Jump to content
×
×
  • Create New...

Indictable and summary offence and certain police powers


Recommended Posts

Ether
15 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.

Which the forensic submission requires, the days of aimlessly trawling through phones shouldn’t exist now. 
 

I don’t see a need for more bureaucracy and expense in making up a warrant system, especially when courts can’t cope as it is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ether

    7

  • needswarrant

    7

  • Equin0x

    6

  • Zulu 22

    5

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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

So, guy walks out of his house and gets arrested on suspicion of dealing drugs. Still inside the house are the person's family. Inside the house is a kilo of cocaine. In the 3-4 hours it takes to get

Ether
23 minutes ago, Equin0x said:

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.

You make an interesting point and to a degree I would concur that legislation is behind the curve not ahead of it. 
 

Do I think we need some protracted system and massive amount of justification to access data on phones? Not really, it’s proportionate to examine these given how much data is held that assists an investigation.

I have noticed over recent months the justification for these to be examined has to be more robust and more limited to the request. Previously it was somewhat of a free for all. 
 

A symptom of proper ISO accreditation which isn’t a bad thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ether said:

Which the forensic submission requires, the days of aimlessly trawling through phones shouldn’t exist now. 
 

I don’t see a need for more bureaucracy and expense in making up a warrant system, especially when courts can’t cope as it is. 

How does the submission process work, what sort of threshold is required?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
On 10/04/2021 at 10:27, Zulu 22 said:

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.

Is that attitude really necessary?

Time and time again you attack people asking questions or expressing an opinion, is it really any wonder why the public are feeling less and less connected to the members of society who police them. 
 

Yes their knowledge isn’t the best, yes you may know more (all be it old info) but they are encouraging discussion and that’s what keeps this quiet forum going. 
 

Be decent

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sierra Lima
5 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?

No we treat every crime individually. We cannot have a mobile download authorised if it is not necessary and proportionate. We do take the nature of the crime into consideration obviously, the circumstances and the victim. We can't go on a fishing trip we need to believe there's going to be something we absolutely need.

As for an assault for example unfortunately it has become a habit for offenders to film themselves assaulting people. So sometimes it is necessary to seize and download if there's no other way to prove the offence. If it was your child/partner/friend who had been seriously assaulted you would understand.

We rarely do downloads.  It creates days of extra work and we're already drowning. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sierra Lima said:

No we treat every crime individually. We cannot have a mobile download authorised if it is not necessary and proportionate. We do take the nature of the crime into consideration obviously, the circumstances and the victim. We can't go on a fishing trip we need to believe there's going to be something we absolutely need.

As for an assault for example unfortunately it has become a habit for offenders to film themselves assaulting people. So sometimes it is necessary to seize and download if there's no other way to prove the offence. If it was your child/partner/friend who had been seriously assaulted you would understand.

We rarely do downloads.  It creates days of extra work and we're already drowning. 

I would understand, although I don't think someone in that position is ever going to be truly thinking objectively about what is proportionate. Their partner has just been attacked, all they want is to find out who did it.

If there's no other way to prove an offence except a phone download then I'd say it should depend on the severity of the crime as to whether that download is considered necessary. In cases like terrorism, child abuse, rape, I understand. But for stuff like assault, depending on the circumstances, I'm not so sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zulu 22
1 hour ago, Ether said:

Is that attitude really necessary?

Time and time again you attack people asking questions or expressing an opinion, is it really any wonder why the public are feeling less and less connected to the members of society who police them. 

Yes their knowledge isn’t the best, yes you may know more (all be it old info) but they are encouraging discussion and that’s what keeps this quiet forum going. 
Be decent

Sorry but the points regarding a poster on here revolves very much about 1) Their ignorance of the issue and 2) Their motives for asking the question.  It certainly appears that they have issues because this has happe3ned to them and they just will not accept that them action taken was lawful.

Criticism of the Police is perfectly alright, if it is justified. 

As for legislation it is always a bone of contention that those making it seem to leave so much uncovered and ambiguous that it just provides a mine field for enforcing it and filling the pockets of Lawyers to point out the loop holes.  It is also a constant nightmare for the Police in keeping up to date with the ever changing legislation, always has been and always will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
4 minutes ago, Equin0x said:

How does the submission process work, what sort of threshold is required?

I can’t talk for every force, but you are required to specify a parameter for the search and a justification. 
 

Quite often asked to expand on the justification and have limits put on the search 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
24 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

Sorry but the points regarding a poster on here revolves very much about 1) Their ignorance of the issue and 2) Their motives for asking the question.  It certainly appears that they have issues because this has happe3ned to them and they just will not accept that them action taken was lawful.

Criticism of the Police is perfectly alright, if it is justified. 

As for legislation it is always a bone of contention that those making it seem to leave so much uncovered and ambiguous that it just provides a mine field for enforcing it and filling the pockets of Lawyers to point out the loop holes.  It is also a constant nightmare for the Police in keeping up to date with the ever changing legislation, always has been and always will be.

Whilst I don’t disagree it appears personal to them, I don’t think we should be belittling them. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ether said:

I can’t talk for every force, but you are required to specify a parameter for the search and a justification. 
 

Quite often asked to expand on the justification and have limits put on the search 

What happens if the search uncovers something unrelated? For example being you've arrested someone for assault, the parameters of your search are finding evidence of that assault but you come across a text of them arranging to sell drugs to a friend. Evidence of a crime, but one outside the parameters and justification of your initial search.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether
8 minutes ago, Equin0x said:

What happens if the search uncovers something unrelated? For example being you've arrested someone for assault, the parameters of your search are finding evidence of that assault but you come across a text of them arranging to sell drugs to a friend. Evidence of a crime, but one outside the parameters and justification of your initial search.

Then it can be used, same as if you are searching a house and find drugs or other illegal items. 
 

That’s both reasonable and proportional.

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

 

If there's no other way to prove an offence except a phone download then I'd say it should depend on the severity of the crime as to whether that download is considered necessary. In cases like terrorism, child abuse, rape, I understand. But for stuff like assault, depending on the circumstances, I'm not so sure.

THAT'S WHAT I MEAN WHEN I TALK ABOUT NECESSITY AND PROPORTIONALITY!

I give up. 

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

I would understand, although I don't think someone in that position is ever going to be truly thinking objectively about what is proportionate. Their partner has just been attacked, all they want is to find out who did it.

If there's no other way to prove an offence except a phone download then I'd say it should depend on the severity of the crime as to whether that download is considered necessary. In cases like terrorism, child abuse, rape, I understand. But for stuff like assault, depending on the circumstances, I'm not so sure.

Unfortunately it’s necessary and needed. 
 

 

  • Like 2
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