UK - stop and search Q's

[robert whitfield]

SWIMS Friend was recently given a caution for cultivation of cannabis, the police mentioned that they would stop and search him whenever possible.

SWIM would like to know if having a caution for drugs on file gives the police reasonable suspicion to search him, also is there a set number of times the police can stop/search him before it is considered police harassment ?

The police also said to him "be prepared for the door to go through a couple of times" "we are gonna be keeping you on your toes" again SWIM would like to know if the caution is enough for the police to obtain a search warrant and is there a number of times this can be done before being considered harassment ?

Also would the police follow/survey Swims Friend for such a minor offense ?

Robert

[Bikelbees]

He was perhaps lucky to get a caution for cultivation unless it was merely a small pot plant or 2 in the house.

If we are talking about Stop and Search, really it is very unlikely that the police would know that he had a caution before ascertaining his details, clearly if they checked the national database they could find out, but this doesn't seem to increase his chances of being stopped, unless of course its personal and individual police who know him are harassing him. Can they say that his caution gives reasonable grounds for suspicion? In my view no, I suppose at worst it could be a factor, but normally for searches police must have their grounds (and you can ask what they are and make notes) - in the past this was for having a particular appearance etc, but really now the police should justify themselves, if it was for having a caution or even previous convictions, then this is tantamount to saying just because someone has form, that they can be searched at any time. I would refute this and say that "form" itself can never be grounds for such police action (even on the sex offenders register does not entitle police to act in this way), there would need to be another feature (evidence) to justify a raid or Stop and Search. They might try and say that they are having a clampdown on known growers in the area, but this sounds too vague on its own, they would probably back it up with evidence of high electricity bills or a witness reporting lights on during the day, seeing compost going indoors etc.

These threats the police made would probably be denied if he made a complaint, but he might consider starting a complaint given that the police have made unreasonable threats to him.

I doubt if the police are monitoring him for a low-level offence.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Very helpful advice thanks

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by bikelbees

These threats the police made would probably be denied if he made a complaint, but he might consider starting a complaint given that the police have made unreasonable threats to him.

Unreasonable threats? How is it unreasonable for a Police Officer to tell someone who's been found growing marijuana that we will be watching you? Its actually our job to watch those who are known to break the law a little more closely. Ya know, it actually makes sense when you think about it. For example: "Ya know, that guy is a known burglar/rapist/thief. Maybe we should keep an eye on him."

I say its an excellent idea to push the harassment issue. You got off lightly, now push the Police. I doubt you will ever get arrested again and need a break. Especially since Police have absolutely no imput when it comes to what the prosecutor decides to do in future cases.

Cmon guys...

[Pondlife]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Unreasonable threats? How is it unreasonable for a Police Officer to tell someone who's been found growing marijuana that we will be watching you?

Not unreasonable at all. But that's not what the OP said. What he said was that the Police said:

"They would stop and search him whenever possible"
"Be prepared for the door to go through a couple of times"
"We are gonna be keeping you on your toes"

Which is something quite different entirely, and amounts to a threat of harassment.

Its actually our job to watch those who are known to break the law a little more closely.

It's true that most UK police forces do tend to watch known offerers more closely (although this is an operational matter, which is largely at the discretion of the chief constable of the force concerned). As I said before, that's fine, but repeated stop&search and the threat of breaking the door down to search his premises goes further than just "watching".

That guy is a known burglar/rapist/thief. Maybe we should keep an eye on him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

In UK law there is a big difference between the crimes you mention and what the OP was cautioned for, and morally there is a huge difference. Rape is both a sex crime and a crime of violence; burglary and theft are both crimes of dishonesty.

I doubt you will ever get arrested again and need a break.

I guess the US must be very different from the UK, because over here the Police don't tend to "give people a break" if they have broken the law and get caught. There is no list behind the counter at the station which shows the suspects that have shown due respect and deserve a break on their next visit.

We have a separation of powers in rightpondia, which can be summarised as:

Police: Catch offenders;
Courts: Decide what to do with them.

I'm certainly not advocating antagonising the Police though. This is both unnecessary and counter-productive.

Especially since Police have absolutely no imput when it comes to what the prosecutor decides to do in future cases.

In the UK, that decision is made by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS); not the Police. The CPS was set up partly to prevent the sort of abuse of the system you are suggesting might happen. In my experience, the CPS decide to prosecute based on the strength of the case against the accused.

ObTrivia: The CPS is sometimes known as "The Clown Prosecution Service" by defence solicitors, and "The Criminal Protection Service" by the police. That last one also shows the amount of input that the police have in influencing their decision.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by pondlife

Not unreasonable at all. But that's not what the OP said. What he said was that the Police said:

"They would stop and search him whenever possible"
"Be prepared for the door to go through a couple of times"
"We are gonna be keeping you on your toes"

Which is something quite different entirely, and amounts to a threat of harassment.

We have a separation of powers in rightpondia, which can be summarised as:

Police: Catch offenders;
Courts: Decide what to do with them.

I'm certainly not advocating antagonising the Police though. This is both unnecessary and counter-productive.

In the UK, that decision is made by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS); not the Police. The CPS was set up partly to prevent the sort of abuse of the system you are suggesting might happen. In my experience, the CPS decide to prosecute based on the strength of the case against the accused.

That absolutely is not harassment.

Police Officers most often have a very strong relalationship with the Prosecutors who prosecute their cases. If a Cop speaks to a Prosecutor and asks them not to plead out the defendant then alot of times it wont happen. Or if a plea deal happens it will not be as favorable to the defendant as it could have been.

Originally Posted by Alfa

I don´t know the situation, but wouldn´t you agree that if someone that once got a caution for trying to grow a baby pot plant, should not be afraid that the cops can bust his door in at any time? If he would, then that threat would be harassment IMHO.

But I am not aware of exact UK law, so I can't judge the legal situation. And it is the legal situation that matters.

I guarantee what the Police Officer actually said was something more along the lines of "If you keep this up then this wont be the last time we kick in your door." Or "If we find out that you're growing more weed we'll be back to kick in your door." Both of those statements are, if anything, lawful promises.

[Pondlife]

Originally Posted by robert whitfield

SWIMS Friend was recently given a caution for cultivation of cannabis

Do you mean that he was offered and accepted an official police caution? If so, then he has admitted that he is guilty of the offense and that fact will be kept on record. This can have implications for his future career if he wants to work in a profession that will require a CRB check.

IMO, police cautions are often offered by the police when they are not confident of a conviction. I'd always ask to speak to a solicitor before accepting a caution, because of the potential future impact.

I wonder why the police chose to offer a caution in this instance? Normally cultivation would be prosecuted. Was it a very small amount, or were there reasons why a conviction may have been difficult?

Originally Posted by robert whitfield

the police mentioned that they would stop and search him whenever possible.

The powers for the police to stop and search are contained in three main laws:

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows an officer to search for a stolen or prohibited item or for something intended for use in acts of criminal damage providing they have "reasonable suspicion" that a criminal act is being committed.

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives officers the power to stop and search for articles that could be used in terrorism. No reasonable suspicion is required.

Searches can also be made under the Firearms Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act, and a few other acts.

As you can probably imagine, taken together this means that the police can stop and search anyone they want to.

However, they must identify themselves (name and station is enough I think), and give the grounds for the search. I believe that the person searched has the right to see the record of the search for up to a year.

My advice would be: don't resist any search (or the police will have grounds to take him down the station, which is not a good idea) but ask for and make a note of the officer's details and the reasons for the search. Then follow up by asking to see a copy of the report, and make notes from this as well.

This achieves two things: firstly, it can help if he wants to make a harassment complaint later, and more importantly the police will know this. They will not want to risk a complaint and a potential black mark against them.

Reputation Comments on this post:

thanks for the advice

[Evil GIR]

At the moment you can be stoped and searched for more or less any reason, though at the moment you dont have to tell them your name or address, you dont really have to tell them where you have been. But soon there trying to put in a new law where you can be arrested or fined for not giving them these details.

[Alfa]

It is not unreasonable for a police officer to watch or investigate someone that has been found growing cannabis, but it is unreasonable for a police officer to threaten the suspect. A police officer´s job is to investigate and find proof of criminal acts. Watching and investigating falls under that description. Threatening people, even suspects, is itself a criminal act.
I don´t know the situation, but wouldn´t you agree that if someone that once got a caution for trying to grow a baby pot plant, should not be afraid that the cops can bust his door in at any time? If he would, then that threat would be harassment IMHO.

But I am not aware of exact UK law, so I can't judge the legal situation. And it is the legal situation that matters.

[Bikelbees]

What is changing in many countries is the model of criminal justice followed. Criminologists talk of the creeping towards a managerial system of justice. This means that statistics concerning projected recidivism or even first-time law breaking are used to design criminal justice policy. Persons are categorised into risk-categories (this is particularly widespread with sex-offenders whom are used as the thin end of the wedge in removing our civil-liberties as no-one generally is prepared to defend their freedoms). Drugs and users are another easy target. Remember it is wrong to talk about ex-offenders as "known criminals" as if there was 100% recidivism. In fact it doesn't matter what the level of re-offending is - once you have paid your penalty you should be free. The model of justice we are moving away from is where citizens are innocent until proven guilty and the guilty pay with a finite punishment and then become free-citizens again; managerial systems view us all with varying amounts of suspicion. PO is wrong to suggest that a convicted marijuana grower should reasonably be watched, or as in this case, one who had been cautioned; this is because a caution (or previous conviction) in my understanding is not a license for police to monitor a person closely -it is a status which is dormant until the individual re-offends - and then it is invoked as a previous criminal act to be taken into consideration as to what follows. The use of this information for surveillance purposes is novel and of concern.

Whilst law n order hard-liners say "nothing to hide - nothing to fear" and how it is an efficient use of resources to target "known criminals" - really they don't have any interest in the value of privacy and liberty as important ideals in themselves. Their solutions are profoundly dystopian whether they be trying to design out crime from city centres through removing all private areas, removing seats and benches and sweeping hi-tech blanket CCTV or monitoring telephones, internet etc etc in the name of crime-fighting.

I would like to make one political point here, where people from both sides of the fence are often wrong IMO is that they allow a presumed common sense point to dictate policy without considering what that policy represents in terms of control and power. Whilst the sex-offenders register seems superficially attractive to many for the reasons mentioned earlier, really it is an extension of state power to create an open-prison, whereas prison design as panopticon is one matter, the extension of this control ideal to civil society to remove the private-sphere is a fundamentally debilitating phenomenon as regards having a progressive society in which humanity can evolve.

Of course terrorists and sex-offenders are of concern, but the crux of the issue is this - we live in a non-idealistic world where power is not fairly distributed, this is the "cause" of all law. We need the hard-won space of rights, that negotiated and diminishing area of individual freedom from the state (as opposed to the misnomer of "rights" as state protection from other citizens whether they be criminals of whatever) to breathe in. I would implore people not to be over-pragmatic in giving their rights away. On the back of anti-terrorism now every web-site watched persons visit can be recorded. I would prefer people to be able to access websites on bomb-making than suffer state control of the written word. We all fear others and that is the sad reality of our-times and the dog eat dog society they created for us. I guess even these words trigger screening software somewhere. Remember that it is not the absence of control which causes any social problem (although if they are tough enough they might stamp out a certain activity), it is the whole set-up that causes the problems and we need the autonomy to change it, to better it, not surveillance and censorship.

[Big Fella]

Unless you live in a small town, with one copper and you are the only druggie I doubt very much that the police will waste time on this.

It is much like saying to your child after yo have told them off "I will be watching you"

The police are busy enough with serious crimes and class A dealers and aquisitive crime to not put any energy into this, SWIM works within the CJS so is more than aware of this.

Like I said, unless of course you are a small town boy and he is a small town cop.

[rocksmokinmachine]

The police may only search you if they have reasonable suspicion. They can't just do a random search. They may only search you if they have reasonable suspicion that you are carrying;

Drugs
Weapons
Stolen property
Terrorism-related evidence

(or in certain category football matches)

THEY MUST HAVE REASON TO SUSPECT YOU (such as a detailed description, your behaviour, or other intelligence) before they can search you. If they do not, they cannot, under law, search you. The only exception is if officers are searching for evidence related to terrorism.

Reasonable suspicion does not constitute having a caution for cultivating cannabis.

You should not be stopped or searched solely because of your age, race, ethnic background, nationality or religion.

These searches are usually just a quick frisk for weapons and then the officer will usually ask you to empty your pockets. The officer will have to have authority for a more 'detailed' search. You are only required to remove your outer coat and gloves. YOU DO NOT have to remove any other item of clothing. Always ask for a written copy of the search. If the officer finds something illegal and the search was unlawful the likelyhood is that it will be laughed out of court.