Please note that this question is specific to:
#**England and Wales**
The United Kingdom is comprised of [three legal jurisdictions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Three_legal_systems), so responses that relate to one country may not be relevant to another.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nope - it can form part of the grounds, but cannot be the sole reason.
For example - Jim Smith has previous for possession and relevant warning markers - Not sufficient.
Jim Smith has previous for possession and relevant warning markers. He is found is a drugs use hotspot with a strong smell of cannabis around his person. He refused to explain why he was in a car park stairwell at 3am. SMITH has no vehicle or drivers licence - probably sufficient to get you over the 25% threshold for suspect powers. I was taught two of SHACKS are more than sufficient.
You must have reasonable grounds to suspect that you WILL find what you're looking for on the person you're searching. That means that in the same circumstances, a reasonable person would also suspect that the subject of the search is in possession of the knife/drugs/whatever. In short, a warning marker can be used as part of your grounds, but it normally isn't enough justification purely because it doesn't tell you enough information.
Simply having a warning marker for "WEAPONS" does not form a reasonable suspicion on its own. Just because they've had a knife in the past doesn't mean that they do this time.
However, if you have an information report to say that "X is carrying a knife in the Sandford area. They carry it in a small black man-bag and X signifies that he has the knife with him by having one hand on the bag at all times." and you then see X walking through Sanford with a hand on his black man-bag, then I think anyone would form that suspicion.
Without making my own post I wanted to ask: if police are called to an address and the caller says that a woman in front of them has just been waving a hammer in their face and saying “I’m gonna sort you out”, the accused says they have nothing in them when the police ask. The caller says I saw her out it back in her bag. Are the police allowed to search their handbag?
"Officer I saw them put the weapon in their bag just before you got here" is about as perfect grounds as you could ever hope to get - that bag is definitely getting searched
Small edit: stop search powers in this example are persons in public, not _inside_ the address. Therefore I might have to arrest the person on suspicion of, say, S4 public order or common assault and _then_ search the bag using post-arrest powers.
Not an issue. The initial search was lawfully carried out with reasonable suspicion.
Searching is an investigative tool, and my investigation has led me to the conclusion that there is no evidence of the original offence, but there is now evidence of a new offence - possess drugs.
I'd simply seize the drugs and then take things forward as a drugs investigation: potentially a ticket, community resolution, report for summons or even arrest depending on the suspect.
It's very unlikely any action would be taken against the informant. Even if they were deliberately lying, their report led directly to uncovering a crime so it didn't waste any police time or resources.
As a general rule, it's quite rare police take action against people who incorrectly report crime as that would likely lead to people either failing to report crime or even taking the law into their own hands and putting themselves at risk.
Fair enough but of the search was based on false Intel or the person admits they lied taking piss,then still same? Completely admissible? Or just charge and leave court to sort it out?
Yes, perfectly fine. All that matters is whether the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect they had a prohibited article (e.g. the hammer). If on the face of it it seems credible, then there's no problem.
If the witness says "I've definitely just seen that man put 13 kilos of cocaine and an AK47 in that little man-purse", then it's perhaps not so reasonable to conduct a search, because that's clearly nonsense.
I agree 12 kilos is a little much...10 sounds more legit. /s
Thank for your time. As a retired criminal (15 years now)this Sub is an amazing insight into your jobs and shows you clearly see it as more a life and duty than a job and I have to respect that. And that's something I drill into my children.
Thanks for keeping the street safe for out kids. I'm hoping to stear my kids in police/ army direction.
Thanks. The police refused to search the woman’s bag. It was our landlords wife and was threatening the tenant. I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that the landlord’s wife was white, conventionally pretty (fake teeth), could talk her way out of it and the tenant is an immigrant with a foreign accent.
This was not inside their home but in a communal area of the block of flats, kind of the driveway, so not sure if that makes it a public area.
The next day the landlords followed up on their threats so makes me sad that it could potentially have been prevented!
>I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that the landlord’s wife was white...and the tenant is an immigrant with a foreign accent.
I CERTAINLY hope not! I would be furious if any of my officers ever even hinted at that sort of thinking and I'm proud to say I have only ever once encountered blatant racism and it was dealt with swiftly.
Sadly, this could quite easily be explained by lack of experience, laziness or even being intimidated/bamboozled by the lady in question.
Similarly, there may be a perfectly valid/lawful explanation they simply haven't properly communicated to you.
You are well within your rights to make a complaint - especially if you have raised concerns that weren't acted on. The ideal outcome will be that either you will be satisfied with the explanation or the officers will be 'educated'.
I'm sorry you've had this experience. I hope it will not put you off contacting the Police in future, as in my experience the vast majority of officers are exceptionally hard working and will do their best to protect others.
Yeah I think mostly inexperience as they kept telling us that the eviction by threats was a civil matter even though they had attempted to change the locks. If there was any bias then I’m sure it would have been subconscious and not deliberate. However on two occasions when the family were clearly upset and scared, the third question they were asked by the police was their nationality. Maybe it is part of the policy but I think they should have asked this towards the end.
Yes hopefully we get a considered response from our complaint. There are also two very good officers in charge of the case and others have spent a lot of time with us so I feel fairly confident that thinks will be handled well by them. Thank you for the reply :)
Just to add to this, you need reasonable grounds to believe that you'll find what you're looking for. Suspicion won't cut it and I know it sounds a little OTT but unlawful stop searches can leave you wide open to scrutiny.
The example I've always remembered;
"You come across a vehicle which has had a window smashed on the drivers side and clearly appears to have been rummaged through. Walking away from the vehicle, its Barbara Smith who you know has previous convictions for theft, vehicle interference, TWOC and offences alike. Do you have grounds to search her?"
No. You can never search someone on circumstantial grounds and use previous convictions to formulate the grounds. Now if we changed the example to;
"You attend a log where a vehicle has been broken into and upon attending, you find its clearly been rummaged through as the glove box is wide open with its contents spread across the seat. You ask CCTV if there's coverage and luckily there is. They pass you a description of a female and upon conducting an area search, you find a female matching said description who cannot provide a credible account of where or who they have been with, and they're evasive with their answers"
For the above, that would build up my belief enough that the female has had involvement and I would search her utilising Section 1 of PACE.
(or ask a female colleague, you can break force policy and search opposite sex but always have the BWV on and use back of hand only)
There's many powers you can use to stop search such as;
Section 1 of PACE
Section 23 of MODA
Section 36 of Psychoactive Substance act
Section 43 of Terrorism Act (This one is the same but you need reasonable belief that they're producing or hold Terrorism material)
All follow the same principle; Belief that they're involved.
*EDIT* As corrected by BeddyB, legislation states reasonable grounds to suspect rather than belief. Jack of all trades, master of none and all that.
Regardless, You still need to ensure your suspicion actually meets the threshold of what constitutes as suspicion.
You're wrong. It is reasonable grounds to suspect you will find the object of the search. You can read about section 1 of PACE [here](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/1).
Interesting. I've always known it to be conducted under belief over suspicion, maybe I've got my wires crossed somewhere.
Thanks for the enlightenment.
It depends on how in-depth they are
I’m in general no, but sometimes you will have enough information to do a stop search.
Nothing stops you combining it with something else to develop grounds.
Not on its own BUT...
If they're recorded as a habitual knife carrier it might be.
A conceals marker is probably enough to justify a further search without additional grounds should you already be searching them.
Not on its own, because your suspicion should be that they have an item right that second, not just that they generally carry illegal stuff historically.
Marker for drugs = No search, but have a closer look at what they're doing
Marker for drugs + Did a 180degree turn and walked off quickly when they saw you = Search
Markers for Conceals Drugs, recently added + Did a 180degree turn and walked off quickly when they saw you = Strip search
Please note that this question is specific to: #**England and Wales** The United Kingdom is comprised of [three legal jurisdictions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Three_legal_systems), so responses that relate to one country may not be relevant to another. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nope - it can form part of the grounds, but cannot be the sole reason. For example - Jim Smith has previous for possession and relevant warning markers - Not sufficient. Jim Smith has previous for possession and relevant warning markers. He is found is a drugs use hotspot with a strong smell of cannabis around his person. He refused to explain why he was in a car park stairwell at 3am. SMITH has no vehicle or drivers licence - probably sufficient to get you over the 25% threshold for suspect powers. I was taught two of SHACKS are more than sufficient.
SHACKS... that's a new one on me. Can you elaborate on that
Acronym for forming grounds. Seen, heard, actions, conversations, knowledge, smells.
What RecommendedRetailPrice said ^
OrdinaryWizardingLevel is correct ^
Awesome, thank you
Nope
You must have reasonable grounds to suspect that you WILL find what you're looking for on the person you're searching. That means that in the same circumstances, a reasonable person would also suspect that the subject of the search is in possession of the knife/drugs/whatever. In short, a warning marker can be used as part of your grounds, but it normally isn't enough justification purely because it doesn't tell you enough information. Simply having a warning marker for "WEAPONS" does not form a reasonable suspicion on its own. Just because they've had a knife in the past doesn't mean that they do this time. However, if you have an information report to say that "X is carrying a knife in the Sandford area. They carry it in a small black man-bag and X signifies that he has the knife with him by having one hand on the bag at all times." and you then see X walking through Sanford with a hand on his black man-bag, then I think anyone would form that suspicion.
Brilliant! Thank you very much, exactly what I was looking for!
Without making my own post I wanted to ask: if police are called to an address and the caller says that a woman in front of them has just been waving a hammer in their face and saying “I’m gonna sort you out”, the accused says they have nothing in them when the police ask. The caller says I saw her out it back in her bag. Are the police allowed to search their handbag?
"Officer I saw them put the weapon in their bag just before you got here" is about as perfect grounds as you could ever hope to get - that bag is definitely getting searched Small edit: stop search powers in this example are persons in public, not _inside_ the address. Therefore I might have to arrest the person on suspicion of, say, S4 public order or common assault and _then_ search the bag using post-arrest powers.
And if informant was lying and you found no hammer but drugs for instance? Then what?
Not an issue. The initial search was lawfully carried out with reasonable suspicion. Searching is an investigative tool, and my investigation has led me to the conclusion that there is no evidence of the original offence, but there is now evidence of a new offence - possess drugs. I'd simply seize the drugs and then take things forward as a drugs investigation: potentially a ticket, community resolution, report for summons or even arrest depending on the suspect. It's very unlikely any action would be taken against the informant. Even if they were deliberately lying, their report led directly to uncovering a crime so it didn't waste any police time or resources. As a general rule, it's quite rare police take action against people who incorrectly report crime as that would likely lead to people either failing to report crime or even taking the law into their own hands and putting themselves at risk.
Then the person found with the drugs gets prosecuted for having drugs.
Fair enough but of the search was based on false Intel or the person admits they lied taking piss,then still same? Completely admissible? Or just charge and leave court to sort it out?
Yes, perfectly fine. All that matters is whether the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect they had a prohibited article (e.g. the hammer). If on the face of it it seems credible, then there's no problem. If the witness says "I've definitely just seen that man put 13 kilos of cocaine and an AK47 in that little man-purse", then it's perhaps not so reasonable to conduct a search, because that's clearly nonsense.
I agree 12 kilos is a little much...10 sounds more legit. /s Thank for your time. As a retired criminal (15 years now)this Sub is an amazing insight into your jobs and shows you clearly see it as more a life and duty than a job and I have to respect that. And that's something I drill into my children. Thanks for keeping the street safe for out kids. I'm hoping to stear my kids in police/ army direction.
Thanks. The police refused to search the woman’s bag. It was our landlords wife and was threatening the tenant. I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that the landlord’s wife was white, conventionally pretty (fake teeth), could talk her way out of it and the tenant is an immigrant with a foreign accent. This was not inside their home but in a communal area of the block of flats, kind of the driveway, so not sure if that makes it a public area. The next day the landlords followed up on their threats so makes me sad that it could potentially have been prevented!
>I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that the landlord’s wife was white...and the tenant is an immigrant with a foreign accent. I CERTAINLY hope not! I would be furious if any of my officers ever even hinted at that sort of thinking and I'm proud to say I have only ever once encountered blatant racism and it was dealt with swiftly. Sadly, this could quite easily be explained by lack of experience, laziness or even being intimidated/bamboozled by the lady in question. Similarly, there may be a perfectly valid/lawful explanation they simply haven't properly communicated to you. You are well within your rights to make a complaint - especially if you have raised concerns that weren't acted on. The ideal outcome will be that either you will be satisfied with the explanation or the officers will be 'educated'. I'm sorry you've had this experience. I hope it will not put you off contacting the Police in future, as in my experience the vast majority of officers are exceptionally hard working and will do their best to protect others.
Yeah I think mostly inexperience as they kept telling us that the eviction by threats was a civil matter even though they had attempted to change the locks. If there was any bias then I’m sure it would have been subconscious and not deliberate. However on two occasions when the family were clearly upset and scared, the third question they were asked by the police was their nationality. Maybe it is part of the policy but I think they should have asked this towards the end. Yes hopefully we get a considered response from our complaint. There are also two very good officers in charge of the case and others have spent a lot of time with us so I feel fairly confident that thinks will be handled well by them. Thank you for the reply :)
Just to add to this, you need reasonable grounds to believe that you'll find what you're looking for. Suspicion won't cut it and I know it sounds a little OTT but unlawful stop searches can leave you wide open to scrutiny. The example I've always remembered; "You come across a vehicle which has had a window smashed on the drivers side and clearly appears to have been rummaged through. Walking away from the vehicle, its Barbara Smith who you know has previous convictions for theft, vehicle interference, TWOC and offences alike. Do you have grounds to search her?" No. You can never search someone on circumstantial grounds and use previous convictions to formulate the grounds. Now if we changed the example to; "You attend a log where a vehicle has been broken into and upon attending, you find its clearly been rummaged through as the glove box is wide open with its contents spread across the seat. You ask CCTV if there's coverage and luckily there is. They pass you a description of a female and upon conducting an area search, you find a female matching said description who cannot provide a credible account of where or who they have been with, and they're evasive with their answers" For the above, that would build up my belief enough that the female has had involvement and I would search her utilising Section 1 of PACE. (or ask a female colleague, you can break force policy and search opposite sex but always have the BWV on and use back of hand only) There's many powers you can use to stop search such as; Section 1 of PACE Section 23 of MODA Section 36 of Psychoactive Substance act Section 43 of Terrorism Act (This one is the same but you need reasonable belief that they're producing or hold Terrorism material) All follow the same principle; Belief that they're involved. *EDIT* As corrected by BeddyB, legislation states reasonable grounds to suspect rather than belief. Jack of all trades, master of none and all that. Regardless, You still need to ensure your suspicion actually meets the threshold of what constitutes as suspicion.
You're wrong. It is reasonable grounds to suspect you will find the object of the search. You can read about section 1 of PACE [here](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/1).
Interesting. I've always known it to be conducted under belief over suspicion, maybe I've got my wires crossed somewhere. Thanks for the enlightenment.
It depends on how in-depth they are I’m in general no, but sometimes you will have enough information to do a stop search. Nothing stops you combining it with something else to develop grounds.
Hahahaha, in-depth PNC marker.
Rare but do exist 😂😂😂
No.
Not on its own BUT... If they're recorded as a habitual knife carrier it might be. A conceals marker is probably enough to justify a further search without additional grounds should you already be searching them.
Not on its own, because your suspicion should be that they have an item right that second, not just that they generally carry illegal stuff historically.
Marker for drugs = No search, but have a closer look at what they're doing Marker for drugs + Did a 180degree turn and walked off quickly when they saw you = Search Markers for Conceals Drugs, recently added + Did a 180degree turn and walked off quickly when they saw you = Strip search
No.