Body & Soul1 min ago
Stop And Search
I have just finished a book entitled 'In You Defence' by Sarah Langford, a Barrister. It was a really interesting read, but there's one thing that has me very confused:
'section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 grants police a power to stop a person (or vehicle), ask them questions and search them'- then it says-'There is no obligation on the person either to stop or to answer the police's questions'.
What???? So, a policeman sees a man walking around looking shifty. He looks like he is trying to conceal something. The officer has reason to believe that he has just bought a gun. He goes up to him and says that he would like to search him. The suspect says 'No, thanks' and walks off.
'How about answering a few questions, then?'
'I'll give that a no too. Have a good day...'
'Yes, you too.'
Something isn't right here. What is it? Is the author wrong?
'section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 grants police a power to stop a person (or vehicle), ask them questions and search them'- then it says-'There is no obligation on the person either to stop or to answer the police's questions'.
What???? So, a policeman sees a man walking around looking shifty. He looks like he is trying to conceal something. The officer has reason to believe that he has just bought a gun. He goes up to him and says that he would like to search him. The suspect says 'No, thanks' and walks off.
'How about answering a few questions, then?'
'I'll give that a no too. Have a good day...'
'Yes, you too.'
Something isn't right here. What is it? Is the author wrong?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Theres probably an "is it worth it" judgement to be made if they say no.
13:29 Sat 29th Aug 2020
Seems to be correct
‘ There is nothing to prevent you asking the person voluntarily to remove more than outer coat, jacket or gloves in public, if they are willing to do so, but you must be careful to make it clear to the person being searched that they are under no obligation to comply.’
But PACE then goes on to say ‘ Failure to Comply with a Search – no specific powers but consider ‘obstructing police’ powers and whether the actions of the individual concerned create sufficient suspicion so that the officer concerned may be able to revert to section 1 PACE powers.’
https:/
‘ There is nothing to prevent you asking the person voluntarily to remove more than outer coat, jacket or gloves in public, if they are willing to do so, but you must be careful to make it clear to the person being searched that they are under no obligation to comply.’
But PACE then goes on to say ‘ Failure to Comply with a Search – no specific powers but consider ‘obstructing police’ powers and whether the actions of the individual concerned create sufficient suspicion so that the officer concerned may be able to revert to section 1 PACE powers.’
https:/
Many thanks for this very prompt reply. I looked through it and found this:
'Failure to stop for purposes of a search is a summary offence which carries the power of arrest' (section 60)
Doesn't his multiply the absurdity?
"I would like to search you as I have reason to believe that you are concealing a gun on your person"
"The law states that I do not have to comply with the search, so I will not."
"You are correct, but if you don't comply, I will arrest you..That's the law too"
That is confusing, if not absurd!
'Failure to stop for purposes of a search is a summary offence which carries the power of arrest' (section 60)
Doesn't his multiply the absurdity?
"I would like to search you as I have reason to believe that you are concealing a gun on your person"
"The law states that I do not have to comply with the search, so I will not."
"You are correct, but if you don't comply, I will arrest you..That's the law too"
That is confusing, if not absurd!
Because I have no experience of the law, it might be that I'm not seeing the fuller picture, but I'm still not really understanding how a suspect isn't obliged to comply with an officer who wants to search him/her but can be arrested if he/she doesn't comply. That IS absurd. 'You don't have to do as I say, but if you don't, I'll arrest you' It's absurd because the second law contradicts the first one.
I suspect it's far more subtle that this. Presumably, if an officer is certain that someone has a firearm on him, there will be an immediate arrest. If it's just a case that someone might have a tiny bit of cannabis, the officer can ask for compliance but he/she cannot force him/her without having a definite reason to arrest. Is this basically right?
I suspect it's far more subtle that this. Presumably, if an officer is certain that someone has a firearm on him, there will be an immediate arrest. If it's just a case that someone might have a tiny bit of cannabis, the officer can ask for compliance but he/she cannot force him/her without having a definite reason to arrest. Is this basically right?
A relevant link:
https:/
However that link fails to mention that there are some specific places, such as at airports, where police permanently have additional powers (under various pieces of legislation) and places where police are granted temporary powers under Section 47a of The Terrorism Act (2000) (Remedial) Order 2011. (Such temporary powers can only be granted by an officer holding the rank of Assistant Chief Constable or above and, if they're to remain in place for more than 48 hours, be further authorised by the Secretary of State). Despite the nominal 'temporary' status of such powers though, many places, such as all railway stations in the UK, were covered by them for many years (and might still be so for all I know - I can't find any definitive information on the issue).
It has to be remembered though that a police officer can't arrest anyone for anything (even murder) unless he has reason to believe that the suspect won't voluntarily attend a police station. See here:
https:/
https:/
However that link fails to mention that there are some specific places, such as at airports, where police permanently have additional powers (under various pieces of legislation) and places where police are granted temporary powers under Section 47a of The Terrorism Act (2000) (Remedial) Order 2011. (Such temporary powers can only be granted by an officer holding the rank of Assistant Chief Constable or above and, if they're to remain in place for more than 48 hours, be further authorised by the Secretary of State). Despite the nominal 'temporary' status of such powers though, many places, such as all railway stations in the UK, were covered by them for many years (and might still be so for all I know - I can't find any definitive information on the issue).
It has to be remembered though that a police officer can't arrest anyone for anything (even murder) unless he has reason to believe that the suspect won't voluntarily attend a police station. See here:
https:/
1 to 10 of 10
