New Met police video

[Fedster + 1,307]

The Federation are pushing for a change in the law that says a driver must exit their vehicle when stopped by police to reduce the risk of officer injury.

Date - 18th June 2020
By - Chloe Livadeas

The Fed’s driving pursuits lead has written to the Home Office asking them to amend the new Police Powers and Protection Bill to give officers a new power to require a motorist to get out of their vehicle when requested to do so.

The request comes after a series of incidents where officers were seriously injured, or at risk of injury by drivers who when stopped refuse to get out of their vehicle and then drive at them when making off.

Thames Valley PC Andrew Harper was killed last August when he was called to a burglary and the driver took off, dragging him along the road.

Tim Rogers is the pursuits driving lead for the Federation nationally and deputy secretary of West Midlands Police Federation.

He said: “Legislative vehicles for such improvements; improvements that will have a positive impact on all officers, do not come along very often. Therefore, we have several matters on the same bill.

“Despite the current crisis, ministers appear to remain committed to introduce the bill, which was introduced in the Queen’s Speech last December, later in this Parliamentary session which is very positive news.”

Mr Rogers wrote to the Home Office in March to request the expansion Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to allow the new power.

Mr Rogers wants to hear from officers who have been involved in incidents where they have been injured – or risked injury – after stopping a vehicle to strengthen the case for the amendment.

He said: “We need as much evidence as possible to be able to present to the Home Office so that we can succeed in securing a change to legislation that will give officers better protection. Too many officers are being injured and we need to secure a change in the law to help prevent these type of incidents in the future.”

He can be contacted by emailing [email protected].

The Fed said the campaign us supported by the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s roads policing lead, Anthony Bangham.

View On Police Oracle

[BlueBob + 701]

Another bit of legislation likely to be created but not enacted....... thinking of the Road Safety Act 2006, so only 14 years ago, which enacted / enabled lots of sections that just ha[[ened to be income generators but failed and continues to fail miserably in the parts about speed limits & driver training for the exemption.

Not saying the suggestion is not a good one, just doubtful that it will be enacted anytime soon!

[Radman + 2,165]

I think it's a good suggestion but it'll likely lead to more confrontation than its worth. 

If someone is uncooperative in providing their details to you or driving documentation it is an offence and you may then arrest them as per any other offence under Code G of PACE necessity as you're enacted to do. If they're just sat in their car refusing to get out for a minor Road Traffic matter but provide you their details and documentation just leave them, get their details and report them at the roadside. 

I don't deal with much traffic, I do from time to time stop vehicles close to railway infrastructure that catches my eye or I find suspicious in some way, I equate road traffic legislation especially the non recordable low level stuff to be very similar to non recordable railway legislation that I do have more experience in enforcing. 

If someone isn't listening, being obstructive etc I will just arrest them after their refusal to provide details and then if appropriate escalate that arrest to obstruction or assault if required, what's the difference here bar maybe officer safety concerns? 

If someone is refusing to give you their name and address details just arrest them... If they resist, obstruct or assault you, further arrest them. 9 times out of 10 as soon as you cautiion them and the handcuffs come out with the prospect of spending hours in custody dawns on them most will comply, at which point after verifying who they are I de-arrest and report for whatever the original matter was. 

I think it boils down to having confidence in your powers and ultimately making that decision to arrest, if the necessity disappears just de-arrest them once you know who they are. 

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Radman

[Zulu 22 + 4,642]

I agree it could and up as rather complex legislation. I have always opened the door and asked them to switch the engine off, then reached in and switched it off if possible. Not always possible with some automatics which have to be in park before you can switch off.

At the moment they do not even have to open the door. They can open the window just a fraction to talk. They can hold their documents up to the glass for you to read. They do not have to hand them to you, just produce for inspection.

[Radman + 2,165]

19 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

I agree it could and up as rather complex legislation. I have always opened the door and asked them to switch the engine off, then reached in and switched it off if possible. Not always possible with some automatics which have to be in park before you can switch off.

At the moment they do not even have to open the door. They can open the window just a fraction to talk. They can hold their documents up to the glass for you to read. They do not have to hand them to you, just produce for inspection.

An issue I have with cops who are recorded is the dance they do with suspects, we've all seen videos where cops will just repeatedly ask for details again and again, avoid pointing out offences, make things up or worse threaten arrest but don't actually carry it out... That winds me up something chronic. 

If you're going to threaten something you need to carry out otherwise you look like a complete prat when your bluff is called. 

I think some Cops are scared to lock up for lowish level offences, if the necessity is there just do it, you can always de-arrest once the necessity no longer exists and report for consideration. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Radman

[stewie_griffin + 484]

On the face of it, this seems a crazy thing to campaign about, so I'm probably missing something. But anyway...

Why would you get someone out of a vehicle unless you're going to arrest them?

Why would you reach into a vehicle and get car keys out?

Why would you want someone on foot in the roadway?

Why (and this seems to be a UK specialty) would you take someone out of their car and put them in the back of your car? Without handcuffing them or without a screen between the back and front seats?

For a contrasting view, we absolutely never get anyone out of their car unless we're arresting them or siezing the vehicle, also we never reach into the vehicle... because these things are dangerous. 

[Indiana Jones + 1,103]

I'd rather they issued us with chocks to prevent the car from leaving until we're done with the stop.

[Zulu 22 + 4,642]

1 hour ago, Indiana Jones said:

I'd rather they issued us with chocks to prevent the car from leaving until we're done with the stop.

Impractical and they do not work. If a person is wanting to drive off they will, but not if the engine is switched off. That is the point where I disagree with Stewie, but like him it has always struck me as off to put a driver in the rear of your vehicle. If gthe engine is switched off there is not too much to worry about and the driver is confined in his own vehicle.

[Reasonable Man + 1,259]

What power is there to insist that a driver turn off their engine? 

What power is there to enter their vehicle and touch/remove their keys? 

[Radman + 2,165]

2 hours ago, Reasonable Man said:

What power is there to insist that a driver turn off their engine? 

What power is there to enter their vehicle and touch/remove their keys? 

There was a video circulating which Crimebodge covered (infamous YouTuber) ultimately he was right in what he said in regards to cops forcing a motorist out of his vehicle who was willing to provide his details but didn't want to sit in the police car (fair enough) the man was arrested for obstruction. 

I don't know what the outcome of that was but I'd only be exercising my power of arrest if they're refusing to tell me who they are or are obstructing a search or seizure of the vehicle. 

Get the details and report them to court for whatever offence it may be and let them go. 

Job done. 

I think this legislation will ultimately lead to more confrontation at the roadside for little if any benefit or gain, cops will end up forcing people out of cars far more often than now and as highlighted we have no power of search when 'inviting' people into the back of the Police car, its a stupid practice from an officer safety point of view anyway and shouldn't really be done if common sense is applied. 

[Jacob212 17]

On 20/06/2020 at 10:32, Reasonable Man said:

What power is there to insist that a driver turn off their engine? 

What power is there to enter their vehicle and touch/remove their keys? 

If it's a road traffic stop (document check) I don't believe there is one

[Zulu 22 + 4,642]

10 hours ago, PcJacob said:

If it's a road traffic stop (document check) I don't believe there is one

There is not one in law but it is a case of self preservation. If I stopped a driver who was under the influence the first thing that I would do would be to disable the vehicle by switching the engine off. 

 

[BlueBob + 701]

58 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

There is not one in law but it is a case of self preservation. If I stopped a driver who was under the influence the first thing that I would do would be to disable the vehicle by switching the engine off. 

 

Perhaps we are over simplifying the idea of 'just reaching in and getting the keys"!   If the engine is running, that is a completely different situation to the engine being off and doing the same.  
As a twist to the issue, I've got keyless ignition.  As long as the fob is within a short distance of the receiver, all I have to do is push the start button..... even if the officer has hold of the fob.
Isn't it fair to say that managing how the driver stops the engine - or perhaps more correctly, helps make the scene safe is a bit of a challenge.  It would be interesting to know which training sessions have been had by which officers in terms of reaching into a vehicle to turn the engine off with a driver still in the vehicle.  Not sure there are many that get such a course for most roles?
Perhaps it's because it is something that is not encouraged to be done!  
 

[Zulu 22 + 4,642]

I agree with the keyless comments but, If you have every been dragged up the road by a car you would soon adopt the practice of making sure that the vehicle was immobilised as soon as practicable. That is why I say it is a matter of "Self Preservation"

[Jacob212 17]

3 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

There is not one in law but it is a case of self preservation. If I stopped a driver who was under the influence the first thing that I would do would be to disable the vehicle by switching the engine off. 

 

I totally agree with you if they are under the influence or you are reporting them for something, however if not and there refusing to turn it off, or to roll down the window for YOUR hand to reach in and grab the keys, I'm afraid there's not much that can be done providing they produce there documents.