Port of Tilbury-Police Constable

[Fedster + 1,307]

A stop and search by a Metropolitan Police officer that was shared on social media was carried out with insufficient grounds, the Independent Office for Police Conduct has ruled.

Date - 10th September 2020
By - Chris Smith

The IOPC has upheld a complaint made by a Black male cyclist who was stopped and searched on a London street.

The Metropolitan Police officer was ordered to undertake reflective practice after an investigation found the grounds for the search of Emmanuel Arthur in Euston last year – under section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act - were not reasonable.

The IOPC also ordered further reflective practice to consider the impact of the disproportionate use of stop and search on BAME communities, as it appeared the officer did not understand why Mr Arthur had felt racially profiled by him.

It ruled that the smell of cannabis as a single ground is not good practice as set out in the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice on stop and search.

The IOPC examined mobile phone footage taken by another cyclist that was widely shared on social media and in the mainstream media, as well as the officer’s body worn video. It also took a statement from three cyclists, as well as the three officers present, and examined a year of the officer’s previous stop and search records for comparator evidence.

The officer later added he had been concerned that Mr Arthur was disagreeing with him about the bike being over the white line at traffic lights. He had not raised this during the incident as he did not want it to escalate.

No drugs were found during the search.

The IOPC rejected a complaint of discriminatory behaviour as the review of previous stop and searches carried out by the officer had shown the officer had used the smell of cannabis as ground for a stop on all ethnicities and genders.

IOPC Regional Director Sal Naseem said: “Stopping someone on the single ground of a suspicion of the smell of cannabis is not good practice and it’s right that the officer will have to reflect on this.

“However, it’s still important to acknowledge that Mr Arthur felt racially profiled. The importance of police officers recognising, and being aware of, the disproportionate impact stop and search has on black communities in particular cannot be understated.”

View On Police Oracle

 

[bensonby + 3,503]

What legal basis to they use to support the assertion that the smell of cannabis does not give grounds to stop and search?

 

The threshold to search is “a state of conjecture or surmise where proof is lacking” (I.e. low). There is no case law that suggests this is insufficient grounds.

[Sceptre + 2,701]

I remember going to a stop and search training session which descended into an argument about this. The trainer, a woman in civilian clothes who never explained her background, was adamant that the smell of cannabis could not amount to reasonable grounds to search someone under S23 even where it was clearly coming from that person - instead we were to look for signs of impairment, glazed eyes etc. It was pointed out to no avail that this is evidence of use, not evidence that someone is currently in possession of cannabis. Someone raised a laugh by asking her if she puts her tea in the oven and ten minutes later smells burning, does she check on it at once or would that not be justified until she sees plumes of smoke coming from the kitchen? 

I can't think of any stronger objective reason to suspect someone is currently in possession of cannabis than a smell which can be attributed to them. I can't see how that could fail to meet the Baker v Oxford definition of suspicion, the imagination of possibility without proof. 

I also don't fully understand the ramifications of being ordered to undertake "reflective practice" - is this a sanction or a performance measure? Can it be held against an officer in future, and is there a right of appeal?

[Member of public 1 + 269]

COPS should not stop and search suspects if they smell cannabis on them, the police watchdog said yesterday.https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12639580/no-stop-and-search-for-smell-of-cannabis/

[Wikicop20 + 186]

15 hours ago, Sceptre said:

I remember going to a stop and search training session which descended into an argument about this. The trainer, a woman in civilian clothes who never explained her background, was adamant that the smell of cannabis could not amount to reasonable grounds to search someone under S23 even where it was clearly coming from that person - instead we were to look for signs of impairment, glazed eyes etc. It was pointed out to no avail that this is evidence of use, not evidence that someone is currently in possession of cannabis. Someone raised a laugh by asking her if she puts her tea in the oven and ten minutes later smells burning, does she check on it at once or would that not be justified until she sees plumes of smoke coming from the kitchen? 

I can't think of any stronger objective reason to suspect someone is currently in possession of cannabis than a smell which can be attributed to them. I can't see how that could fail to meet the Baker v Oxford definition of suspicion, the imagination of possibility without proof. 

I also don't fully understand the ramifications of being ordered to undertake "reflective practice" - is this a sanction or a performance measure? Can it be held against an officer in future, and is there a right of appeal?

She sounds like a right laugh.

Bizzare descision. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

It certainly makes you wonder where the IOPC get their weird, irrational view from.

[Ether + 1,395]

Is he reflecting on the RGS or the fact he stopped a member of the BAME community? Because if it’s the latter I would take issue personally 

[Beaker 817]

When they brought out the 'no smell' guidance a few years back we got a new CC a few months later.  It then changed to being fine to search on smell if you think I you're going to find something.  You can tell the difference between second hand/old smell and fresh weed in the pocket.  My success rate on smell is pretty good because I know the difference.