The Police Just Knocked...

drunkenmaster · 16 Oct 2008 at 11:08

Repta said:
Nope its completely right. If the police see a crime take place in a house they are allowed to enter it

but they didn't did they, thats my point. Dropping drugs, out of a pocket outside a house gives absolutely ZERO indication a crime took place IN that house. The ONLY evidence they would have is that specific person had drugs on him, they could only do him for posession, they couldn't do him for buying, selling or distribution, if it was a massive amount they can't do him for distrution, only INTENT to distribute.

Slinwagh · 16 Oct 2008 at 11:15

drunkenmaster said:
bull, that sounds completely wrong. That MIGHT give them a basis for probable cause in obtaining a search warrant.

I am afraid I am correct.

But if random person X leaves a house that isn't his, and drops drugs all you have is the idea that random person X has drugs. Theres nothing there that indicates he must have gotten the drugs in said house, if he lives in the house that's slightly different.

Whether that person resides in that dwelling is irrelevant, a Police Officer would have reasonable grounds to assume that there may be other drugs on the premises and thus can enter those premises in order to search it arrest and secure further evidence.

drunkenmaster · 16 Oct 2008 at 11:28

Slinwagh said:
I am afraid I am correct.Whether that person resides in that dwelling is irrelevant, a Police Officer would have reasonable grounds to assume that there may be other drugs on the premises and thus can enter those premises in order to search it arrest and secure further evidence.

i'm sorry but no, thats utter crap, completely incorrect. What you say simply makes no sense, infact everything you've suggested in this thread makes no logical sense at all, based on the fact that if you were right, essentially police have every right to search any house they want at any time and they could simply say they were looking for someone they did have an arrest warrant out for. Seeing as thats not the case, and millions of people aren't complaining about that ridiculous abuse of power, it isn't happening.

Someone dropping drugs on the ground does not give anything even close to reasonable ground that there maybe other drugs on the premises, at all. If it did, why are drug cases so hard and take so long, why do they need to get multiple people leaving a house with drugs on them to make a case before they GET A SEARCH WARRANT to take down a drug house. By what you've said drugs cases would be easy, find one guy leaving a suspected house with drugs on him and you would have every right to bust right in, catch them with drugs on the premises and slam the jail door shut. Again, that simply does not happen, at all, which simply indicates they do not have the power you are saying they have.

Slinwagh · 16 Oct 2008 at 11:30

drunkenmaster said:
i'm sorry but no, thats utter crap, completely incorrect. What you say simply makes no sense, infact everything you've suggested in this thread makes no logical sense at all, based on the fact that if you were right, essentially police have every right to search any house they want at any time and they could simply say they were looking for someone they did have an arrest warrant out for. Seeing as thats not the case, and millions of people aren't complaining about that ridiculous abuse of power, it isn't happening.

Someone dropping drugs on the ground does not give anything even close to reasonable ground that there maybe other drugs on the premises, at all. If it did, why are drug cases so hard and take so long, why do they need to get multiple people leaving a house with drugs on them to make a case before they GET A SEARCH WARRANT to take down a drug house. By what you've said drugs cases would be easy, find one guy leaving a suspected house with drugs on him and you would have every right to bust right in, catch them with drugs on the premises and slam the jail door shut. Again, that simply does not happen, at all, which simply indicates they do not have the power you are saying they have.

4 Entry without warrant - particular powers
(a) Making an arrest etc
4.1 The conditions under which an officer may enter and search premises without a
warrant are set out in PACE, section 17. It should be noted that this section does not
create or confer any powers of arrest. See other powers in Note 2B(a).
(b) Search of premises where arrest takes place or the arrested person was
immediately before arrest
4.2 When a person has been arrested for an indictable offence, a police officer has power
under PACE, section 32 to search the premises where the person was arrested or
where the person was immediately before being arrested.

There we go.

Twinblade · 16 Oct 2008 at 11:43

Technically both sides of the argument of Drunkenmaster and Slinwagh were correct. The way the argument was written by Slinwagh wasnt clear. Your initial posts suggested that if a police officer spotted someone dropping drugs upon leaving a property they could then search it.

This is not correct, had you had said they would have first needed to arrest the person they allege dropped the drugs leaving the property then you would have been correct and probably would not have received an argumentative response from drunkenmaster.

Slinwagh · 16 Oct 2008 at 11:45

Twinblade said:
Technically both sides of the argument of Drunkenmaster and Slinwagh were correct. The way the argument was written by Slinwagh wasnt clear. Your initial posts suggested that if a police officer spotted someone dropping drugs upon leaving a property they could then search it.

This is not correct, had you had said they would have first needed to arrest the person they allege dropped the drugs leaving the property then you would have been correct and probably would not have received an argumentative response from drunkenmaster.

Yes you are correct they would need to be arrested.

Saying that a Police Officer in certain circumstances could still enter premises without a warrant or arresting a person.

ScoobyDoo · 16 Oct 2008 at 11:52

Ok, ill clear things up again.. Having worked on a drugs squad I should know about these things!.

If someone steps out of a house and drops drugs on the floor, the person would be arrested but again a WARRANT would be needed to search the house he's just come out of.
You can only conduct a section 32 search at the place of arrest which in this case is the street.
It happens all the time that drug addicts are stopped coming away from a dealers address, the addict is found with class 'A' on them and they are arrested.
You then need a WARRANT to search the premises that addict has just visited.

fiveub · 16 Oct 2008 at 11:52

I think the police should have a right with good reason. Our police need at least some authority.

Twinblade · 16 Oct 2008 at 12:51

ScoobyDoo said:
Ok, ill clear things up again.. Having worked on a drugs squad I should know about these things!.

If someone steps out of a house and drops drugs on the floor, the person would be arrested but again a WARRANT would be needed to search the house he's just come out of.
You can only conduct a section 32 search at the place of arrest which in this case is the street.
It happens all the time that drug addicts are stopped coming away from a dealers address, the addict is found with class 'A' on them and they are arrested.
You then need a WARRANT to search the premises that addict has just visited.

No you don't.

Section 32. - (1) A constable may search an arrested person, in any case where the person to be searched has been arrested at a place other than a police station, if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person may present a danger to himself or others.

(2) Subject to subsections (3) to (5) below, a constable shall also have power in any such case -

(a) to search the arrested person for anything -
(i) which he might use to assist him to escape from lawful custody; or
(ii) which might be evidence relating to an offence; and
(b) to enter and search any premises in which he was when arrested [for an indictable offence] or immediately before he was arrested [for an indictable offence] for evidence relating to the offence for which he has been arrested.
(3) The power to search conferred by subsection (2) above is only a power to search to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering any such thing or any such evidence.

(4) The powers conferred by this section to search a person are not to be construed as authorising a constable to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than an outer coat, jacket or gloves but they do authorise a search of a person's mouth.

(5) A constable may not search a person in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (2)(a) above unless he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be searched may have concealed on him anything for which a search is permitted under that paragraph

drunkenmaster · 16 Oct 2008 at 12:57

Slinwagh said:
There we go.

Actually, that doesn't prove anything. Its obviously situational, as deemed by the fact it says its lists these situations elsewhere, which you didn't quote, maybe they prove you right maybe not.

That does not specifcally say drugs, or the crime. If someone pulled a bank robbery earlier that day, is seen leaving a house, is arrested and is without the gun known to be on him earlier, would they search the house for gun and or evidence from the bank, sure. I'm sorry but that won't count in every situation.

Person walks outside house, kicks police officer in head, is arrested, are they allowed to search the house he just left, NO.

Frankly, how many times are the police going to see someone drop drugs as they walk out of a house unless they are specifically watching that house as its already under suspicion of people selling drugs inside, even then they won't run inside just because they see a small pack of drugs fall out of someones pocket as it would likely ruin any investigation currently going on.

mike5678 · 16 Oct 2008 at 12:59

They can enter without warrant and without permission if they believe that someone inside has committed an indictable offence or in order to safve life or limb.

drunkenmaster · 16 Oct 2008 at 13:00

Twinblade said:
No you don't.

Section 32. - (1) A constable may search an arrested person, in any case where the person to be searched has been arrested at a place other than a police station, if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person may present a danger to himself or others.

(2) Subject to subsections (3) to (5) below, a constable shall also have power in any such case -

(a) to search the arrested person for anything -
(i) which he might use to assist him to escape from lawful custody; or
(ii) which might be evidence relating to an offence; and
(b) to enter and search any premises in which he was when arrested [for an indictable offence] or immediately before he was arrested [for an indictable offence] for evidence relating to the offence for which he has been arrested.
(3) The power to search conferred by subsection (2) above is only a power to search to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering any such thing or any such evidence.

(4) The powers conferred by this section to search a person are not to be construed as authorising a constable to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than an outer coat, jacket or gloves but they do authorise a search of a person's mouth.

(5) A constable may not search a person in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (2)(a) above unless he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be searched may have concealed on him anything for which a search is permitted under that paragraph

Indictable Offences – These are the more serious crimes and include murder, manslaughter and rape. All indictable offences must be tried at the Crown Court, but the first hearing is dealt with at the Magistrates' Court. The magistrate will decide if the defendant should be given bail. The case is then transferred to the Crown Court.

opps, so they don't have the power to search when someone drops some drugs, only in FAR FAR FAR more serious cases, so you're wrong.

mike5678 · 16 Oct 2008 at 13:01

ScoobyDoo said:
Ok, ill clear things up again.. Having worked on a drugs squad I should know about these things!.

If someone steps out of a house and drops drugs on the floor, the person would be arrested but again a WARRANT would be needed to search the house he's just come out of.
You can only conduct a section 32 search at the place of arrest which in this case is the street.
It happens all the time that drug addicts are stopped coming away from a dealers address, the addict is found with class 'A' on them and they are arrested.
You then need a WARRANT to search the premises that addict has just visited.

Section 18 of PACE would be enough, no need for a court warrant.

drunkenmaster · 16 Oct 2008 at 13:01

mike5678 said:
They can enter without warrant and without permission if they believe that someone inside has committed an indictable offence or in order to safve life or limb.

We've all said as much, the question is firstly if they could enter in the case of the OP, they can't, and then the theoretic by Slingwah, and again THEY CAN'T.

semi-pro waster · 16 Oct 2008 at 13:06

DampCat said:
If this has been covered, i've missed it but:

It's a shared property, and you're all students? If that's the case, can i assume you're not the houseowner?

Given that, what's to say the police didn't contact your landlord/landlady to get permission before driving to the house?

Just curious.

I'm not entirely sure but in most cases the homeowner/landlord must contact the tenants (except in exceptional circumstances) to inform them of any times they want to enter the property. Now you get into whether this counts as exceptional circumstances.

It does sound as if the police were rude although I suspect they would also still have been acting legally.

Slinwagh · 16 Oct 2008 at 13:10

drunkenmaster said:
We've all said as much, the question is firstly if they could enter in the case of the OP, they can't, and then the theoretic by Slingwah, and again THEY CAN'T.

I have just phoned a mate of mine who is serving Police Officer and he has just said to me that in the instance of a person walking out of a dwelling who then drops drugs, once the person has been arrested the premises which he exited can be searched at the time without the need of a warrant.

ScoobyDoo · 16 Oct 2008 at 13:25

Slinwagh said:
I have just phoned a mate of mine who is serving Police Officer and he has just said to me that in the instance of a person walking out of a dwelling who then drops drugs, once the person has been arrested the premises which he exited can be searched at the time without the need of a warrant.

Im afraid he's wrong, possession of class 'a' isnt a inditicable offence, its firstly tried at a magistrates court and not crown court so there is no power to enter the premises in this case.
All cases are different, but going on the facts that someone walks out of a house, drops some drugs on the floor, and is arrested for possession then there is no power to enter that property without warrant.
Ive done enough of these and have always required a warrant to search the premises.

drunkenmaster · 16 Oct 2008 at 13:35

Slinwagh said:
I have just phoned a mate of mine who is serving Police Officer and he has just said to me that in the instance of a person walking out of a dwelling who then drops drugs, once the person has been arrested the premises which he exited can be searched at the time without the need of a warrant.

every piece of police code quoted so far goes to show that its only allowable without a warrant for an indictable offence, which isn't what you are talking about.

Again I'll say, the power you suggest they have is completely and totally unlimited as without any arrests, or basically anything they can enter anyones house under the pretense of looking for someone they do have an arrest warrant for. That is clearly ridiculous, it clearly doesn't happen in this country, so what you've suggested is just completely wrong. This to me says you don't know what you are talking about on the subject matter.

I don't know either, I'm not a cop, but based on the actions of the police its very simple to see you're wrong.

Its this simple, there are lots of law's in place limiting the powers police have for the exact reason that they can't just make up a pretense and enter any ones house. Hence the need for warrants, by the way you've said it can happen, you find out about a house that drugs are sold in, search everyone who comes out, the first person they arrest with drugs lets you go in and search the house and jobs done, investigation over, drugs siezed and everyones in jail. The very fact that it doesn't happen, proves you are wrong. The fact that investigations like that take time and effort and need warrants to go in and search proves you are wrong.

Energize · 16 Oct 2008 at 14:46

The defence in court for a person entering someones house without permission is "necessity", ie they had to commmit an offence to prevent a serious one from occuring. I don't see how that could apply in a posession of drugs case as the crime had already been commited and isn't serious.

Twinblade · 16 Oct 2008 at 14:59

Having just had another review of PACE, and more importantly Code B which was updated and came into effect in February 2008 which deals with the Code of Practice for Searches of Premises by a Police Officer and the seizure of property found by a Police Officer on Persons or Property.

It states within that, under Section B1.2 Police have the power without a search warrant to entry and search of a premises and also seizure to either a) Make an arrest or B) Following an arrest.

Officers are within their right to enter and search a premises without a warrant as long as this is done so inline with PACE Section 17.

In addition, and officer can enter a premises to conduct a search if they have the permission from a person entitled to grant permission (in this thread the landlord).

Section 17 for those that dont know gives a PO the power to enter a premises for the purpose of:

Warrant
Commitment Warrant
Indictable Offence
Certain Public Order Offences, not limted to: S4 Public Order Offences, Offences relating to drink and drugs
Save Life