away offering personal opinions unless they are specifically asked for. To be clear my question was regarding the lawfulness of this search. If you are determined to offer your thoughts on the legality of this search, using whatever experience you have, then it requires objectivity and the maintenance of some distance. This is why I am trying to stick to facts and not opinions.

I remain concerned this search was unlawful and with hindsight I feel the duty inspector made a quick call. Did the officer have strong enough grounds to reasonably suspect my son was in possession of stolen items? Was my son, therefore, subjected to an unlawful search?
If you want to help then apply the law in S1 PACE 1984 and explain whether the stop and search was lawful.

If the search was unlawful, then what?

What is your endgame, what do you hope to achieve?
 
The subjectivity or otherwise of suspicion is not the point. The point is that a police officer cannot lawfully exercise the power provided by section 1 of PACE 1984 unless the suspicion has first passed the objective test for reasonableness. Your argument that a subjective suspicion can provide its own objective justification, without anything else to base the test on, is a false circular argument.

Clearly, you reject the part of the CoP guidelines that I have cited. I suggest that you seek clarification from them because you seem to be incapable of understanding it on your own.


Perhaps that could lead a police officer to an honestly held suspicion but it cannot in itself be the basis for the objective test for reasonableness that must be applied to the suspicion. Once again, you are attempting to make a false circular argument.

The subjective test is suspicion

The objective test of that (honestly held and reasonable) requires nothing more, in itself, than an articulable case for the formation of that (subjective) suspicion. It doesn’t require external facts or circumstances justifying it. A person acting in a fidgety, evasive or hostile manner upon being spoke to by the police is more than ample foundation for an officer to form reasonable suspicion - because acting in a fidgety, evasive or hostile manner upon being spoken to by the police is often seen in people guilty of crime and with something to hide.

Again in much the same way that slurred speech and evasive answers could lead to the perfectly reasonable suspicion that a driver was drunk
 
@HBK where do you want to take this, some very informative posts from serving and former police officers, as you asked, a discussion with the coppers boss with an informative answer, what is left? What do you want the outcome to be?

1642167381705.png


In the form of compo for upsetting his prat of entitled/spoilt/snowflake of an offspring.
Seeing HBK's posts it is obvious the fruit hasn't fallen far from the tree as it says in the bible

1642167704958.png
 
D

Deleted 183533

Guest
I hope your son never joins the army
In the words ofy old man
They have a million ways to **** you about
And all of them legal
I am sorry but your opinion really does not matter. The answer to the question requires fact and not unqualified and irrelevant opinion. Thankfully many have offered objective facts that have greatly helped me.

The question is regarding the lawfulness of the search. You may not care if the police act lawful. That is fine. However consider this, what if a police officer conducts an unlawful search and subsequently finds evidence of an offence. Is that evidence still admissible in court? This is one of many examples of the many implications that can occur from an unlawful search.

You see opinions here don't matter. Only facts and the fact I was seeking to establish was whether this search was lawful.
 

theoriginalphantom

MIA
Book Reviewer
He’s doing his job, he explained sec 1 PACE, is that area well known for burglaries or robberies?
Bunch of youths hanging around looking dodgy? More than enough grounds.



I’m surprised he didn’t find any weed, what who said that:???:


!I believe I can smell cannabis, I'm now detaining you for a search under section 23 of the misuse of drugs act..."
 
I am sorry but your opinion really does not matter. The answer to the question requires fact and not unqualified and irrelevant opinion. Thankfully many have offered objective facts that have greatly helped me.

The question is regarding the lawfulness of the search. You may not care if the police act lawful. That is fine. However consider this, what if a police officer conducts an unlawful search and subsequently finds evidence of an offence. Is that evidence still admissible in court? This is one of many examples of the many implications that can occur from an unlawful search.

You see opinions here don't matter. Only facts and the fact I was seeking to establish was whether this search was lawful.

How would suspecting that someone was in possession of stolen property, and then finding stolen property be unlawful?

Courts are actually quite sensible about how police acting in good faith end up finding things.

I know of a case, where police chased a suspected drug dealer, then ran into the back of the wrong house and stumbled across a different bloke with a large amount of cash on him and Class A. The bloke was convicted and it was accepted that they acted in good faith.
 
D

Deleted 183533

Guest
How would suspecting that someone was in possession of stolen property, and then finding stolen property be unlawful?

Courts are actually quite sensible about how police acting in good faith end up finding things.

I know of a case, where police chased a suspected drug dealer, then ran into the back of the wrong house and stumbled across a different bloke with a large amount of cash on him and Class A. The bloke was convicted and it was accepted that they acted in good faith.
If the search was unlawful. For example if the s1 PACE 1984 search wrongly occurred inside the person's own dwelling that would render the search unlawful would it not?

Likewise if the officer did not have strong enough grounds to search under S1 PACE 1984 but found something that is akin to shaking the tree and seeing what falls out. That is not in accordance with the law.

This is all besides the point and was only meant to highlight the issues that can arise from unlawful searches. I asked a question and received some very informative feedback. The conversation is going round in circles now. Have a good weekend and thanks again for the help.
 
Thanks for the reply. My question, with respect, was for someone who understands to apply the law in section 1 of PACE 1984 to the facts above and explain whether the stop and search that the officer conducted was lawful.

The issue is centred around the grounds. Using an attitude test to shake the tree and see what falls out doesn't square with the relevant legislation and legal principles. Thanks again for all the replies and advice.
Have you ever been to Lockerbie?
 
If the search was unlawful. For example if the s1 PACE 1984 search wrongly occurred inside the person's own dwelling that would render the search unlawful would it not?

Likewise if the officer did not have strong enough grounds to search under S1 PACE 1984 but found something that is akin to shaking the tree and seeing what falls out. That is not in accordance with the law.

This is all besides the point and was only meant to highlight the issues that can arise from unlawful searches. I asked a question and received some very informative feedback. The conversation is going round in circles now. Have a good weekend and thanks again for the help.
Again, what's your end-game?
If it is to ensure your son stays out of plod's clutches from now on by knowing his rights, and telling them to 'do one', then so be it.
If you are after comppo?
Or getting some young copper sacked/reprimanded?
Or just for academic interest.
 
D

Deleted 183533

Guest
I know of a case, where police chased a suspected drug dealer, then ran into the back of the wrong house and stumbled across a different bloke with a large amount of cash on him and Class A. The bloke was convicted and it was accepted that they acted in good faith.
By the way this is not the same thing- the police clearly were lawfully in that property. Are you not aware that a power of seizure exists under S19 PACE 1984? S19 power is exercisable by a constable who is lawfully on any premises. This detracting from the intention of the conversation. I will post any further updates, should I have any, but will not engage anymore in arguments.

Thank you to those who answered the question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Joshua Slocum

LE
Book Reviewer
I am sorry but your opinion really does not matter. The answer to the question requires fact and not unqualified and irrelevant opinion. Thankfully many have offered objective facts that have greatly helped me.

The question is regarding the lawfulness of the search. You may not care if the police act lawful. That is fine. However consider this, what if a police officer conducts an unlawful search and subsequently finds evidence of an offence. Is that evidence still admissible in court? This is one of many examples of the many implications that can occur from an unlawful search.

You see opinions here don't matter. Only facts and the fact I was seeking to establish was whether this search was lawful.
Big man in the office are you?
Audi on the drive?
Yep one of those
Anyway I am way to old to care about your yoof, it sounds like he is a carbon copy of you and full of himself
 
I confess to only having read the first page of this thread but I'll pop in an anecdote anyway.

It was the mid 1970s, young puttees was 17 and it was a glorious period when there were parties almost every weekend as schoolfriends turned 18. On one such weekend, I was making my way home - it was a 5 mile walk, I was halfway and it was 03:00. A police car overtook me, turned around and drove past in the opposite direction. A moment later, having turned around again, it pulled up next to me. The passenger copper got out and said to me, "Would you mind jumping up and down please?"

An odd request but I saw no harm in it, perhaps it was some sort of sobriety test, so I complied. The copper thanked me and made to get back in the car.

"Just a minute" I said, "What was that all about?"

"Oh. There's a phone box back there that's just been broken into and we're looking for someone with a pocket full of 2p and 10p pieces".

See. There's no need for the police to conduct a search every time they stop someone.
 
By the way this is not the same thing- the police clearly were lawfully in that property. Are you not aware that a power of seizure exists under S19 PACE 1984? S19 power is exercisable by a constable who is lawfully on any premises. This detracting from the intention of the conversation. I will post any further updates, should I have any, but will not engage anymore in arguments.

Thank you to those who answered the question.

I’ve been a police officer, both military and civil for 38 years. I have a passing acquaintance with S19 PACE 84.

Thanks for the revision though.

My point being, police officers can make mistakes and it doesn’t necessarily make the search unlawful. If done in good faith as opposed to maliciously.

If I am lawfully on premises and I mistakenly quote S1 PACE as my power rather than a warrant/S18 etc, it doesn’t automatically make it unlawful.
 

Aphra

War Hero
A little bit of legal knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.

A post from a young guy (he said he was 19) on an employment forum I frequent drew my attention for the first time to Kent Police's Investigate First recruitment initiative. It seems to be similar to initiatives run by other Police Services but not, to date by my local force. The minimum requirements are, to me, terrifyingly low and while I realise recruitment has become a major problem (never mind retention) is the way forward really to have 20 year old detectives with only 2 years in the job and minimal academic qualifications investigating serious crimes?

The young man concerned was barely literate, had serious spinal issues that would preclude sitting or standing for long periods and would require costly alterations to any seat he used and any vehicle he would have to use, whether as a driver or passenger. The basic infeasibility of this wasn't something he would accept, because Rights and no matter how anyone tried to explain, he wasn't getting it. It's quite possible he was a troll but several respected posters including former police officers took time to respond.

My own service was so long ago as to be pretty much irrelevant, other than to say that the old guard then had the view TJF and that filtered down to us sprogs to an extent. If we continue to berate police for every minor error, and the media continue to demonise every officer for the actions of a handful, we'll have a situation where sufficient numbers cannot be recruited nor retained to police safely. In that eventuality, what happens? The Army (other armed services are available) called in to patrol the streets? I don't know the answer but I know the solution is not to teach children their rights without giving equal weight to civic responsibility, nor to nitpick every very minor error a young officer makes.

And a bit of free legal advice: if you intend to sue, you'll need to prove you suffered a quantifiable loss. Looking a prat in front of your mates is worth, what, a fiver? Police have already spent more than that dealing with a reasonable complaint in a reasonable manner. Seeking any further redress is going to seem vexatious and I can't see what the OP wants to achieve. But as he hasn't answered that question when asked by others I doubt he'll answer me.
 

Latest Threads

Top