Talk:Stop and search

Extent of search powers / Lawrence inquiry

Caveat: I'm not a lawyer or policeman. On the TV tonight a member of the public complained that he was being unlawfully forced to remove his shoe in a stop and search. He insisted that the officer only had powers to compel him to remove his jacket. Was this correct? PACE (1984) Pt.I S2.9 seems to suggest he was:

"(9) Neither the power conferred by section 1 above nor any other power to detain and search a person without first arresting him or to detain and search a vehicle without making an arrest is to be construed—
(a) as authorising a constable to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than an outer coat, jacket or gloves; or
(b) as authorising a constable not in uniform to stop a vehicle." (PACE 1984 Pt.1 S2.9(a))

Can anyone competent enlighten me? And should this page include a section about the extent of search powers (of the physical search itself, not the conditions under which a search may lawfully be carried out, which this article currently seems to focus on)?

You are correct to a certain extent, but you will need to explain the situation further. Within a police station, an Inspector may authorise a strip search, so clearly shoes may come off. I assume you are referring to a street search, however? In this instance, a search under Section 1 of PACE or 27(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act may (as you correctly say) only consist of removing jacket, outer coat and gloves, and then a pat-down. An officer may put his hands inside shoes, pockets and collar, but he may not remove shoes, headgear or any further layers of clothing.

However, perhaps the search was a counter-terrorism search. Under section 44 of the counter terrorism act, the search can extend to removing headgear and shoes if ncessary. I hope that helps. --199.4.27.122 (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Inquiry Also, I read a training manual from NPIA (2005 I think, lost it now, sorry) which highlighted problems arising from abuse (or insensitive use) of stop and search powers, with particular reference to the Lawrence inquiry findings. Again, can anyone expand on this for my benefit at least? Thanks, Comrade jo (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC) (Have posted same comment in http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Powers_of_the_police_in_England_and_Wales)[reply]

I believe that the Lawrence enquiry suggested that black youths were being targeted for stop and search essentially on the basis of their skin colour alone, without any other real reason. What in particular are you curious about, though? --199.4.27.122 (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Context section.

I've added a citation needed to this as this enitre section it is entirely uncited, also the last paragraph "There is a danger that recent knife crime paranoia is leading to a virtual abandonment, in practice, of even that low threshold that would limit the worst abuses." is entirely speculation, if this isnt cited within a reasonable time I will return and delete this part of the Historical context section. I will probably delete "In practice, lesser grounds are often advanced, although the fact that an officer needs to seriously consider grounds at all, is an improvement in comparison to the old law." section as well as this is also speculation, the paragraph contains many weasle words such as "infamous" and "widely abused". MattUK (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the obvious POV, unsourced speculation and weasle words now, though it could still use a good source if anyone has one. MattUK (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Receipt of Stop and Search

This article states: "On occasions where officers are unable to provide the full form, for example if they receive a call they must urgently respond to, they are obliged to provide a receipt instead. This acts as a record of the stop, and a full form can be subsequently obtained from a police station any time within the next twelve months by providing this receipt."

This may be true in some forces, but I have never come accross it. As far as I am aware the situation is:

-A carbon copy of the form should be provided immediately except where not reasonably possible (for example if the officer is urgently called away) or if the person searched declines to take it. In this case, the officer does not need to provide a receipt.

-Where a copy of the form is not immediately provided, the person may request one at any police station within 12 months. They don't require a receipt; their details will be enough to find the record.

Can anyone clarify if there are any forces in which the explanation given in this article is true? If not, I intend to change it. --199.4.27.122 (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jump Outs in DC

I want to add the term "jump outs" which is how locals refer to the practice in Washington, DC. The chief of the MPD is asked about them in this article. https://www.wusa9.com/article/features/originals/dc-police-jump-outs-tyre-nichols-dc-police-unconsitutional-stop/65-a170a6af-613f-4adf-97ef-7c3b7972c40f Should I cite the article here or create a separate article to link here? Seems unwise to have multiple articles about the same phenomenon in various jurisdictions distinct chiefly by their local nomenclature. Basically, proposal to turn this index into an article and merge the linked articles into this one. 2601:8C:4880:41F0:6111:F429:DEAC:ABD8 (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]