Police powers when being stopped (on foot or in a car). Answers from cops?

[Andy90]

Firstly, I assume that you know what my career is to allow you to make the statement that Von Smallhausen is better placed to comment?

To clarify what has become a somewhat muddled argument, might points are simply:
1. The state is subservient to its citizens and not the other way around
2. Questioning police actions is a necessary part of monitoring and improving the police's service proposition
3. The amount of police wearing body armour, as well as those carrying weaponry, has increased over the last 15 years.
4. The public's relationship with the police has degraded over the past 15 years
5. Three and four are not unrelated
6. Crime has fallen markedly in the last 15 years and, as such the need for the actions under point three, which is causing point 4, should be reconsidered.

Now that you mentioned it - what is your career. Once you tell us we can all figure out if in fact you are better placed to comment.

As to your points 1 to 6.

1 and 2 - wouldn't disagree with this. Policing in this Country is by consent of the people. It should be open and transparent.

Point 3. I agree -the amount of armed Police Officers and Officers wearing body armour has definately increased over the last 15 years. Why do you think that is? Well it probably was in response to the increase in firearms offences and fatal or serious injuries to Police Officers during the years that we didn't have the kit. What would you have. A lot of dead Police Officers? It is all well and good sat behind your desk tippy tapping on your computer saying that Police Officers shouldn't wear body armour. It would be rather nice if we didn't have to wear it. It is hot and uncomfortable - but you know what I actually like going home at the end of the day with the same number of holes in my body that I was born with. Incidents that are very calm can flip in a minute - it's no good saying to someone "erm could you stop slashing that knife across my body for a second whilst I run back and slip on my body armour....."

Point 4. I think what you will find is that the Media relationship with the Police has deteriorated markedly over the last 15 years rather than the publics relationship. Most law abiding people still have a very healthy respect for Police Officers. Granted things like the incidents at that near riot in London last year don't help, but bear in mind these are rare incidents compared to the thousands of incidents that the Police deal with daily. Compared to many professions, including Bankers, Lawyers, Politicians, Reporters, Teachers etc., the Police have a fairly high approval rating.

Point 5. Three and Four are not unrelated. Erm I beg to differ. I think most people when dealing with a Police Officer that does his/her job well under difficult circumstances wouldn't give two hoots as to whether or not they were wearing body armour or carrying a gun. I have never had anyone comment that they don't like dealing with me because I wear body armour. In fact I actually get far more people talking to me about the kit I wear because they are genuinely interested - they also tend to say that they fully support us and they are glad we have it.

Point 6. Crime has fallen markedly over the last 15 years. Perhaps this might be down to Officers actually having the tools available to them to deal with violent crime (it isn't the only reason though - advances in DNA techniques, targetting persistent offenders who commit a large proportion of crime in an area etc., are other reasons for the drop - there are many more).

 

[TheVoice]

Therefore only one death was due to weaponry and no body armour could have stopped that injury (being shot in the head). As such, I've yet to see convincing evidence that it's absolutely required. These officers are not working in a war zone. They are working in the safest conditions for over 15 years.

Have you not considered that perhaps there are so few deaths as a result of them being adequately equipped in the first place? Body armour isn't there to provide a constant barrier day-in day-out, it's there "just in case".

Being a paramilitary force encompasses far more than body armour and a few MP5s, you're blowing it far out of proportion.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Firstly, I assume that you know what my career is to allow you to make the statement that Von Smallhausen is better placed to comment? Whilst I'm well aware of Von's day job that doesn't necessarily make him well placed to talk about the relationship between the police and the public as (whilst I completely respect and appreciate his opinion) he necessarily has a strong bias towards the police.

Fini, I defend the police when they are defendable and I will criticise them when they cross the line. That criticism will include myself when I drop a clanger.

You are talking to someone who has not always liked the police and were it not for a badly broken arm aged 14 that stopped me hanging about with my usual crowd, I may have possibly followed them into a life of crime for which a good childhood mate of mine received 11 years for supplying Class A drugs.

Also, and with respect, I am fairly well placed to talk about the police / public relationship because it is essential to the functionality of the police.

If the police service is a crime fighting engine then the public are the oil and air that are critical to make it work for without the public and the information they provide, the police service cannot function.

I give respect and usually get it back and that is why in ten years service, I have not had one complaint about my attitude. Money ? Medals ? No thanks. It is just who I am and also what the public would expect me to be.

I do things on a daily basis, usually very small, but significant enough to make a difference to someone's life.

Examples.

Some years back an old dear had her window smashed by some ( insert expletive here ) who I unfortunately never did track down.

Her living room was showered with glass as was her settee and to say she was upset is an understatement. First thing was first in that the kettle went on. Next, me and my colleague picked up and cleaned every shard of glass from her living room until the glazier went there to replace the window.

All we had to do was fill in a crime report and take a statement but for some people, we go the extra mile.

Before leaving I gave her my contact details and told her if she had any problems whatsoever then call me. If she wanted a cuppa and a chat. Call me.

Basically, I left a happier punter than the one I first met and I am damned sure that I am not alone with that customer focus.

Also, about 3 years ago, I came very close to being stabbed by a bloke who was out of his mind on drugs. He was sprayed and a very violent arrest ensued. He received a custodial sentence.

Some time later The same lad, drug free and wanting to apologise, offered his hand which I took. He is still off the drugs and helps others to do the same. In other words it isn't personal and, again, I am sure that I am not the only one.

The police service is not perfect and never will be and there are some minority utter idiots within its employ that should never wear a police uniform but the majority have the same ethos as I do. What I do and what I have described do not make me in any way elite.

 

[iamdjdz]

I got stopped once walking back from a friends house. I was in a fairly rough area at about 4 in the morning, rather drunk too. I had a bag with me, and it had my xbox 360 harddrive and some games, a couple of bottles of beer and some random spare underwear. An unmarked car pulled up beside me and 3 officers got out and surrounded me. It was rather unnerving but then I knew that I hadn't done anything wrong and was pretty sure I could prove it. Anyway they stated that they had a reported burgulary in the area and were looking for the suspect, and took my bag. They asked what was in it and I told them, they searched it and me and then let me go. It was all very professional and I understood they had to catch the burgular. I think me being rather drunk helped me in this instance as I just let them carry on regardless and wasn't too shaken up, also wasn't in a particularly fit state to burgle a house. I know why I was searched, but I feel that it was a shame (if they never caught the guy) as I would have wasted their time, but then it was their call to search me. No problems with their conduct, apart from it being rather intimidating.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

I got stopped once walking back from a friends house. I was in a fairly rough area at about 4 in the morning, rather drunk too. I had a bag with me, and it had my xbox 360 harddrive and some games, a couple of bottles of beer and some random spare underwear. An unmarked car pulled up beside me and 3 officers got out and surrounded me. It was rather unnerving but then I knew that I hadn't done anything wrong and was pretty sure I could prove it. Anyway they stated that they had a reported burgulary in the area and were looking for the suspect, and took my bag. They asked what was in it and I told them, they searched it and me and then let me go. It was all very professional and I understood they had to catch the burgular. I think me being rather drunk helped me in this instance as I just let them carry on regardless and wasn't too shaken up, also wasn't in a particularly fit state to burgle a house. I know why I was searched, but I feel that it was a shame (if they never caught the guy) as I would have wasted their time, but then it was their call to search me. No problems with their conduct, apart from it being rather intimidating.

You mean you weren't beaten up and had drugs planted on you ?

On a serious note, I was in New York in 2002 for the first anniversary of 9/11 and got talking to a couple of PSNI lads at Ground Zero. Top lads.

 

[iamdjdz]

You mean you weren't beaten up and had drugs planted on you ?

I was lucky with this. Must have been the protestant part of the 50:50 police force over here (considering where I was at the time) lol.

 

[Tefal]

This explains why.

Any chance of a summary?

 

[Disco Boy]

Any chance of a summary?

In America you don't have to say anything to the Police and it's always wise to exercise that right.

 

[Energize]

Any chance of a summary?

Goes on to explain the right to remain silent and why you should always remain silent/refuse to be searched/refuse police entry to your home even if you are innocent of any crime, with various examples. Something that needs to be posted as a response to any "if you are innocent you have nothing to hide"/"you should always help the police" posts.

That isn't the case.

What isn't the case? You just affirmed what I said.

 

[drunkenmaster]

The perception of warrants is often very American. UK police officers can even search your home without a court warrant under certain circumstances.

Its not in the USA you need a search warrant for pretty much every situation you do here, and don't need one for most situations you don't here.

IE you've been called to a house for something, no ones answering and you can't hear anything, unless the call had someone saying their feared for their life or gave a cause, they can't enter they have no right to.

If they hear a woman screaming, or can see a guy through a window with a bag with Swag writen on it, or you see someone holding a weapon or something they have cause to enter for an emergency situation. Thats exactly the same as in the states. Same with car searches, unless they specifically see something, a bag of pills out in the open or sticking out from under a seat they have cause, if they can't see anything neither here nor the states do they have the right to search just incase they find something.

For most premeditated actions, like hitting a suspected drug house, going to look for evidence in someones house you need a warrant, same here or the USA.

Both countries if theres an arrest warrant and there is a decent reason to assume that person is in the house that gives them cause to enter, like they see him in the house, can hear him, its his house or they've received a credible tip he's in there.

 

[DIABLO]

Same with car searches, unless they specifically see something, a bag of pills out in the open or sticking out from under a seat they have cause, if they can't see anything neither here nor the states do they have the right to search just incase they find something.

Police don't have to see anything to search a car or a person they just need probably cause which could be something as simple as the occupants acting suspicious.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Its not in the USA you need a search warrant for pretty much every situation you do here, and don't need one for most situations you don't here.

IE you've been called to a house for something, no ones answering and you can't hear anything, unless the call had someone saying their feared for their life or gave a cause, they can't enter they have no right to.

If they hear a woman screaming, or can see a guy through a window with a bag with Swag writen on it, or you see someone holding a weapon or something they have cause to enter for an emergency situation. Thats exactly the same as in the states. Same with car searches, unless they specifically see something, a bag of pills out in the open or sticking out from under a seat they have cause, if they can't see anything neither here nor the states do they have the right to search just incase they find something.

For most premeditated actions, like hitting a suspected drug house, going to look for evidence in someones house you need a warrant, same here or the USA.

Both countries if theres an arrest warrant and there is a decent reason to assume that person is in the house that gives them cause to enter, like they see him in the house, can hear him, its his house or they've received a credible tip he's in there.

One difference is that if we say find drugs on someone and think they are dealing (becuase of quantity) then we can search their house also without a warrant.

 

[RDM]

In 2009 it would appear that 12 officers died. They died of:

• Being swept away in a flood
• Falling off a motorbike
• Heart attack having just reported for duty
• Car accident
• Heart attack whilst setting up cones
• Car accident on his way home
• Head injury whilst chasing a suspect
• Shot in the head
• Brain haemorrhage
• car accident on his way to work
• car accident on his way home
• car accident on her way to work

Therefore only one death was due to weaponry and no body armour could have stopped that injury (being shot in the head). As such, I've yet to see convincing evidence that it's absolutely required. These officers are not working in a war zone. They are working in the safest conditions for over 15 years.

Have you got a list of how many injuries have been stopped due to the use of body armour? Surely that would be more relevant than the very rare cases of death?

 

[Jest3r]

1. An PC can search a vehicle if he suspects that the vehicle may contain drugs, weapons or be involved in connection with specific offences. The officer does not require a warrant or your permission. If they wish to search the car they can remove you for the duration.

2. If an officer suspects you may have a weapon/stolen goods on you he can search you under S1 of PACE. You do not have to give your name at this time. They can use reasonable force to search you there but they may not remove clothing. If they suspect you have something inside your clothing they can take you to a police station and give you a strip search.

The perception of warrants is often very American. UK police officers can even search your home without a court warrant under certain circumstances.

Also bear in mind that if you are non-cooperative other suspicions may lead to you being detained for much longer than you otherwise would.

The easier one now is Section 23 misuse of drugs act... Entitles the officer to search person and property, and if there is sufficient grounds to believe that the home address would contain more controlled substances then they will go there on way to station. This is how they avoid the warrant requirement, as most people have a key with them, so it's not forcing entry.

 

[jaybee]

I'd rather live in the UK than the states and feel safer here that less people carry guns as a result of the overly protective search warrants over there. Here it's simple, don't be a **** and just assist the police and let them get on with their day if you have nothing to hide. I got pulled over a lot in my teens with my hot hatches and never got booked for speeding or anything as each time I was polite and assisted them with everything they wanted apologising each time even if the copper was a fool. Just spend 5 minutes of your time cooporating and be done with it. Or remain silent out of stubborness for our "rights" and get yourself in more bother than necessary. I'm normally one all for rights and privacy, but instances when you are pulled over by the police is not the time to be harping on about them imo.

 

[SiD the Turtle]

Being a cop must be tough. Around these parts (Slough) lots of kids like to think they are 'gangstas', we have an increasing number of gang related incidents between Slough and London gangs and the unfortunate truth is that a lot of these gangs are black or asian gangs.

The thing is though, these black and asian gangs are the minority of the local black and asian communities, but (I'd assume, I have no figures to back it up) a larger minority than the white gang minority, if that makes sense. So naturally I'd assume that the stop and search figures for those groups are higher than the white majority of Slough, which in turn fuels the local anti-police sentiment with the minorities.

The problem arises when you bump into a cop who's on a power trip. Again a minority but they are out there, giving the rest of them a bad name.

It just seems like the Yanks have the right idea.

Heheh funny story. The missus and I were in TGIs in Times Square when there was an almighty bang on the window. We turned to see a guy on the floor and two cops kicking the **** out of him. A police car showed up and we assumed they were going to take him away, but the officers got out of the car and joined in kicking him in the gut.

Interestingly enough I felt safer in NY that I do in London (though given the above story, as long as i didn't p-off a cop), but I think that might be the effect of all the negative press London receives with regards to crime.

 

[Dolph]

I'd rather live in the UK than the states and feel safer here that less people carry guns as a result of the overly protective search warrants over there. Here it's simple, don't be a **** and just assist the police and let them get on with their day if you have nothing to hide. I got pulled over a lot in my teens with my hot hatches and never got booked for speeding or anything as each time I was polite and assisted them with everything they wanted apologising each time even if the copper was a fool. Just spend 5 minutes of your time cooporating and be done with it. Or remain silent out of stubborness for our "rights" and get yourself in more bother than necessary. I'm normally one all for rights and privacy, but instances when you are pulled over by the police is not the time to be harping on about them imo.

It's just a shame that such an opinion is an irrational illusion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...73/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...nt-nation-in-Europe-and-is-worse-than-US.html

Violent crime has also risen dramatically under Labour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...rue-scale-of-violent-crime-rise-revealed.html

 

[Meridian]

And from one of your own links (The Daily Mail one):

But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.

In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.

To amplify one point: if I poke you on the shoulder, that is assault in this country, and reported as a violent crime. Actually I don't even need to make contract with you for it to be classified as assault. How many other countries listed is that true in? What this report shows mostly is how meaningless such statistics are without a great deal more information on how they were gathered and defined. A better synopsis would be: "Right-Wing Papers Criticise the Labour Government Shock".



M

 

[Dolph]

And from one of your own links (The Daily Mail one):

To amplify one point: if I poke you on the shoulder, that is assault in this country, and reported as a violent crime. Actually I don't even need to make contract with you for it to be classified as assault. How many other countries listed is that true in? What this report shows mostly is how meaningless such statistics are without a great deal more information on how they were gathered and defined. A better synopsis would be: "Right-Wing Papers Criticise the Labour Government Shock".

M

Presumably the house of commons library is also biased against the pristine and perfect labour government?

What about the guardian? Are they biased?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/may/28/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy

 

[apatia77]

I think it's best to do what they ask, if they ask you something then just answer. I found this the quickest way of them letting you go, if you have nothing to hide then they will let you go in no time. I'm pretty sure that if you start telling them that you have the right to do this and that then they will just search you under the terrorist act or whatever it is called or just keep giving you questions for a long time.