Jump to content
×
×
  • Create New...

Indictable and summary offence and certain police powers


Recommended Posts

BlueBob
5 hours ago, needswarrant said:

Why would a constable just randomly take somebody into custody based on that suspicion. The question was, on offences that are low level, I have read about where somebody's property is removed without knowing what it is they are looking for which can lead to the above I mentioned in my last post, a warrant system isn't used. Just over bearing powers.

The American system is better, that also means warrant somebody's arrest is also used. Now that isn't related to the topic question.

Section 17 to enter a property or 1, 8 Or what ever it is could be used based on suspicions, that there are drugs at a property. That is also a bit dodgy because nobody knows the context to a constable being somebody's home, there is a reason for the Amendment 4 in the first place.

I think you’ve made a point but not really sure what it is, unless it is simply and selectively choosing and comparing the preferred legal routines of differing countries.   If so, perhaps you could assist with more info and reference of how you see these scenarios compared to the systems in Even more diverse systems, Papua New Guinea or go wild and include Zanzibar for example? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ether

    22

  • Equin0x

    21

  • notapoliceforum

    19

  • Zulu 22

    14

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I've read American views as to why you shouldn't let the police in you're home. A more UK example is this one,  https://crimebodge.com/never-allow-the-police-into-your-home/ If you think jus

From what I can cobble together and the obvious anti-Police username, I am surmising the poster has been arrested for harassment within their own address and a s.32 search was conducted, leading to va

That is the whole point in a warrant, if somebody is suspect, then one must be brought to somebody's property for there to be a search to look for anything of an offence, just like the drugs example I

SD

 

Quote

Why would a constable just randomly take somebody into custody based on that suspicion.

 

Because our law allows for police to do this (s24 PACE) and subsequent case law has reinforced it.

Quote

The question was, on offences that are low level, 

Then the question moved on, it's how conversations work.

Quote

 I have read about where somebody's property is removed without knowing what it is they are looking for which can lead to the above I mentioned in my last post, 

And I've read that the world is flat. What's your point?

Quote

 a warrant system isn't used. Just over bearing powers.

Don’t like the powers police have? Petition your MP to get them changed or actually become an MP and change it yourself. Until then police will continue to use the powers granted to them and suspects can follow the many different routes should they wish to complain about their treatment and legality of police actions.

Quote

 The American system is better, 

You've clearly not been involved in the American criminal justice system then. I would recommend spending some time on Youtube and look at how it really works. ##SPOILER## It rarely ends well for suspects.

Quote

 that also means warrant somebody's arrest is also used.

American police can still arrest people without a warrant, and search houses without a warrant too (google Probable cause). Oh and there are arrest warrants in the UK depending on the circumstances.

Quote

Section 17 to enter a property or 1, 8 Or what ever

I think this sums up you legal knowledge rather well

Quote

That is also a bit dodgy because nobody knows the context to a constable being somebody's home

I would agree with you here…but then we would both be wrong! There is a legal requirement for police officers to disclose why they are entering someone's address to search and what legal power they are using. So anyone in the address should be fully aware of what is going on.

Quote

there is a reason for the Amendment 4 in the first place

I'm sure there is. But I live and police in the UK so don't really have an interest in how other countries are run. May I recommend some reading first otherwise you're going to make yourself look silly. I've added a link to start you off.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/police-and-criminal-evidence-act-1984-pace-codes-of-practice

Edited by SD
Add quotes
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Zulu 22

SD it is obvious that Needswarrant has not got the foggiest idea of the law and as such it is almost impossible to discuss a subject to which they display total ignorance. There are several on here who are ion the same position. I sometimes suspect that they have been involved as an offender and are just trawling for some straw to grasp hold of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
notapoliceforum

There you go, with the arrogance.

And you'll understand why people don't trust the police. And sure I have looked on youtube, how do you think I know what little I know or don't know. I've read numerous articles, on this. I notice always either a warrant for search of a property, with which then other stuff is found not just drugs, like a gun. Hey if a gun is found, can't avoid that now can we. Just for self defence isn't it.

Quote

A woman has been arrested after police discovered drugs and cash in a raid.

Officers from North Wales Police executed a warrant in Llandudno on Thursday and discovered cannabis, cash and drug dealing paraphernalia.

“This warrant would not have been possible without community information, which signifies how vital intelligence from the public is to successful policing.

 

Quote

The court heard that the investigation began when Dyfed Powys Police began to suspect that the property in Bryn-y-Castell, Welshpool, was being used in the supply of drugs.

Prosecutor John Philpotts said officers executed a search warrant there on March 10, 2018 and arrested the three defendants.

They found two sets of scales in the sitting room and on a microwave oven in the kitchen.

They seized the stun gun and a black Samsung phone from Maczak.

 

They also took a phone and an iPhone from McEvoy and a white Samsung phone from Sears.

Another example.

 That is a warrant system, I'm getting at that that should be standard for all encounters police have if investigating or making an arrest, the UK lacks a system like that, with then, which property could be damaged or get lost. And how do people get that sorted, they can't. Its a mess, and a hassle. A warrant at least guarantees what a police service is looking for, so to avoid complications. Anything is simply not acceptable.
 

If you work for the police or don't, you should at least be concerned with people's liberty and property. Shame.

The police and criminal evidence was passed in 1984, and only implemented in 1986, it also changed mere suspicions to reasonable suspicions on those carrying a weapon in the street, so that was an improvement.

Another example I have read many weeks back.

Quote

they took my iPhone X, laptop, thinkpad (work laptop) and my work phone. Second time they seized my iPhone (i'd borrowed a friends as my own phone i thinkpad again (work gave me a temp one to use as first one was seized), iPad, Apple Watch, kindle and some other smaller things.

To clarify, nothing has been returned to me, the things seized the second time were things they didn't take the first time or that I didn't have the first time.

This was a random post I copied, and noted these points, of what was removed, and clearly no warrant, as a section 32 would of been done due to the person being taken for questioning over unwanted contact. A perfect example, of what isn't needed, and the fact that is something was damaged or broke, could be denied, even if a record was noted, either way. That is just stupid.

A warrant system should demanded her system, and or phone or the phone if that was how the person contacted.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Indiana Jones

I wouldn't say that watching YouTube is doing research. It's barely one step 'higher' than Facebook. I'd also re-read and correct your last post. It doesn't make much sense and if you're going to try and be the proponent of an argument, you ought to at least ensure that what you're writing on a public forum makes sense otherwise you just come across as lacking credibility regardless of how good or bad your argument might be.

Try and be a little more objective. For instance, just because you don't trust the police, doesn't mean that "people" don't trust the police.

Edited by Indiana Jones
typo
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Zulu 22
13 hours ago, needswarrant said:

There you go, with the arrogance.

Do not confuse fact and the truth with arrogance, whoever you directed the comment at. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SD
16 hours ago, needswarrant said:

There you go, with the arrogance.

And you'll understand why people don't trust the police. And sure I have looked on youtube, how do you think I know what little I know or don't know. I've read numerous articles, on this. I notice always either a warrant for search of a property, with which then other stuff is found not just drugs, like a gun. Hey if a gun is found, can't avoid that now can we. Just for self defence isn't it.

 

Another example.

 That is a warrant system, I'm getting at that that should be standard for all encounters police have if investigating or making an arrest, the UK lacks a system like that, with then, which property could be damaged or get lost. And how do people get that sorted, they can't. Its a mess, and a hassle. A warrant at least guarantees what a police service is looking for, so to avoid complications. Anything is simply not acceptable.
 

If you work for the police or don't, you should at least be concerned with people's liberty and property. Shame.

The police and criminal evidence was passed in 1984, and only implemented in 1986, it also changed mere suspicions to reasonable suspicions on those carrying a weapon in the street, so that was an improvement.

Another example I have read many weeks back.

This was a random post I copied, and noted these points, of what was removed, and clearly no warrant, as a section 32 would of been done due to the person being taken for questioning over unwanted contact. A perfect example, of what isn't needed, and the fact that is something was damaged or broke, could be denied, even if a record was noted, either way. That is just stupid.

A warrant system should demanded her system, and or phone or the phone if that was how the person contacted.

I'm genuinely unsure what your point actually is. You seem to have a number of issues which you're rolling into one.

Just to be clear you seem to be of the opinion that UK police do not need a warrant to search someones house but American police do. This simply isn't true. If there is time for police to get a warrant first then they should, if there isn't enough time then they can rely on other powers such as s32 and s18 of PACE. Even then it isn't that simple as s32 requires an offender to have been been arrested in (or having just left) the address and s18 requires an inspectors authority.

You also have an issue with property being damaged and police lying about it. This would be the case if there was a warrant or not.

You also seem to think police can only seize items listed on a warrant and any other illegal items found during the search must be left. This is not the case in the UK or America.

In short I'm coming across as arrogant because your are unable to hold a coherent argument and when you try to I tear it to shreds. Oh, and research shows the vast majority of the public DO trust the police so you're even wrong on that front. So, unless you've a valid point which you can support with something more substantial than anecdotal evidence I'm afraid I'm leaving you to your American ideology.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
notapoliceforum

From what I've read, and watched, on youtube, there are many who don't trust the police, I have read about the police for a few years, and I notice what users say and people who have had run ins with them. Sadly, there is truth to that, and I don't think that will ever go away. Now that isn't quite the same as this topic's subject, but dishonesty or negligence is possible in any encounter with them.

So the point about my argument that a warrant system should be used, the lawyer's property was removed by the FBI using a warrant, what happened in the news recently.

And no I'm not expressing that a warrant somehow protects a person's property, it doesn't. How ever, a warrant at least would indicate that that something was removed, and listed, where as if property is removed, it can be denied by poor employees or what ever is going on, as items could be damaged or something lost with them. The only other alternative is images taken of them as a guarantee.

But the example above shows that somebody who is questioned over indictable or either ways as mentioned, shows how stupid that is, removing a load of rubbish over what, a waste of time.

The law society has published files on this subject, that section 32 is dodgy not literally, but it could be seen as a little ambiguous, not simply because some point out it gives the police power to search a property after somebody is arrested, it can lead to abuses. But none mentioned dishonesty or potential property damage or loss.

Another comment I read via a channel, some guy was arrested something to do with twitter, was accused of what ever it was, had his rubbish removed, I guess nothing further happened, and the individual complained getting his stuff back was a tough one.

There are warrants over a hundred or more, but none to search a phone. And not usually used for suspects or unknown suspects, which is usually used as the examples above about drug possession or dealing.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SD
9 hours ago, needswarrant said:

From what I've read, and watched, on youtube, there are many who don't trust the police, I have read about the police for a few years, and I notice what users say and people who have had run ins with them. Sadly, there is truth to that, and I don't think that will ever go away. Now that isn't quite the same as this topic's subject, but dishonesty or negligence is possible in any encounter with them.

So the point about my argument that a warrant system should be used, the lawyer's property was removed by the FBI using a warrant, what happened in the news recently.

And no I'm not expressing that a warrant somehow protects a person's property, it doesn't. How ever, a warrant at least would indicate that that something was removed, and listed, where as if property is removed, it can be denied by poor employees or what ever is going on, as items could be damaged or something lost with them. The only other alternative is images taken of them as a guarantee.

But the example above shows that somebody who is questioned over indictable or either ways as mentioned, shows how stupid that is, removing a load of rubbish over what, a waste of time.

The law society has published files on this subject, that section 32 is dodgy not literally, but it could be seen as a little ambiguous, not simply because some point out it gives the police power to search a property after somebody is arrested, it can lead to abuses. But none mentioned dishonesty or potential property damage or loss.

Another comment I read via a channel, some guy was arrested something to do with twitter, was accused of what ever it was, had his rubbish removed, I guess nothing further happened, and the individual complained getting his stuff back was a tough one.

There are warrants over a hundred or more, but none to search a phone. And not usually used for suspects or unknown suspects, which is usually used as the examples above about drug possession or dealing.

99% of what you've written is wrong or nonesense. You're simply regergitating things from bias intrrnet sources which fall apart with little challenge. Take the recording of items siezed. The process is EXACTLY THE SAME whether a warrant is used or not.

"but none to search a phone." The warrant is to seize the phone, you get the contents by default. By your logic if I seize safe, I need another warrant to search inside it.

Rather than using YouTube try actually reading PACE.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Equin0x

If someone is arrested then it seems reasonable to me that they be physically searched. But if police want to delve deeper into their personal life by examining their phone or other digital devices, that should require additional justification above whatever a normal search would need. My reasoning is that these devices have become so much more than mere tools in our daily life, they are essentially a highly detailed life diary crammed full of our most private, sensitive thoughts and activities. To me it simply doesn't seem proportionate for that to be searched unless there is a high justification.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sierra Lima
8 hours ago, Equin0x said:

If someone is arrested then it seems reasonable to me that they be physically searched. But if police want to delve deeper into their personal life by examining their phone or other digital devices, that should require additional justification above whatever a normal search would need. My reasoning is that these devices have become so much more than mere tools in our daily life, they are essentially a highly detailed life diary crammed full of our most private, sensitive thoughts and activities. To me it simply doesn't seem proportionate for that to be searched unless there is a high justification.

You're absolutely right. Trust me we don't do it unless it is necessary and proportionate. It wouldn't be authorised. I would add that officers have no desire to do it unless they have to because it creates an awful lot of work in terms of review and disclosure. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BizzieBee
8 hours ago, Equin0x said:

If someone is arrested then it seems reasonable to me that they be physically searched

They are routinely, albeit without the appropriate Legislation for an automatic power to do so: I.e. the reasonable grounds for belief. This isn’t a criticism of officers as, if people weren't routinely searched on arrest, more officers would be seriously injured or killed and/or suspects coming to harm themselves.

This is yet another example of failing ‘Leaders’ who are clueless as to the issues of policy, legislation and practice. S32 PACE has needed a little revision for quite some years ...

1 hour ago, Sierra Lima said:

Trust me we don't do it unless it is necessary and proportionate. It wouldn't be authorised.

Hmm. Your experience must be different to mine. Where RIPA is concerned, the definition of “necessary” includes: “for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime”. Nothing about the seriousness of the offence. Just “crime”. 

‘Suspects’ are often asked for PINs without authority being granted - satisfying the other requirement of belief the PIN can’t be obtained by other means. However, the phraseology of this sounds to suspects that it’s a requirement, under that same power, that they provide the PIN otherwise they’ll be facing prosecution. This isn’t the case. Police can ask for the PIN, but if they don’t want to tell you, that’s nothing to do with RIPA power. Yet. 

1 hour ago, Sierra Lima said:

it creates an awful lot of work in terms of review and disclosure. 

Yes, in some NGAP cases. Particularly where ‘data dumping’ is concerned and long, protracted incidents perhaps involving sexual offences or those of domestic nature. 
For the rest, it’s not overly taxing and downloaded items, such as messages or phone calls, are easily summarised. 

——

RIPA is a useful piece of legislation. Just not in its current form. As it stands, the legislation is far too broad and yields far too much power. Until that’s changed, I would encourage everyone to use end-to-end encrypted messages, VPN connections, encrypted document storage et. al.
That goes for everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Equin0x
2 hours ago, Sierra Lima said:

You're absolutely right. Trust me we don't do it unless it is necessary and proportionate

I disagree. Defining necessary as "For the purpose of preventing or detecting crime" treats all crimes as though they were equal, but they clearly aren't. If someone is arrested for child abuse then I'd say it's definitely necessary and proportionate to search their devices. If someone is arrested for assault then I'm less convinced it's justified. Is there a compelling reason for such intrusion into their private life beyond a mere suspicion that there "might" be evidence on the phone?

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Zulu 22
2 hours ago, Equin0x said:

I disagree. Defining necessary as "For the purpose of preventing or detecting crime" treats all crimes as though they were equal, but they clearly aren't. If someone is arrested for child abuse then I'd say it's definitely necessary and proportionate to search their devices. If someone is arrested for assault then I'm less convinced it's justified. Is there a compelling reason for such intrusion into their private life beyond a mere suspicion that there "might" be evidence on the phone?

You can disagree as much as you like as you are giving an opinion out of total ignorance of legalities.  Crime is crime and you would need to have dealt with victims of crime to discover their perception.  The seriousness of crime is defined by the Legal penalties which are available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Equin0x
2 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

You can disagree as much as you like as you are giving an opinion out of total ignorance of legalities.  Crime is crime and you would need to have dealt with victims of crime to discover their perception.  The seriousness of crime is defined by the Legal penalties which are available.

Zulu I am aware of the legalities, but personally think legislation has failed to keep up with the speed at which technology has fundamentally changed and needs updating. Digital devices hold so much private data about their owners that in my view, there should be a very high threshold needed to justify examining them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Police Community is a forum that is supported financially through advertisements. It is a breach of our standard use policy to use Adblock plugins/software on our site. 

In order to continue using our site you will need to disable Adblock across our site. Alternatively you can purchase a membership package from our online store to remove adverts as part of the membership subscription. 

https://police.community/remove-adverts/

Thank you for your support.

I have disabled Adblock