Police stop and search

[STARKAST]

Is it acceptable for officers to give you the 'stop and search' form and ask you questions like why you are photographing, what were you photographing etc etc etc. Do you have to comply with their wishes ??? because its soo annoying

Today i photographing in st pauls area and harrow area and i got stopped and searched twice and the lot - couldn't belive it. I was on the street not on private property! :annoyed:
thanx

 

[trencheel303]

If they cited section 44 it's now illegal.

I would be interested under what grounds they were stopping and searching you as such behaviour is now being heavily clamped down on.

You don't have to comply unless they arrest you but to do so is usually the easiest thing to do, else they might find something to nick you for, if you get me.

 

[STARKAST]

It was section 44(2) TA 2000.

 

[trencheel303]

Well that's strange - I was certain that entire piece of legislation had been outlawed. Next time you get stopped, ask why and for what offense, if they say section 44 tell them that you are not legally bound to say a thing, nor can they seize your camera kit or look through it, and if they insist you speak then say you won't until you have a lawyer present!

 

[onomatopoeia]

Well that's strange - I was certain that entire piece of legislation had been outlawed.

This is not the USA and the Law Lords as was / Supreme Court as is cannot strike down legislation (nor can the European Court of Human Rights for that matter), we have the concept of parliamentary supremacy in the UK, only parliament can make or repeal laws. All they can do is declare one piece of legislation incomaptible with another.

The Law Lords and then (after the government appealled) the ECHR declared s44 incompatible with article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory and which is enshrined in UK law as the Human Rights Act. This means that the UK parliament must act to change the law to bring it into compliance, but that the existing law remains and so s44 stops can continue but further legal challenges to s44 stops are likely to be successful as a precedent exists from a higher court.

Anyway, if the OP is stopped again he might like to quite Gillan and Quinton v the United Kingdom which is the case that went through the courts in this country and then to Strasbourg with the government losing at every opportunity. I think there is one more avenue of appeal available to the government, to the grand chamber, but that very rarely finds against the court and I'm not sure they have any time left to lodge the appeal.

This particular case make me glad I give my £3/month to support Liberty in its efforts.

 

[TinaC]

Starkast, I'm not being racist but what colour are you? My daughter photographs a lot around London town and has never been stopped or questioned but she is clearly female and white...feel like I've just lit the blue touch paper...

 

[Peach]

I've been stopped and searched in my car for having my hood up at 12am driving home from work.

No explanation from police what-so-ever... I didn't even get an apology!
Depends what mood their in I guess, They must think they ARE the law.

 

[itsdavedotnet]

They must think they ARE the law.

they ARE its enforcers...

 

[trencheel303]

Thanks for clarifying onomatopoeoia. Speaking of police, a car just sat outside my house halfway around a corner obstructing traffic for half an hour while they interviewed someone. I was tempted to ask them to shift the whole meter around the corner - police or not, they were an obstruction.

 

[Coldeh]

Well that's strange - I was certain that entire piece of legislation had been outlawed. Next time you get stopped, ask why and for what offense, if they say section 44 tell them that you are not legally bound to say a thing, nor can they seize your camera kit or look through it, and if they insist you speak then say you won't until you have a lawyer present!

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was deemed illegal by the European Court of Human Rights, however, the Home Office appealed and have said that they will continue using the law until the appeal has been through the system.

As of writing, the law is still enforceable.

I would suggest checking out Photographers Rights v.2, it's a very good document.

they ARE its enforcers...

They are not above it however. If the Police were causing an obstruction of the highway, then they themselves were committing an offence however it is very unlikely you will see a Police Constable arrest another PC because they broke a minor law.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I've been stopped and searched in my car for having my hood up at 12am driving home from work.

No explanation from police what-so-ever... I didn't even get an apology!
Depends what mood their in I guess, They must think they ARE the law.

Next time if a policeman asks you to get out of the car act as if you're a bit unsteady on your feet, then when he says "you're staggering" you can reply "thanks,you're not bad yourself'".....

 

[Ceejay]

Next time if a policeman asks you to get out of the car act as if you're a bit unsteady on your feet, then when he says "you're staggering" you can reply "thanks,you're not bad yourself'".....

Thanks Graham, I now have a keyboard full of coffee !!!!!!
C

 

[STARKAST]

Well i never got literally 'stopped and searched'. I got the questions as i said in my post and the stop and seach paper twice.
At onomatopoeia you reccomend i quote that case ? The pcs prob already know about it.

 

[cowasaki]

Was it a "stop and search" form or a STOP FORM. The stop form is simply a piece of paper detailing the person that has stopped you in order to talk to you and is there so that you know who you spoke to. If you were just spoken to and not searched then I would suggest that that is what it is. It is perfectly reasonable for a police officer to stop anyone they like and speak to them. If you start trying to be funny with them then that is where problems occur just speak to them normally and they will smile and wander back off again when they realise that you are not causing a problem.

 

[trencheel303]

If you just got stopped, with no searching then I'd spark up a conversation. So long as they weren't being overly snotty with the 'are you a P****' attitude. I only get ****ed off with coppers when they start the searching nonsense, which has happened to me and yes I was annoyed.

 

[cowasaki]

If you just got stopped, with no searching then I'd spark up a conversation. So long as they weren't being overly snotty with the 'are you a P****' attitude. I only get ****ed off with coppers when they start the searching nonsense, which has happened to me and yes I was annoyed.

They have to explain the reason for the search, the police training includes this as it is a basic thing....

 

[neil_g]

I've been stopped and searched in my car for having my hood up at 12am driving home from work.

No explanation from police what-so-ever... I didn't even get an apology!
Depends what mood their in I guess, They must think they ARE the law.

how do you know it was for having your hood up if they didnt give an explanation?

 

[PicNick]

I've been stopped and searched in my car for having my hood up at 12am driving home from work.

That's not an uncommon situation. As far as I know, it's required that your face is visible from outside of the car, so much like shopping centres making 'hoddies' lower their hoods, it's so you can be seen. When it comes to driving, if your car has very dark tinted windows that too could be a reason for them stopping you as they would not be able to see the driver clearly if at all.

Now back to the OP, I'm about to open up a whole can of worms here but...if you were not doing anything to offend or out of the ordinary that you could be guilty of...then why be bothered by the stop? Obviously if the police were hostile in anyway this may be different, but if they simply stop to ask a few questions, you appear innocent and everybody goes on their way, i don't believe that's a big deal?

BUT, suppose random Joe is out shooting pictures of the parliament buildings, or the Bank of England or other 'important' buildings, PC plod walks on by thinking 'oh he's just taking some pretty pictures to show his friends on TP forum' but in actual fact random Joe turns out to be at the top of Americas most wanted list, would you not rather that our PC did stop him? Would you not rather that our PC asked the questions? This is the reason that all of these police are wandering about the streets aren't they?

I understand the whole harassment issue but IMO if you are innocent, and have nothing to hide, why fear the questioning?

Sorry if i have offended anyone...

 

[Coldeh]

That's not an uncommon situation. As far as I know, it's required that your face is visible from outside of the car, so much like shopping centres making 'hoddies' lower their hoods, it's so you can be seen. When it comes to driving, if your car has very dark tinted windows that too could be a reason for them stopping you as they would not be able to see the driver clearly if at all.

Can you provide a link (Office of Public Sector Information bill page preferably) where this is enshrined in law? I have never heard of it being illegal or reasonable to be stopped for wearing a hood up in your vehicle.

 

[TheNissanMan]

Can you provide a link (Office of Public Sector Information bill page preferably) where this is enshrined in law? I have never heard of it being illegal or reasonable to be stopped for wearing a hood up in your vehicle.

Or the fact you have to show your face...

Wouldn't that then be illegal in itself as islam dress (i think) for females covers there faces... Hijabs must now be illegal then on that argument!

 

[cowasaki]

It is not against the law to cover your face whilst driving but doing so is likely to get you stopped as the police have the right to stop ANY car driving on a public highway in order to check docs etc. Female devout muslims would not be able to drive if it was against the law.

 

[PicNick]

Or the fact you have to show your face...

Wouldn't that then be illegal in itself as islam dress (i think) for females covers there faces... Hijabs must now be illegal then on that argument!

Admittedly, I do appear to have got this wrong now that I've checked it out in more detail, It's more to do with driver visibility (you being able to see out rather than them see in) and window tints (The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2003) however, surely logic comes into this. Why wear your hood in the car, does that not restrict your visibility? was the roof leaking and it was raining outside? It's a huge generalisation but car thieves probably wear their hoods up to conceal their identity, so you would once again understand the police being suspicious of somebody driving round late at night with their hood up.

Again going back to the OP, how did the discussion with the PC(s) who stopped you go? How did the conversation progress, and where they polite or intimidating?

 

[STARKAST]

Well the first was very embarrassing it was outside a major station at rush hour. There were 2 community officers and one transport police officer questioning me. The community officer was rude asking me to look at thim and stand straight and even had the audacity to ask if i've been drinking (how do these people pass the tests to enforce laws).


The second was city london officers - They were very polite. However i couldn't belive the cavalry actually came in a van with sirens to seize a photographer.

This is two counts of persecution/harrasment in 4 hrs. :|

 

[TheNissanMan]

Admittedly, I do appear to have got this wrong now that I've checked it out in more detail, It's more to do with driver visibility (you being able to see out rather than them see in) and window tints (The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2003) however, surely logic comes into this. Why wear your hood in the car, does that not restrict your visibility? was the roof leaking and it was raining outside? It's a huge generalisation but car thieves probably wear their hoods up to conceal their identity, so you would once again understand the police being suspicious of somebody driving round late at night with their hood up.

Again going back to the OP, how did the discussion with the PC(s) who stopped you go? How did the conversation progress, and where they polite or intimidating?

There are laws in place against tinted windows which dictate how dark your windows in the car can be for safety and police do check these with portable light meters mainly sue to the fact that at night it is much harder to see whats going on around you, hazards and obstacles etc, you can wear what you like in your car as long as your decent If you were driving like a numpty becuase you couldn't see due to your attire I'm sure they'ld be able to get you for something like driving without care and attention/dangerous driving etc...

 

[trencheel303]

The community officer was rude asking me to look at thim and stand straight and even had the audacity to ask if i've been drinking

In that case I'd have told them that you left school years ago, so either he stops speaking to you like a schoolteacher would and let you go, or arrest you.

 

[PicNick]

...The community officer was rude asking me to look at thim and stand straight and even had the audacity to ask if i've been drinking (how do these people pass the tests to enforce laws)...

...i couldn't belive the cavalry actually came in a van with sirens to seize a photographer.

This is two counts of persecution/harrasment in 4 hrs. :|

This sounds interesting, although perfectly reasonable in any situation, if an officer has deemed it necessary to stop and talk to you and you are not paying them full attention, they will ask you to look at them. Not only that but its only good manners to look someone in the eye when they are talking to you is it not? Or do good manners not count these days? How did you react to the first stop? I know it probably wasn't your fault, and I too would be understandably ****ed off, but at the end of the day if a copper wants to talk to you, you wont get anywhere if you don't comply or pay them the attention they deserve.

The second situation sounds ridiculous? They called in back up or something who deemed it necessary to give it all the lights and sounds? Why did they 'seize' you?

 

[cowasaki]

In that case I'd have told them that you left school years ago, so either he stops speaking to you like a schoolteacher would and let you go, or arrest you.

He can't do that as he is a PCSO. I would have got out a pen and writen down his collar number then asked who his supervision was and the inspector covering his section. I have the utmost respect for people doing a thankless task but there is no excuse to be rude even if the person you are speaking to is being rude to you.

 

[Musicman]

Well i never got literally 'stopped and searched'. I got the questions as i said in my post and the stop and seach paper twice.
At onomatopoeia you reccomend i quote that case ? The pcs prob already know about it.

did you show them your photographs? If you did (whether voluntarily or not) then it's a search in law, even if they did not look anywhere else about your person.

The Metropolitan police have themselves been quite keen over the last few years to define 'looking at photos on a digital camera' as a search, as it then brought that within the definition of a search under s43 and s44 and consequently gave them the powers to do so.

Under PACE Code A Code of Practice, even if you volunteer to let them see your photos, then the officer must nevertheless have a lawful reason for a search (in this case s44 of the Terrorism Act 2000).

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/pub...codes-2005/PACE_Chapter_A2835.pdf?view=Binary

1.5 An officer must not search a person, even with his or her consent, where no power to search is applicable. Even where a person is prepared to submit to a search voluntarily, the person must not be searched unless the necessary legal power exists, and the search must be in accordance with the relevant power and the provisions of this Code. The only exception, where an officer does not require a specific power, applies to searches of persons entering sports grounds or other premises carried out with their consent given as a condition of entry.

Casual, 'voluntary' searches, where no power exists to search, were thus effectively abolished.

 

[cowasaki]

did you show them your photographs? If you did (whether voluntarily or not) then it's a search in law, even if they did not look anywhere else about your person.

The Metropolitan police have themselves been quite keen over the last few years to define 'looking at photos on a digital camera' as a search, as it then brought that within the definition of a search under s43 and s44 and consequently gave them the powers to do so.

Under PACE Code A Code of Practice, even if you volunteer to let them see your photos, then the officer must nevertheless have a lawful reason for a search (in this case s44 of the Terrorism Act 2000).

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/pub...codes-2005/PACE_Chapter_A2835.pdf?view=Binary



Casual, 'voluntary' searches, where no power exists to search, were thus effectively abolished.

If the officer has reasonable grounds to think that an offence has occurred and that the person present at that location is responsible then they can search under PACE anyway OR "acting furtively in an area of high crime" springs up on a daily basis. Any reasonable grounds would have to be argued in a court of law and the officer may use force to make the person stay with him whilst he conducts the search.

The showing of photos is a search, maybe? What caselaw is that from? Just because the met have said that that is the case does not make it so they are just one police force of many and have no jurisdiction over other forces.

The reality is that if you have an attitude towards a police officer stopping you then they are clearly going to have one back and feel that you have something to hide. Tell them what you are doing and show them your photos if you like. This us and them attitude just erodes the trust both ways. They regularly have to make split second decisions that several people will then spend a week pondering over!

If your wife was injured because a police officer couldn't search someone he suspected of wrong doing would you consider that you had won the argument?

We are all in this together, terrorism and/or crime is here to stay and the number of stops and/or searches, CCTV, vehicle stop checks, ANPR cameras etc is only ever going to go up.

 

[STARKAST]

Yes on both occasions they asked to view the photographs.(they never asked me to delete them obviously)
PicNick - i was photographing near st pauls and a security guard was being noisy saying the usual -"the coppers come around here alot so be carefull etc" then 5 later, walking down the street and i hear a van and sirens searching for me. The officer said the guard was weary and called us because of a suspicious photographer.

 

[cowasaki]

Yes on both occasions they asked to view the photographs.(they never asked me to delete them obviously)
PicNick - i was photographing near st pauls and a security guard was being noisy saying the usual -"the coppers come around here alot so be carefull etc" then 5 later, walking down the street and i hear a van and sirens searching for me. The officer said the guard was weary and called us because of a suspicious photographer.

and what is wrong with that?

I would suggest that the answer is nothing! They spoke to you, you showed them the photographs, they left and so did you.

If you take away powers of stop and search then it is the public that will suffer!

 

[cowasaki]

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was deemed illegal by the European Court of Human Rights

It was not deemed illegal, simply deemed incompatible. Sovereign states are able to bend certain sections of the convention of human rights for certain things and terrorism comes into it. The police are still using it because in all likelyhood it will be deemed correct and the human rights act ammended instead.

 

[STARKAST]

and what is wrong with that?

I would suggest that the answer is nothing! They spoke to you, you showed them the photographs, they left and so did you.

If you take away powers of stop and search then it is the public that will suffer!

Benjamin franklin - those that would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both.

These stops are a joke!! Say the officers looks at the photos - are they going to decide that the person is a terrorist -
I'm a photographer not a terrorist!
Terrorists use google earth/street

 

[cowasaki]

Benjamin franklin - those that would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both.

These stops are a joke!! Say the officers looks at the photos - are they going to decide that the person is a terrorist -
I'm a photographer not a terrorist!
Terrorists use google earth/street

Benjamin Franklin was an American living in a different world. I would rather be stopped every now and then than blown up and it is the general stop and search powers that I am discussing. Yes I would suspect that most terrorists would be a little more subtle than walking around with a large DSLR.

I'm a shopper not a shop lifter but I get scanned every time I leave Asda by a machine. Can't say it bothers me really. I don't think I've been pulled in 14 years whilst driving and never stopped by the police whilst taking photographs. I have never been approached by security taking pictures in a shopping centre or store and the only time I've ever done that I asked before doing so and was told yes.

Like I said, get used to it it is only going to get worse not better.

 

[Paul Male]

As long as they arent being "snotty" what does it matter if they stop to "chat" and generallly enquire what your up to? I think in most cases if your pleasant and accomodating with them then what problem can there be? Surely they are only trying to protect us "the citizens"?

I know that sometimes these situations can annoy us but isn't it being done for our own good?

Haven't a lot of criminals been caught by random stop searching/enquiries?

 

[onomatopoeia]

It was not deemed illegal, simply deemed incompatible. Sovereign states are able to bend certain sections of the convention of human rights for certain things and terrorism comes into it. The police are still using it because in all likelyhood it will be deemed correct and the human rights act ammended instead.

No. Once it has got to Strasbourg it is not the HRA that is important, it is the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory and was in large part brought about by Winston Churchill.

The Law Lords / Supreme Court can rule on interpretations of UK legislation and hence declared s44 incompatible with the HRA, which itself is an embodiment of the ECHR into UK statute and allows ECHR cases to be heard in UK courts.

Normally the Law Lords would be the end, but the government appealled it to Strasbourg where the judges look at violations of the ECHR itself rather than how it is enacted in UK statute. s44 has now been declared incompatible with the ECHR. This will not be amended, it is not in the power of the government to do so alone.

Note, I am not a lawyer so you should not treat this information as being reliable. It is a lay person's interpretation, a lawyer could probably explain it better.

 

[jerry12953]

In that case I'd have told them that you left school years ago, so either he stops speaking to you like a schoolteacher would and let you go, or arrest you.

That sounds like threatening behaviour. You're nicked, sonny.....

 

[cowasaki]

No. Once it has got to Strasbourg it is not the HRA that is important, it is the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory and was in large part brought about by Winston Churchill.

The Law Lords / Supreme Court can rule on interpretations of UK legislation and hence declared s44 incompatible with the HRA, which itself is an embodiment of the ECHR into UK statute and allows ECHR cases to be heard in UK courts.

Normally the Law Lords would be the end, but the government appealled it to Strasbourg where the judges look at violations of the ECHR itself rather than how it is enacted in UK statute. s44 has now been declared incompatible with the ECHR. This will not be amended, it is not in the power of the government to do so alone.

Note, I am not a lawyer so you should not treat this information as being reliable. It is a lay person's interpretation, a lawyer could probably explain it better.

No. Individual countries can get out of the HRA when it affects certain things and one of these is national security. s44 is in relation to national security being part of the anti terrorism act. This same national security get out clause is what is responsible for the government/police being able to hold terrorists for far longer that normal criminals and in normal breach of the HRA.

I would put money on s44 staying as is and so are the police.

 

[PicNick]

...a security guard was being noisy saying the usual -"the coppers come around here alot so be carefull etc" then 5 later, walking down the street and i hear a van and sirens searching for me. The officer said the guard was weary and called us because of a suspicious photographer.

Alas we get to the bottom of this. As is often the case, this is the work of an over eager security guard doing his bit. Yet again i still cannot complain about the police's handling of the situation, the guard has obviously (and rather annoyingly, mistakenly) called the police with his concerns, and the plod have come along to check on the situation, once again doing the job that our taxes pay for as we always ask for it to be done.

The police may take an age on occasions to respond to incidents, this time unfortunatelty they were right around the corner and it happened to be the heavy squad who answered the call (20mins later and who knows, it could have been 2 PCSOs who turned up instead), they simply followed their training and went off to investigate what this security guard was worried about.

 

[PicNick]

As long as they arent being "snotty" what does it matter if they stop to "chat" and generallly enquire what your up to? I think in most cases if your pleasant and accomodating with them then what problem can there be? Surely they are only trying to protect us "the citizens"?

I know that sometimes these situations can annoy us but isn't it being done for our own good?

Haven't a lot of criminals been caught by random stop searching/enquiries?

That is spot on! Exactly the point I was trying to make in the first place.