-> Police may stop and search individuals or vehicles in public places (excluding dwellings) where the public has access. 

-> The search must be based on reasonable grounds for suspicion that the person has stolen or is in possession of prohibited articles. 

Procedure for Stop and Search FOR Sections 2 and 3 of PACE  

• Before a Search:  

-> Inform: The officer must take reasonable steps to inform the person of:  

1. The officer’s name and station. 

2. The object of the search. 

3. The grounds for the search. 

4. The person’s right to request a record of the search. 

5. The officer’s warrant card if not in uniform. 

• During the Search:  

-> The search should be conducted in a manner that respects the individual’s rights and adheres to the principles of fairness and responsibility outlined in Code A. 

• After the Search:  

-> A record of the search must be made, including details such as the classification of the person’s ethnic origin, the grounds and result of the search, and the officer's identity. 

• Full details of the incident, including dates, times, and location.

• Names and badge numbers of officers involved (if known).

• evidence you may have. (video, things)

The more information provide, the easier it will be to investigate complaint.

AFTER SUBMISSION OF COMPLAINT

Assessment:

The police or IOPC will assess whether your complaint requires further investigation.

Investigation:

Depending on the nature of the complaint, it may be investigated by the police force involved but IOPC will suprvise it, or independently by the IOPC.

Outcomes:

You will receive a written report about the investigation

Solution:

To receive an appropriate apology, solution, or conclusion that no further action needs to be taken)

Code of practice G

Types

With warrant

Without warrant

Breach of peace

Power (S.24 of PACE)

The police must have reasonable grounds to link to criminal offence.

The arrest has to be necessary.

Reason of arrest (S.24(5) of PACE)

to ascertaining the name or address prevent injury/damage to property

prevent the person committing an offence against public decency

causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway

to protect a child or other vulnerable person

support the prompt investigation/ prosecution of an offence

Procedure (S28 of PACE)

S.28(1) &(3) states that when a person is arrested they must be told:

that they are under arrest

the grounds for the arrest, i.e. the offence for which they have been arrested

the reason(s) for the arrest being necessary

Key cases:

- 'Anyone' (including non-police) can arrest another person to prevent an imminent breach of the peace.

- McConnell v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

- Bibby v Chief Constable of Essex Police

-> Arrest with Warrant

• A police officer seeks permission from the court (usually a magistrate) to arrest an individual based on evidence or information provided. This is rare and typically used for serious offences.

-> Arrest Without a Warrant (S.24 PACE)

• Section 24 of PACE provides wide-ranging powers of arrest without a warrant. As amended by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA), this section covers all offences, not just those previously labeled as arrestable.

• The Two-Stage Process for Arrest:

  1. There must be reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence (past, present, or future).

  2. The arrest must be deemed necessary, with justifiable reasons, such as:

     • Preventing harm to others or property.

     • Preventing the individual from escaping or absconding.

     • Protecting a child or vulnerable person.

     • Ensuring a proper investigation.

- Must be based on objective facts or intelligence, not on personal factors or stereotypes.

- Police need a specific reason to suspect that an individual is carrying stolen or prohibited items.

Case Examples:

1. Gardner v. King: A police officer’s decision to stop and search must be based on more than just a radio message; it requires an objective assessment of the situation.

2. Tomlinson v. DPP: Presence in a high-crime area does not justify a stop and search unless there are specific grounds for suspicion.

-> Limitations and Protections

1. Clothing Search:

- Police cannot require a person to remove clothing in public beyond an outer coat, jacket, or gloves.

- An officer of the same sex must conduct more thorough searches in a private location.

2. Protection of Rights:

- Code A emphasizes that stop and search powers must be exercised fairly, in accordance with the individual’s rights, and without unlawful discrimination.

- The search should be brief and conducted near the location where the individual was first detained.

• Police officers does not uphold automatic right to search people when they are being held at a police station

• Custody officer has a duty to record everything a person has with them when they were brought to the police station

• A non-intimate search can be made if custody officer finds necessary

• ss 1-7 of PACE, also other Acts, e.g. Misuse of Drugs Acts 1971 ( Stop & Search ) - search of strictly belongings a person has

(Strip Searches)

• Defined in Code C as searches ‘involving the removal of more than outer clothing’

• May only take place if it is necessary to remove an article which a person in detention should not posses

• With reasonable suspicion that said person might have concealed such an article

• ss 62 PACE ]

• Person who is not related to the search or member of the opposite sex should not be present when search is conducted

• uspect are usually not required to remove all clothing at the same time

• A man should be allowed to to wear his shirt back on before he removes his trousers and a woman should be given a robe or similar garment to wear once top garment has been removed

(Intimate Searches)

• If there is cause to suspect that the subject is in possession of a Class A narcotic or that they are carrying an instrument that might be used to harm them or others physically, a senior police officer may approve an intimate search

• "A search which consists of the physical examination of a person's body orifices other than the mouth" is the definition of an intimate search.

• If the search has to do with pharmaceuticals, only someone who is properly qualified—like a doctor or nurse—may do it. If the search is for other objects, it should, if at all possible, be conducted by someone who is sufficiently competent, although it may be conducted by someone else with permission from a senior police officer

Fingerprints and Body Samples

• [ ss 62,63 of PACE ]

• While a person is detained the police may take fingerprints and non-intimate body samples such as hair and saliva without the person's consent.

• The police may use reasonable force to obtain these if needed

• Intimate samples are defined as:

A sample of blood, semen or any other tissue fluid, urine or pubic hair

A dental impression

A swab taken from any part of a person's genitals or from a person's body orifice other than the mouth

• These can only be taken by a registered medical practitioner or a nurse.

  
  

  A sample will only be taken where there is reasonable ground for suspecting involvement in a offence but the sample can be checked against information held on other crimes.

Retention of Samples

Until 2001 fingerprints and samples were only kept when the suspect was found guilty

In 2001 the law changed that even if a suspect is found not guilty, their DNA profiles and fingerprints will be kept indefinitely in the national database(Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001).

Problems?

This violates the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

S and Marper v Uk

Facts

• In 1998, S(an 11-year-old boy) was arrested and charged for attempted robbery and Marper(an adult) was charged with harrassment of his patner.

• In 1999, Both S and Marper were aquitted of their charges.

• The police still retained both S and Marper’s DNA samples, fingerprints and cellular samples(as that was the law at the time)

• In 2001 S and Marper challenged the court for the retention of their biometric data as it violated their right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

• Their challenge was unsuccessful as House of Lord ruled in favour of the UK government, stating that the retention of DNA and fingerprint data served a legitimate purpose in preventing crime.

• In 2004 S and Marper took their case to European Court of Human Rights, claiming that retention of their biometric data violated their rights under section 8 of the ECHR.

• In 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of S and Marper. The court held that the indefinite retention of biometric samples of people who had not been convicted was a breach of Article 8.

( the police kept s and Marper’s biometric date under the Criminal and Justice Act of 1994, which allowed the retention of DNA samples and fingerprints even if a person was acquitted.)

Result of S and Marper v UK

Under the Protection of Freedom Act 2012, time limit for retention of fingerprint and DNA profiles is 3 years.

However, if the person has a previous conviction then the records may be kept indefinitely.

When a person has not been charged, the permission of the Commissioner for the retention and use of biometric material must be obtained.

Taking of fingerprints prior to arrest

Legal authorities have the legal right to collect an individual’s fingerprint before formally arresting them or without taking them to the police station

You can check the fingerprints against the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System.

• The power of taking fingerprints can only be used when:

  1. When the officer reasonably suspects that the person is

  • Committing or attempting to commit an offence

  • has committed or attempted to commit an offence

  2. The name of the person is unknown to and cannot be readily ascertained by the officer

  3. The officer has reasonable grounds for doubting whether the name given by the person is his real name