Stop and Search Rights UK | Police Power Stop and Search for Prohibited Items | BlackBeltBarrister
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 05. 2021
- You have certain rights if the police detain and search you.
The police have a power to stop and search you under various Acts of Parliament. For example there is the power to search for prohibited drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and a general power to search under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. You have certain rights if the police stop and search you for prohibited items or articles. The police must provide you with the grounds of the search, which is the reason you have been stopped and detained for the purposes of a search. The police must provide you with the object of the search, that is the item or article that the police are looking for when carrying out the search. The police must then identify themselves before carrying out the search, this may be by showing you their warrant card, providing you their identity and collar number, and, they must tell you which station they are attached to. If the offices are in plain clothes when they carry out the search they must present their warrant card to identify themselves. The police must also provide you with the legal power under which they are carrying out the search for example, as above, the power to search for drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Finally, the police must tell you that you are being detained for the purposes of a search. If the police want to search more thoroughly they may ask you to remove an outer layer of clothing, but for a more complete or, a full strip search, this must be authorised by a more senior officer (such as an inspector) and must be done away from public view and members of the opposite sex; this type of search is usually carried out in a police tent or at the police station or, in rare situations, A search may be carried out in a police van.
Brilliant contract law book:
amzn.to/2PHC2O1
Excellent book with an overview of criminal law:
amzn.to/3gTPEAV
Become a channel member to access stripes and perks!
/ @blackbeltbarrister
My camera gear:
Big Camera amzn.to/3yFFcFf
Small Camera amzn.to/2RB7ez9
RODE VIDEOMic Pro+ amzn.to/2QCJURi
Gobe ND Filter amzn.to/2R3eEuA
Neewer Ring Light amzn.to/3aOkLtT
Switch Pod amzn.to/3sZb8yA
JOBY Tripod amzn.to/3dXJYDT
External Media Drive amzn.to/3uxNDOQ And if you like my house and decor:
MY CHAIR:
amzn.to/3mYpPBB
Lamp 1 amzn.to/3ntbEnm
Lamp 2 amzn.to/3dXfUZi
AND OF COURSE MY CZcams CHANNEL MEMBERSHIPS!
Learn more about trespass and tort law:
amzn.to/32N6TLS
(Affiliate link)
Other law tips:
• Common Law
Consumer law:
• Consumer Law
Tree law:
• Tree Law Miniseries
Road traffic law:
• Road Traffic Law
Family law:
• Family Law
Disclaimer:
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action.
#blackbeltbarrister #law #barrister. Descriptionmay contain affiliate or sponsored links, for which we may receive commissions or payment.
Go Wisely...
G - Grounds for the search
O - Object (what is it you are looking for)
W - Warrent Card of the officer
I - Identity of officer
S - Station they are based at
E - Entitlement to a copy of the search
L - Legal Power under which the stop and search has made
Y - You are being detained for the purposes of a search. You have to be told this.
Was just GOWISE back in the 90's.
This should be the pinned comment
Worth pointing out that for 'object', the search should be confined to areas where the object is likely to be found.
If the object of the search is a 12" machete, the officer (in theory) should not be looking in your wallet for it.
I suspect that in real life, this particular provision of the Code of Practice is rarely adhered to.
You assuming police actually obey the law and their own policies!?😂😂😂
In the streets all that GOWISELY nonsense flies out of the window.. the police will make up all kind of crimes..
Good to know il pass that on
Is it also the case that the search should stop if the object is found?
@@thewyj
Um.. you will be arrested and strip search at the police station.. GUARANTEED.
The police routinely lie and falsely arrest innocent members of the public.. imagine, you actually commit a crime!?😂😂😂
@@thewyj a section 1 stop or section 23 of the misuse if drugs act search would end powers wise but then if you are arrested then section 32 of PACE search would then begin.
I had an experience a number of years ago in Scotland with a stop and search. I was with my fiancé, and my 8yr old daughter, we decided to walk to the shopping centre as it was a nice day. I am not know to the police, I had minor offences as a teenager but by his time I was in my mid 30's and have no criminal record or been involved in any sort of crime.
I was walking our dog (a Jack Russell, not a Pitbull) so was about 200 yards behind my fiancé and daughter as they were eager to go shopping! I was walking past a street entrance when a police van pulled up and detained me for a search. I asked why and they explanation I was given was "we suspect you have just bought drugs from a nearby property" They had me take my jacket, shoes and socks off in the middle of the street.
Luckily my fiancé and daughter did not witness this. After the search was over they just told me to put my clothing back on, hopped in their van and drove away! I was left a bit stunned stood in the street barefooted with my shoes and socks in my hand and my jacket hung on a fence where the officer left it!
I understand Scotland has one of the highest drug death rates in Europe plus a really bad knife crime rate but I wasn't some teenager or a pale looking skeletal figure so to say the least this left a bit of a bitter taste in my mouth.
Go Wisely. I had never heard of this before, but what a great way to remember your rights and what should happen if stopped and searched. And congratulations on the continuing rise in subscriber numbers. Long may it last.
As always, thanks for watching!
@@BlackBeltBarrister G=get the f*** out of there, O=Oh my god W= whiskey drink as much as you can, I = insult the police, S=say nowt E=end it quickly, L= leg it, Y = your fault
what rights????!! as far as i can tell by what he said you have none in the UK
@@robchissy exactly lmao
For the Sale of Goods Act, remember SAD FART (Martin Lewis came up with that).
Man I'm a prelaw major in the US, it's amazing seeimg the similarities and influence English laws have shaped our judicial system. I can see we still have major influences from the UK to this day.
I thought that the first week of your course would have covered the history of your law. British law actually ties some countries closer together more than ethnicity or language.
.....and it is not good because it is too complicated and confusing.
Well you might be pre-law but clearly not much of a history student eh? Why is it a surprise to you that the USA has a lot of law similar to the UK's - maybe it's something to do with YOU BEING OUR FUCKING COLONY FOR CLOSE TO TWO CENTURIES !!! (170 years)
Why would the founding fathers throw out laws and a system that had been built and refined by the British legal fraternity over the course of 1000 years by that point. UK law in it's entirety started when the romans invaded and brought their system with them to the mainly tribal groups of pre-roman Britain who only adhered to the social constructs within their SPECIFIC TRIBE.
Now I know why most USA lawyers are halfwits, and that's being generous to most of you. My brother married a USA lawyer, she's a halfwit who doesn't even think wearing seatbelts in a car is a good idea. A LAWYER, who has the power to SEND PEOPLE TO PRISON "Doesn't believe in seatbelts". You want to know the best bit? She used to be the ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTOURNEY FOR THE NYC DISTRICT OF BROOKLYN. Small wonder your country is as fucked up as it is, mostly by halfwit lawyers.
Great work !! Can't wait for the other video on a different ,oh lets call it tactics , instances where questioned outside a police station. This kind of explanation comes at a price usually... but not here. Another pro bono work amongst many more :) much appreciated 👏👍
If no crime has taken place they have no grounds to search
Thank you for all the information pertaining to the rights of an individual and the police.
Good information, especially in this day and age.
Given the current climate
Very informative as always, BBB, thanks.
Thanks, indeed!
I find it strange that any bladed “tool” is automatically classed as a weapon when it has not been used as a weapon. Surely even a house brick is just a brick until it has been weaponised by using to attack or defend oneself.
Blackbeltbarrister has a few videos on bladed articles and what circumstances make it okay for you to be in possession of such objects in a public place . For example if you have the bricks in your car because your intending to build something with them or use them as a brick it's totally okay whilst if you are just walking about the street with a brick in hand the public can feel threatend by it or if your using the brick to threaten someone it becomes an offensive weapon .
Your hands are weapons but you can't leave home without them,but why have a knife on you ?
Any item can be classed as an offensive weapon. Example you have a baseball bat and ball gloves and a ball in your car you could argue it was to play baseball. But you'd have hard job proving it's not intended as a weapon if you just have the baseball bat. It's all about imtention of the item.
Example 1) your a carpet layer and you have just finished work and carrying a stanley knife on your tool belt - unlikely you will be arrested, 2) going out on the town and drunk in your best Saturday night gear carrying a stanley knife in you jeans pocket - no brainer! Carrying a brick into a pub or walking down the street with one (unless you're Father Jack (czcams.com/video/R1ZU6UMDfgY/video.html)) could be classed as carrying an item to cause criminal damage, how often do you take a brick drinking?
Even a rolled up magazine could be classed as a weapon (if you get stopped by an egotistical cop it will always be classed as a weapon )
even if you just bought it.
Police abuse section 43 all the time to grab your details , and often handcuff you during a search , I would be grateful if you could outline the laws on this
"Reasonable grounds" can only come from a person of reasonable judgement, of which police hardly ever are.
And a lot of "acts" (which are not laws) violate human rights, such as swearing in public, which is the human right of "freedom of opinion and expression". And police saying they can pull any car over for no reason is a blatant violation of "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." Pulling someone over = detention. For no reason = Arbitrary.
Yet these are the same fundemental human rights police swear an oath to uphold. Just shows how corrupt this system really is.
Terrorism is defined by section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the actual definition of 'terrorism' is specifically described in the police own Code of Practice 2.2 and must satisfy section 43-
In summary the term “terrorism” in the 2000 Act means the use or threat of action where:
the action used or threatened:
- involves serious violence against a person or serious damage to property;
- endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action;
- creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the
public; or
- is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic
system.
the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international
governmental organisation, or intimidate the public or a section of the public; and
the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial
or ideological cause.
A few months ago the IOPC in upholding a complaint against an officer stated that being able to smell drugs is not sufficient grounds for a search. The problem is that officers can make this unprovable claim to justify a search where they have no valid grounds.
Smell alone cannot be grounds but if their are other grounds then It can still be used.
@@techzonetzuk yes but "I can smell drugs" is all you usually get out of the police and they seem to think that's enough. On a YT video I watched earlier today a driver when asked why he was stopped was told it was just a routine stop to check his documents. When he queried why him a second officer said he'd seen the driver fidgeting with something when he pulled up and based on that believed he was hiding drugs so was going to search the car. When asked to get out of the car he couldn't because the officer was in the way, when he ask the officer to move so he could get out he was accused of been obstructive, twisted him up and handcuffed. This officer had no reasonable grounds for the search and in my opinion created a situation where by he could justify assaulting and handcuffing the driver. He had no other grounds than he saw the driver fidgeting which was probably the driver setting his phone to record. And this wasn't mentioned until he questioned why he'd been stopped and the officer obviously got the hump. They make it up as they go along and they get away with it because for the most part police investigate themselves and even with video evidence nothing gets done unless a lot of weight is put behind it from an outside source. I work with an ex police officer and he hates todays young cops because they believe they're above the law and untouchable.
@@steveakam The police are taught to escalate situations so that the target finally reacts and then they have grounds to make an arrest, The most important thing is to try to stay calm and quiet. You can not win against them out on the road but you can win later on in court.
@@unclekevin5094 in the video I saw earlier the lad was perfectly respectful and polite, the police officer went from zero to 60 in one second without any provocation at all, he didn't give the poor lad time to get wound up and react just created a situation then bam.
I work with an ex police officer and he says they base everything on the attitude test. If they don't like your attitude your going to get a hard time. He said with most officers it depends on your general demeanor, if your friendly ok, if your gobby then how gobby dictates how much shit your going to get. With some officers you fail the test just by asking a question, they don't like having their authority questioned.
If only the police would abide by their own code of conduct.
I notice that you mention making a complaint, but not that with breaches of your rights you can take that officer to civil court and prosecute for compensation. I think more people need to know this, as it might help keep the police in line
Cannot take a individual police officer for civil court for actions and powers granted to them by PACE 1984 you can make a complaint and ask for criminal prosecutions to take place if an offence has taken place but if not then you cannot take an individual officer to court if dreamed acting in the duties of a constable.
@@techzonetzuk This is true, but if the officer is acting unlawfully then they'd likely be acting outside their duties as an officer, and are then open to a variety of suits, e.g. assault (& battery) false arrest, unlawful detention, trespass (i.e. vehicle searches). The public as a majority seem to be ignorant of this, and the (dirty) police count on this fact.
@@techzonetzuk your correct you can't take a police officer to court, but if you been harmed, that police officer as no indemnity against harming a Man/Woman.
A police officer is a legal fiction called a person, an assumed character, it's called, calling them out by name, no public liability will cover them for harming any Man or Woman, who as trespass against a living breathing Man or Woman who was created by the father most high, the father of all creation. He gave us life to be free, and have the freedom of freewill, so if you don't know your rights like most people, as most people believe wrongfully they're written down, when there not, they have none..
So in fact your not taking a police officer to court, your taking the Man or Woman inside that uniform to court.
Just remember the golden rule "we are all equal under the law," so what's the law ?
Law, the word is singular and not plural, so there must be only one, so what encompasses all law ?
"Do no harm," eight letters comprising of three words cause no one an injury or loss resulting in harm. It real is that simple, if someone is claiming you have done wrong, get them to prove it by making a claim.
You wouldn't go around accusing people of a wrong, would you ?. Well this barrister is telling you the truth, when he says this is not "legal advice," it's just his opinion.
Well he as an opinion, so why can't you or I ? If you think inside of the box, that's all your every know, I don't.
Gain the knowledge, by having meaning to the words you use, if we don't have meaning to the words we use, we would all be babbling.
When someone say you can't do this or that, think why ? Then you just asked yourself a question, are you going to think of an answer and do your own research to see if your correct, either way, or not ?
Or, are you just going to conform to what your told, and hang on every word your told, and believe the establishment, they say "ignorance is an excuse but, ignorance of the law is no excuse ".
How many times have you heard politicians evading the question, the police are just a corporation denoted by their D-U-N-S number (data universal numbering system) and are a commercial business, commercial (adj.) 1680s, "engaging in trade," from commerce + -al (1). Meaning"done for the sake of financial profit".
That why they need you to consent to contract with them, most people do because they don't know their rights, if I stop you in the street, would you agree to me stopping and searching you ?
Clearly not, what make you think it's any different with the police ?
Any Man or Woman as the ability to think for themselves, so why be reactive, when you have the ability to be proactive. The police are a corporate entity called a person who acting as a police constable, who are there to keep the peace, are they not ?
So being proactive, proactive creating or controlling a situation rather than just responding to it after it has happened.
In other words the one who asking the questions by creating them, is always in control. Why do you think the police, won't answer questions ? They're not allowed to argue, if they argue then clearly they are in conflict and not at peace.
If they will not answer your questions, then why should you answer there's ?
I always give them a remedy to cure the situation, staying in honour. If they are accusing me of a wrong, then we can go directly to court and they can file a complaint and I will make a claim.
They never go down that route, because they would lose and they know it, as a complaint can be null and voided (void ab initio), rescinding it to the status quo ante. Whereas a claim made by a Man/Woman must be heard in open court and if you do the whole process yourself you can't lose, and a claim once in open court when both parties are present, is closed and sealed forever.
So, the next remedy I offer them is, they can arrest me, and I will comply under protest and duress, then anything obtained or gathered is inadmissible in court as it was obtained unlawfully against my will and wishes.
Then once released open up court and seek redress against all involved " ignorance is an excuse, but ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The third offer is, they can leave me alone, until they have facts that can be proven to be true, when someone makes claim against me, I want to know who's claiming I have trespass against them, and immediately make a claim against them myself.
Well we all know these people don't make claims, they only make complaints which can be rescinded, as they're only offer to contract.
If you don't challenge them at the time by giving them remedies to cure the situation, then on your head, so be it.
We can all be held accountable for our actions, as in accordance with the golden rule, we are all equal under the law.
People do this every day, up and down the country, but it's rarely appears in the media and reported on, they want to keep the masses as ignorant as they can, with their indoctrination.
You see masses of people on the street protesting about lock downs, why ? They believe the authorities have powers over them, and rightfully send out the troops, using the police to quell that descent.
By protesting that they have authority, is arguing, falling in to dishonour. By arguing they have authority, they as Men/Women have given them life to exist.
When all they at to do is carry on, living as the father of creation intended, if stop by people who think they have authority over the Man/Woman, just give them remedies to cure the situation, as I written before,
1, Go directly to court.
2, Comply "Under protest and duress".
3, They can go in peace.
If a judge finds out, the police have cut them out, of judging the situation, after a Man or Woman as given them at least three remedies to cure the situation, they won't be best pleased and want to know who as done this, as that exactly what they are employed for, to resolve disputes. They don't like their authority being questioned.
Life is all about honour and dishonour, always think for yourself, and speak for yourself and most importantly question everything.
If you employ a solicitor/barrister to speak for you, you're saying your incompetent, to settle your own affairs.
Recognise legalese words, they use, like "person, evidence, etc,
Person (n.) Directly from Latin persona "human being, person, personage, a part in a drama assumed character," originally "a mask, a false face," those made of wood or clay worn by actors in later Roman theatre.
Evidence (n.) c. 1300, " appearance from which inferences may be drawn".
Person is man-made, and artificial.
Man/Woman is natural, created by the father of creation, who created us in his imagine.
Evidence is not truth
That's why they always want you to give them your details, if you asked for their, would they give them freely, clearly not, without a court order
If you fail to protest, by giving them a remedy to cure the situation, they got you in to a tacit agreement.
Tacit agreement,
Implied, inferred, understood without being expressly stated. Tacit refers to something done or made in silence, as in a tacit agreement. A tacit understanding is manifested by the fact that no contradiction or objection is made and is thus inferred from the situation and the circumstances.
This clowns who pass themselves of as peace officers, are looking for someone, and that someone could just be you.Remaining silent means, don't answer their questions, but that doesn't mean you can't be proactive.
Look at this document, retired-judge-spills-the-beans,
www.scribd.com/doc/106226872/retired-judge-spills-the-beans
Do you have any links to legalese in the UK? This article is about america
Great vid would love to see another video specifically on cannabis as the laws seem to be changing ATM especially around medical use and the new legal stuff with businesses that deal with CBD products. Cheers!
I thought medical cannabis in the UK was like seeing an unicorn...?
CBD products are really widespread though, they sell them in malls...
@@Micro13bk it's been medically legal since 2018 but there's literally like 5 people on NHS. You have to go private for it which is a joke as they're making lots of money off patients
@@billyspencer7325 It's almost like they don't want you to get it...Which is ironic since Canada is part of the commonwealth and they fully legalized it...
And they are rubbing salt in the wound with that whole private masquerade...from what I read, you must qualify under some pretty extreme ilnesses to get medical pot, and you gotta jump through all those hoops just to get something natural?
Can't believe this is the world we are living in sometimes...
@@Micro13bk yup I went Canada in 2013 and got a med card in a 5 min doctor's appointment lol
Fantastic as always!
Suggestion for a video - Metal detecting - where are you allowed and not allowed to do it? Can you keep what you find?
Read the Treasure Act. Its all there
@ivan schafeldt not necessarily. It comes down to the decision of the coroner in the first instance. It depends on whether the 'treasure' is regarded as lost or hidden.
Dozens of Metropolitan Police officers and special constables have disciplined for using their black warrant cards for blagging free train travel or trying to get access to bars and clubs while drunk.
In total, 58 complaints of officers misusing their warrant cards have been made between February 2013 and January 2015 according to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
According to the disclosure log, the Metropolitan Police has investigated staff for misusing their warrant cards to get free travel on trains, gain access to pubs and nightclubs while drunk and even attend football matches, claiming to be working under cover. Of the 58 complaints during the period under question, 13 officers either retired or resigned from the force following the investigations.
Thank you for this good advice.
And if possible, take your phone out and record your interaction with police, they can't stop you recording them
I actively encourage it, I'm filming you so you can film me, if it makes you feel more comfortable it means we're less likely to use force, just bear in mind if you suddenly lurch for your pocket it can send the wrong signal
very informative. thanks
how many times can you be stopped when the police find nothing before it becomes police harassment
Amazing video, definitely subscribing to your channel. I have one question: What if the officer finds something that they never said they was looking for? Do they have to leave the search there or can they take it further? If they can take it further wouldn't that just be looking for something to incriminate you?
What are your thoughts on the abuse of section 43 for public photography?
2nd that
Even if police are abusing Section 43, allowing them to view the contents of your phone or camera on the spot (in the name of "terrorism"), it's a small price to pay for the legal right of Freedom of Panorama (the right to take photos anywhere and everywhere in public), which most European countries don't have and infact actively ban, including France and Spain.
@@thomascrabtree Viewing the phone is secondary, the intention is to find out who you are, if they really thought you were a terrorist they wouldn't walk up slowly and ask what are you doing, you'd be on the floor with a knee on your neck and the questions would be asked later. I'ts a camera not a gun.
@@rayzalaf8988 aggressive intrusive surveillance is a very real thing. Unfortunately auditors exploit police policy's and social standing to challenge anyone who may be involved in. Use of section 43 is not a right thing to do unless grounds exist but it does raise a very good question on the dangers of auditors and what they can achieve for terrorist organisations without the auditor even knowing.
@@techzonetzuk czcams.com/video/31qKfjxT5Cg/video.html
"Not good practice based on smell alone"... Err someone should inform the Police and the Council that!
There was a video posted online of a lycra-wearing bike rider being stopped by police. As you might expect he was pretty livid and when asked was told he was being detained because the officers "could smell cannabis"!
I'm guessing he's either a fire eater or was smoking using his _other_ bodily oriface.
The suspicion MUST in court be proved, SAY NOTHING, then sue
I think when you say be 'co-operative' that could be pretty misleading advice. Don't resist, sure. Should I give my details under a Stop and Search? I wouldn't. Should I say as little as possible? Yes. There is little to be gained by talking to the police.
Be helpful, give your details, the Police then can rule you out as a suspect.
Being defensive just makes you look suspicious.
@@TheMirrorGuy Yeah... I won't be giving my details. Am not required to and if I choose to exercise my right not to that is not being defensive. Why does it look suspicious?
Sadly, many police mislead the public when asking for details in stop and searches. Rather than making it clear that it is optional they give the impression it is mandatory. Even worse, some police actually think it is.
@@polarbear2335 if you don't want to cooperate with the Police, then that's your choice.
Personally I want to help the People we employ as a nation to keep our streets safe.
You ask why it would seem suspicious, well its because it is what a criminal would do to try and hide their identity.
Honest and decent people cooperate.
@@TheMirrorGuy
'Personally I want to help the People we employ as a nation to keep our streets safe.'
- Many of whom abuse the law on a daily basis.
'You ask why it would seem suspicious, well its because it is what a criminal would do to try and hide their identity.'
- Or someone who has done nothing wrong and wants to exercise their rights to privacy. Sad that you conflate that with being a criminal.
'Honest and decent people cooperate.'
- See above.
@@polarbear2335 I have never been involved with a Police Office who has abused their power. This is the chap criminals pedal to try and stop the Police from doing their jobs.
People want to stay anonymous, I find that strange in a world of Social Media and Internet shopping.
People are constantly giving out personal data.
There is a particular issue regarding a warrant card to identify an officer. I have many year's experience in the world of identity and documentation. So, the issue is, "How can I authenticate the document?" There have been examples of people offering fake ID [a supposed social worker gaining access to a child]. A clear case of valid suspicion. Thus, if I have no means to verify a [supposedly] valid document, might I decline any search? Anyone can get a "uniform" from the local costume shop, so that is no proof. I have worked for a number of secure document producers and had this argument with various police and other officials. "I do not know what a warrant card looks like, so showing me something is of no worth." If I might have a valid suspicion to believe a person perhaps is not be a true officer, can I decline [with physical intervention] any search. Otherwise, is my remedy later in the process and with what redress?
Good advice, never heard of GO WISELY...
Suggest we add extra letter: “R” - Record the interaction with police, e.g. mobile phone camera...
GROW ISELY?
And they may not use the fact of any person attempting to maintain his or her rights as reasonable suspicion .
@blackbeltbarrister
Could you clarify if the reason and object of the search was a knife but the police found drugs, or the reason and object were drugs and the police found a stolen bank card, for example does that make those other items null and void, would they re arrest you for those instead? Or is that pot luck fishing that is inadmissible? Many thanks for your videos, I love learning these things
Was stopped and had vehicle searched many times during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, by police and soldiers with sub-machine guns and rifles. Never had a problem. Being courteous and respectful goes a long way to making the whole stop go smoothly. I'm not saying there aren't cops out there who don't know their job but I've seen far more videos of people who just seem to want to get arrested.
I was stopped because I matched the description of someone who had just broke into a premises and they wanted to see if I had screwdrivers etc. The copper even pulled my cigs out of the pack to check inside for (screwdrivers).
Really interesting and educational video. I saw a video of a police officer saying to a man that they would have to handcuff him before they carried out a search. Is this normal practice for someone who is showing no violent resistance? They tased him shortly after he tried to return to his property. Seemed extremely excessive. Many thanks for the video.
Does this also cover searching a vehicle please and if not could you cover that as well?
Not that I necessarily think it is likely, but what is to stop a police officer from planting evidence on a person during a search? Or even just claiming that they found an object during the search?
I have a personal rule never to trust anyone whose word is/would be believed over mine.
I’ve been stopped and searched at least 4 times every year since I was old enough to be out on my own.
Can’t see the link for “ self defence “ you said you were going to post?
Excellent vid as always though thanks
Please do a video on the following with examples like shopping centres or railway stations as a context
Section 33 Criminal Justice Act 1972
For the definition of “public place” in section 9(1) of the M1 Public Order Act 1936 there shall be substituted-
“Public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise ”.
Please do a video on common law ✌️❤️
I've known of officers stopping and searching someone based on smelling weed. At mid day, in kamden market...
And remember, always film the cops.
what about the recent Neale v DPP (2021) case, how does that change things?
I was stopped and searched whilst being put in handcuffs. They searched for drugs but found nothing. I was then released to go on my way! Am I in the clear now? I’m worried because they took a photo of my id
Hi great video. I’m sure you’ve seen those videos on CZcams about auditing police stations etc which often results in Section 43 searches. I’d like to hear your opinion on this kind of public photography (I know you’ve done a similar video) - like walking through an auditing scenario: can you take pictures on publicly accessible private land, who can ask you to leave, is taking pictures grounds for a search, etc? Thanks
Generally, if you can see it from the street you can photograph it, but I except there are some very specific exceptions to this.
I have had businesses claim that their logo etc is copyrighted/trademarked and that I do not have a right to photograph it without permission.
The police may ask to see your pictures but you are not obliged to show them. They are also not allowed to delete images (obvious really as if it's evidence of an offence it should be kept) and are told that if they suspect there is something illegal on the camera to take it into evidence and let someone qualified recover the evidence.
@@gordon861 accept not except.
Also, I can photograph copyrighted logos, the legal issues may arise if I publish and how
@@JB_inks Actually should have been 'expect', and my typing is getting worse. Added this because you often end up with some idiot who will come on and say "Actually I think you will find that they can stop you photographing XXXXX", no worries though.
Anyways that was the second attempt at the post, browser crashed, in the original I did go on to say that the businesses were talking bollox.
@@gordon861 no worries, I type most comments on my phone and the autocorrect is ducking terrible
The police are not interested in the law, only your compliance.
But, and it's a fact, most searches are not for any offensive weapons or controlled drugs. The police may tell you they are searching you for such items but they are not.
They are really searching for anything which may have your ID on it.
Bedankt
What about being stopped driving around airport if you are lost? I got stopped randomly and was told airport bylaws allow them to stop and ask but didn't explain anything more to why they stopped me even though I asked..any truth in that?
I'm curious to know, under what circumstances ARE you able to resist arrest?
They would just say they have reasonable suspicion to carry out the search anyway. Regardless if they were suspicious or not.
Just watched a CZcams Video of a coloured lad being stopped for no reason and then asked by the police to hand over his phone to check it wasn't stolen. He was told that he had to hand it over. He did and his video stopped. It started when they handed it back and he was told he could go on his way. Is this legal and what would happen if he refused. Not heard this one before.
RULE NUMBER ONE.
NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE EVER.
Police can use excuses they choose to stop someone if they have a grudge against a family for reasons they may have lost in court over misconduct or something?
They also like to escalate the situation because they hold the power to do so and when reported to PSD they give their side of the story in private.
Transparency?
What about the "act" under which they are searching you?
Apologies if previously covered on your channel, but this topic seems pertinent: legality & police involvement with online communication (particularly where expressing negative opinions of public figures etc). I’ve seen quite a few reports of police visiting addresses to question people for unfriendly (but not illegal) comments on social media platforms. It would be interesting to hear where the law actually stands on this matter.
Grateful for the feedback, but I’m specifically interested the channel owners perspective.
@@WoodlandAsh - You dont need it. Thats your answer. Police need a suspicion of crime otherwise say nothing. Freedom of speech isn't a crime. Words aren't violence . Only violence is violence. See Section 5 Public order Act 1986.
A fair point & I shall follow your recommendation and read up. Thank you 🙂
I was walking home from work one night, I'm a train driver and finished at 01:30 and a police van pulled up next to me and the police officer said "why did you climb over that wall" I didn't I was just walking home, but that then gave him the excuse to stop and search me they found nothing as I was just walking home from work, I felt intimidated and villanised if that is a word. I'll know next time to use the acronym. Police abuse their power hoping that we the people aren't educated, its people like yourself who are making changes to the world. P.S. I cooperated and did everything they said but now just like then I felt like rights where violated
....and what’s the procedure for if a person refuses to identify themselves to you and has removed their collar numbers? Can you just walk off or refuse to co-operate until they do?
In the field you can't do shit really. Best bet is film the whole thing and complain afterwards hopefully go viral that'll be your only shot at seeing him/her face repercussions
@@billyspencer7325 No point in complaining, just go straight to a private prosecution, there's one going on very shortly, he's having to do it all himself so I'm looking forward to the outcome also he was searched by a female officer on another occasion.
If I personally asked someone claiming to be a police officer who stopped and wanted to search me to identify and they do not in some clear way, they may be impersonating a police officer and if I have reasonable grounds to suspect this is the case I would walk away. I would contact the nearest police station asap and report it. After all they could be some random lunatic from the asylum. Police should identify asap. There are a lot of lunatics out there that claim to be gods, police, and leprechauns, doesn't mean they are, true leprechauns will always identify themselves beyond all reasonable doubt :).
@@billyspencer7325 What if they said they were a police officer yet no visible sign of such, plain clothed etc... Would you let them search you? Could be a thief trying to steal your wallet or some sexual fiend or worse. Good luck!
@@Feverstockphoto if they're in plain clothes and won't show me a badge I'll probably feel harassed and distressed and end up defending myself with a solid headbutt
Children are stopped and searched without a guardian present. What advice would you have for children?
I told a cop there have be reports of someone in this area dressed in a clown costume planting drugs on people. The policeman fitted the description.
/seen a few clips when people are handcuffed before search can you resist or is it law ?
I was randomly stopped and searched at a train station supposedly under the Terrorism Act. Was this lawful?
It would be useful to know what a warrent card looks like, as far as I know the term covers a multitude of designs, all of which it's practically impossible for a layperson to establish the authenticity of.
Each force has their own design. If you doubt the legitimacy call 101... Not that hard.
REMEMBER THIS.
Police must be able to prove in court their reasoning for suspicion and or arrest or detainment, always record the police and always have a good 👍 no win no fee solicitors claims against the state and the police,
You are under no obligation to cooperate
I would raise one issue, and I would like a reply, although after a year if may be unlikely
If a person is suffering from a mental health problem, for example PTSD or at the other extreme somewhere on the Autism Spectrum, does this in any way alter a Police approach, given that in neither case is it likely that the individual will be able to Articulate their difficulty sufficiently clearly while in the middle of what we might generalise as a 'Panic Attack ?
What are your thoughts of the legality of police searching through phones as part of a search (especially if it's a section 1 PACE search).
Food for Part 2!
Do you have to be told why you are being strip searched it might be an obvious question but what if you are not told . Great videos by the way my son has covered police powers stop and search this year the pace act of 1984 and all other acts related to stop and search
The best thing I've heard is that a phone that is unlocked by a fingerprint or eye/ face scan then these are classed as "in the public domain" and you can be made to open it, but if it's locked behind a password then you can't be obligated to unlock it (unless, I assume with some sort of court order). Be nice to know how true that is.
@@BlackBeltBarrister
I recommend you lock your phone forcing the police to get a Section 49
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) notice issued by a judge.😉
Yes.. the police cannot delete footage or pictures from your phone.. but the police routinely do so if you record them.. their BWV always goes missing, corrupt or accidentally deleted when they assault you.. 🙄
All that GOWISELY doesn’t apply in the real world in the streets..
@irigouis88 It seems to be a tactic used sometimes, to 'suspect' that the phone is stolen, and demand the phone be unlocked, so the IMEI number can be checked against a database of stolen phones.
Once the phone is unlocked, officers then also searches through text messages to search for evidence of dealing.
All highly questionable, legally speaking IMO.
However without any clear case law (as far as I am aware), or clear guidance from the NPCC or College of Policing it seems to be up to individual constabularies or even individual officers, as to what they can legally do.
All stop by police should be given a proper receipt when requested which should include the date and time and the names and identification of the police and others who are conducting the stop as well as the reasons.
I'm no legal expert, but I work with challenging individuals for a living... I think one thing you're forgetting to mention is that the "reasonableness" of all these variables will be determined by a judge later, so being calm and generally cooperative at the time is the best thing anyone can do. Shouting at the officers or causing a scene isn't going to magically make the police decide to stop and let you leave.
It’s also more likely to get you cuffed
The gov.uk website says the police officer needs permission from a senior officer to do a stop and search. Is that right? Presumably superintendent
Only in cases where there were no reasonable grounds that you possessed something illegal and other conditions apply
So what happens if you say, no I don’t want to be searched, it’s like you’re guilty before any thing has been done. Irrespective if I’ve done nothing wrong it seems we have very few civil rights left at all.
Why didn't you mention that the member of the public getting searched does not have to give details, unless police use Sec 50?
(contempt of police legislation)
Coming up in Part 2! Unless you would prefer these videos are 30 minutes long? (Genuine question)
@@BlackBeltBarrister to be fair I would watch a 30 min video from you your content is great 👍
@@BlackBeltBarrister 👌
@@UnCoolDad Thanks, will do!
I believe there is case law that says resisting an anlawful arrest or search with reasonable force is acceptable. Battery, kidnap and deprivation of rights under colour of law are criminal offenses last time I checked, a search based on suspicion with no evidence is unlawful.
Also whilst a policeman MAY WISH to stop and speak to anyone for any reason, unless you are under arrest YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED to reply in any form.
How should you respond to police knocking on your house door? Do you have to answer?
Nice
Never answer any questions
What about the new police, crime, sentencing and the courts bill?
What happens if the police fail to complete some of these steps, does it become unlawful? Or if they say their looking for weapons and start opening your wallet and looking at cards what could be done in this situation?
Can be, if you're not given the full go wisely, you should file a complaint, the skipper will watch the body worn and go from there
What happens if they say they are searching for a weapon, don’t find one, but find illegal drugs instead. Can they arrest you for possession? I’ve been led to believe that they can’t because the drugs were not the thing they were searching you for.
''I’ve been led to believe that they can’t because the drugs were not the thing they were searching you for.''
Lol you've been lead very wrong...
Why would that be the case? You are committing a crime regardless.
Find this topic very interesting.
How does this fit with the advice, " don't talk to the police with-out your lawyer present?"
Also , Nottingham Police broke down "Alex Belfield" 's front door WITHOUT a SEARCH WARRANT, The Police men and women had removed their name and number from their uniforms. What happens then. Please look him up if you haven't heard yet.
What happens when the Police break the law?
So police have to tell you they are working under oath ? I am seeing a lot of members of the public ask but very rarely the police will answer the Question
They won't answer that question becasue it is meaningless.
@@robertstallard7836 police we have the constable and officer. Police are corporations. Old school police would have no issue telling you they worked under oath and would speak passionately about their oath no different to our incredible military most continue to protect and serve their country long after they come out of the military. For example a group of military are outside BBC Manchester day 76 fighting for human trafficking/ save the children they speak daily how they serve and protect their country.
Some of our police react very fast for corporations, Covid sites or Covid jabbing places , public photography abusing section 43 when Met police have said you can take pictures/ record anything your eye can see from a public footpath or anywhere accessible to the public. Are you in the police ?
@@theghostwatcherkeepitreal4618
Police officers do, indeed, swear an oath of before of a magistrate on appointment
because they are officers of the Crown.
Does that answer your question?
Do you see drug laws changing anytime? Our old war on drugs stance is doing a lot of harm. I feel like we punish the ‘victim’ with the governments current laws.
Any thoughts on the matter?
Everyone need to watch this video
Please do share!
Always, always always film any police interaction from the beginning. They are not allowed to prevent you from filming.
Can you turn yhe radio off.
If you ask them what are they looking for is it acceptable for them to say anything ?
Very educational as usual I hope that you do not object to me reposting links to some of your videos on FB, Twitter.
Pls do share!
Interesting stuff.
What about abuse of section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002(?).
It appears that there is no statutory defence of reasonableness against this nasty piece of legislation.
Can you do a Video on common law, the law that we were freely born on.
That’s not what the common law is.
Is there anything you can do if a police officer wants to stop search you to prevent them from searching you.
For example
You are going about your day, a police officer has decided that they “smell weed” Even though you don’t have anything illegal on you.
You are just completely powerless to stop them rummaging around your pockets?
Or going through your personal belongings.
Do they not need your consent, or do they have complete control over you in that moment as a law abiding citizen?
To answer your first question, in theory no...
If they have reasonable suspicion to search you, they can search you.
The scale of 'suspicion' can be numbered from 0-10, 0 being an absolute guess, 10 is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.
'Reasonable suspicion' is about a 2.
''You are just completely powerless to stop them rummaging around your pockets?''
Yes
''Do they not need your consent''
No.
''do they have complete control over you in that moment as a law abiding citizen?''
It's all well and good you describe yourself as that, but at the end of the day cops are not psychic.
The whole point of stop searching to is to gather evidence, and that can either end up as evidence a crime has been committed, or a crime has not been committed.
We don't go around and 'decide' someone smells like weed.
Say I'm walking down the street and you walk past me and suddenly there is a smell of weed. Would it not be reasonable of me to form the opinion you could be in possession of weed? We all know it is a strong and very unique smell, and it only appeared as soon as you walked past me.
If you are being searched, can an Officer refuse to let you record the encounter, for example a phone video?
If they decide to handcuff you to the rear, which is lawful with justification then you most likely won’t be able to record yourself.
From all the youtube video's there...The stop and search thing is usually triggered by a civilian camera outside a police station...and somebody pulls the "terrorist" card....
If you are under Common Law does these acts of Parliament still applies?
Of course - it is a common misunderstanding that someone can "stand under common law" and evade Acts of Parliament! See here: czcams.com/video/rECBMbuA_FI/video.html
A well presented clip well worth watching and remembering the advise given on it. It's only 12 minutes since you posted it and already I see comments which really point to the unworthiness of the police and their interactions with the public. Sad really where we have lost faith in them. They have a lot of ground to claw back towards our trusting them rather than fearing and not trusting them.
Reasonable suspicion must be operated by reasonable people and the police are, or become the least reasonably minded people on the streets, so unreasonable in fact that they really shouldn't just have to have a reasonable suspicion to act but should have positive provable evidence before they can do anything against a member of the public. There again that's just my thinking on the matter.
".... They have a lot of ground to claw back towards our trusting them ...." - Having seen over the past 14 months innocent people having their skulls broken open and brutally treated by our "good old Bobbies", that is never going to happen. They a low IQ thugs, all this as a result of Common Purpose
i wish we had something like the 4th Ammendment of the american consitution because in that case you can legally refuse s search
Most Police have a family at home and just want to serve their communities. Some are bad yes but most I know want to and do help the public.
Most do not live in/near the communities they police...
ALWAYS FILM THE POLICE BEST FOR YOUR PROTECTION AND OTHERS
When I've been asked to search my car I confidently said yes while wiping off the bits of cocaine from the passenger seat, and they didn't xD
With regard to my previous comment. I’d like the context to be photography also
And you always have the right to remain silence !