Complaints against officers

[Fedster + 1,307]

College of Policing says such a move is not acceptable.

 The member of Sadiq Khan's staff suggested a currently 'unacceptable' practice be permitted

A representative for Sadiq Khan said officers should be allowed to use force computers to vet potential future neighbours to avoid moving into an area where criminals live.

Draft guidance for misconduct panel chairmen released by the College of Policing suggested that “the mere accessing of data without a legitimate policing purpose” is “in itself an abuse of an officer’s position”.

It added: “Personal reasons for accessing the information, such as general curiosity or a desire to check on criminal activity near an officer’s home, are unlikely to be acceptable.”

But a representative of the Mayor of London’s Office for Policing a Crime (MOPAC) said the data could be useful in such cases.

The individual said: “I think there is balance needed here and restrictions on the purpose of access are often too strictly applied.

“For example, if a police officer is purchasing a house or a car I think that it should be legitimate for the officer to make enquiries of the car; is it lost or stolen, in purchasing a house: it is surely good practice for an officer not to move into a house knowing or not knowing an active criminal lives close by.

“This activity is very different from accessing information on a basis for example to sell or release information more widely.”

Such searches may be in breach of the Data Protection Act and have been branded unacceptable by the College.

The comments were made in a 2016 consultation but have only emerged after a Freedom of Information request by Police Oracle.

A MOPAC spokesman provided no further comment on the issue when approached last week.

A representative for Kent's PCC argued for the exact opposite to MOPAC in the consultation, saying anyone accessing force data for a non-policing purpose should expect dismissal “in all but the most exceptional circumstances”.

The final guidance issued by the College of Policing to misconduct panel chairmen says it is a legal requirement and public expectation that police data is not used for any personal circumstances.

It states: “Under no circumstances should anyone access or use police information for personal benefit.

“Personal reasons for accessing confidential police information, such as general curiosity or a desire to check on criminal activity near an officer’s home, are not acceptable.

“If an officer is accessing police information not available to the general public, there should always be a specific and proper policing purpose for doing so.”

View On Police Oracle

 

 

[BlueBob + 691]

Blimey, how out of touch is that spokesperson - on so many levels? 

[Indiana Jones + 1,082]

7 minutes ago, BlueBob said:

Blimey, how out of touch is that spokesperson - on so many levels? 

You can understand the confusion. The mayor said he'd do all he could to cut back on stop and search, and now he's doing everything possible to combat knife crime.

I doubt anyone in City Hall knows if they're coming or going. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

Perhaps not so much of a mayor but, more of a joke.

[Hyphen + 693]

To be fair the idea behind what’s in the article is a good one and certainly common sense. I don’t mean that officers themselves should start doing random searches themselves as this as we know is open to abuse.

I can see where this is coming from, it can be damaging and dangerous for an officer to end up buying a house next to an OCG for example or an officer rents a house from/to a criminal. It can end up being compromising. 

Maybe an auditable request via supervision would suffice? 

[Beaker 817]

 

4 hours ago, Hyphen said:

Maybe an auditable request via supervision would suffice? 

 

This seems sensible. I as a kid I used to live next door-but-one to one of the most prolific burglars in the town, he later became of the best known dealers. Right over the road lived a couple who were coppers. He used to be something of a pain with them, and they ended up having to move. If they'd been able to check they likely would never have moved there. It isn't all that long ago that you had to ask for permission to buy a house either.

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by David
Asterisked word sanitised

[Mac7 808]

My initial thoughts are that this isn’t a great idea but then again I’ve never had a bad experience with neighbours or when buying a car. I’d like to think I know a dodgy car when I see one and a rogue salesperson.

Where has this idea come from? Have a number of cops recently had problems? I’m struggling to see the need and more often that not it’s better the devil you know.

[Jeebs + 1,190]

I don’t see why an officer can’t contact the force intel hub and have a search run on their behalf. Letting officers do it themselves surely leaves the system open to abuse.

Having said that, I regularly check the briefing pages for where I live and have a look through the incident logs to see what’s happening in my area.

Is that acceptable? I’d say so.

[Mac7 808]

Having said that, I regularly check the briefing pages for where I live and have a look through the incident logs to see what’s happening in my area.
Is that acceptable? I’d say so.

Are you a UK cop? I’d say checking the brief and incident logs in your area is a big no no (unless you work the area you live in?)
Why would you want to know what is going on in the area you live? I certainly don’t. I like my private life and my rest days. Having said that I’d deal with something if I came across it or put and intel log if I saw some worthy.

Everything you view on a work computer is auditable. If you don’t have a need or policing purpose to look at it then you shouldn’t be looking at it.

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

It would be a poor cop who did not know what was going on in both is working area and his living area. In many Forces they are one and the same.

[BlueBob + 691]

Interesting views, it wasn't that long ago before officers had to seek permission BEFORE they could live anywhere, so the neighbourhood etc could be "deemed suitable" by the force and on occasions it was rejected as bing unsuitable.  How far away do those checks extend, 1 door, 10 doors and across the bottom of the garden, 3 storeys up/ down in a tower block, for the rural areas, it may be 5 fields away to the nearest neighbour!. To what extent would those results affect the officers decision and to what extent might the force influence it?  Would the final decision be for the officer or the force, at what point on the buying / letting process would it come into play.  And once the officerknows (assuming it was provided), now how does the officer explain to their partner that they cannot buy / rent their dream property, and do so without further affecting confidentiality and good old data protection.   
It was often painful to officers before but it was justified because the force was paying a significant housing allowance.   
And if it is considered applicable for police officers, then what other occupations may be eligible to have disclosure on those confidential files? 
Ooops, 

1 hour ago, Jeebs said:

I don’t see why an officer can’t contact the force intel hub and have a search run on their behalf. Letting officers do it themselves surely leaves the system open to abuse.

Having said that, I regularly check the briefing pages for where I live and have a look through the incident logs to see what’s happening in my area.

Is that acceptable? I’d say so.

IMHO, if your checking logs for your home area and its not where you work or not related to something your being tasked to deal with, then its not easy to justify peeking - its curiosity, its being nosey, its not necessary for your current role and, again IMHO, it would be a good case of abusing the position/ data protection or whatever they decide it comes under.  
Asking someone else (other force intel hub) to do those personal searches for you is no different, its just using a proxy to look at data to which your not entitled to have access.

[Pavillion 43]

Appalling idea, for a simple reason. Why allow a segment (a very small segment) of society privileges that are literally for personal gain. 

[Mac7 808]

It would be a poor cop who did not know what was going on in both is working area and his living area. In many Forces they are one and the same.

Working area yes, Home area No.

[Hyphen + 693]

48 minutes ago, Pavillion said:

Appalling idea, for a simple reason. Why allow a segment (a very small segment) of society privileges that are literally for personal gain. 

It’s actually of benefit to the force itself as it avoids any compromising situations. The same way vetting operates where family are checked out by the force vetting unit.

[Hyphen + 693]

In regards to knowing what goes on in the local area that’s where I guess I’m quite lucky. I work in the same area a I live so I tend to know what’s happening, who the targets are etc. I have also dealt with jobs in the same estate.

@BlueBob it’s a fair point you raise, I guess it is a big question. How far do you go? 

I would never carry out searches on logs and things like that if I haven’t been attached to it or had a reason simply because I wouldn’t risk my job. However, like most things we have a strange attitude to policing in the UK. As much as it would give ammo for someone to do your legs @JeebsI don’t see an ethical problem with it really. To me it only becomes a problem when it is being disclosed to those it shouldn’t be, or used for criminal purposes. As mentioned I do think it could be viewed badly though by those above.