Police stop and search

cowasaki said:
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.
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope it will be a cold day in hell before that happens. We cannot erode our human rights for the sake of an ill thought out, draconian law which has yet to see someone convicted under it.
 
Coldeh said:
I sincerely hope it will be a cold day in hell before that happens. We cannot erode our human rights for the sake of an ill thought out, draconian law which has yet to see someone convicted under it.
Click to expand...

We will just disagree then and move on.
 
cowasaki said:
We will just disagree then and move on.
Click to expand...
Very well.

Unfortunately, complaining to us is going to do very little. The police acted in a way they thought best, we might not agree with their judgement but there is little we can do.

As for the rude PCSO, I would have taken their collar number and station (one is useless without the other) and made a formal complaint to the station commander. They may well be doing a thankless job, but they must act professionally at all times even when under stressful situations.
 
Coldeh said:
I would have taken their collar number and station (one is useless without the other)
Click to expand...

Very few forces issue the same collar number to more than one officer. For virtually every force just the collar number would be enough but having the station isn't going to do you any harm. Complaints however should go through the line manager of the person you are complaining against. This is explained in the leaflet "Making complaints against the police" which is available from any enquiry desk or online from the police complaints authority (which also covers PCSOs). If you send a complaint higher up it just delays it slightly as it gets sent back down to the line manager.
 
cowasaki said:
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.
Click to expand...

Guidance issued to MPS officers and staff re stop and search photo policy

MPS said:
The guidance:

Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000

Section 44 is a stop and search power which can be used by virtue of a person being in a designated area.

Where an authority is in place, police officers in uniform, or PCSOs IF ACCOMPANIED by a police officer can:

...

- View digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are connected with terrorism.
Click to expand...

Of relevance on the national level is NPIA Guidance on behalf of ACPO: Stop and Search in relation to terrorism [published October 2008] which takes a similar line.

NPIA said:
If officers reasonably suspect that photographs are being taken as part of hostile terrorist reconnaissance, a search under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 or an arrest should be considered. Film and memory cards may be seized as part of the search, but officers do not have a legal power to delete images or destroy film. Although images may be viewed as part of a search, to preserve evidence when cameras or other devices are seized, officers should not normally attempt to examine them. Cameras and other devices should be left in the state they were found and forwarded to appropriately trained staff for forensic examination. The person being searched should never be asked or allowed to turn the device on or off because of the danger of evidence being lost or damaged.
Click to expand...

[emphasis added]

Pointedly, though, it ignores the use of powers under s44 in relation to viewing images. This is rather more circumspect than the MPS position, confining itself to s43 searches, but that is primarily for practical reasons of preserving evidence where reasonable suspicion exists that the person being searched is a terrorist.

Home Office circular 012 / 2009, however, is very close to the MPS statement.

Home Office said:
Digital images may be viewed as part of a search under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images are of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism.
Click to expand...

ss 43 and 45 of the Terrorism Act confer powers of search, but no specific powers in relation to viewing digital images. In the absence of any other reasonable suspicion (not being required for a s44 search) it is clearly the power of search under s44 which is being relied upon in the MPS guidance and Home Office circular.

If it were not the case that officers have a power to view images under s44 (in other words that viewing images was not a search authorised under s44) I would have expected a highly publicised court case to ensue if the challenge were successful. I am not aware than any such challenge has taken place (the dog that did not bark).

Ergo: viewing images on a digital camera is a search.
 
Musicman said:
Guidance issued to MPS officers and staff re stop and search photo policy
Click to expand...

Thats what I said it is JUST guidance issued to ONE police force it is not a national guideline and not law or caselaw. It is meaningless outside of the met's police area.

Most of us don't live in London, in fact I've not even been there for 15 years!

=

Digital images may be viewed as part of a search under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images are of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism.

This does not mean that an officer cannot ask to see the images because it only states MAY be used and is again not law or caselaw but it only relates to s44 stop/searches.
 
I am going to London in a couple of weeks and am not worried about being stopped by the police. If I am I will be polite and offer to show them the photos I have taken. The police have a difficult job to do, and I think this problem of them stopping photographers is being blown out of all proportion.
 
icnoble said:
I am going to London in a couple of weeks and am not worried about being stopped by the police. If I am I will be polite and offer to show them the photos I have taken. The police have a difficult job to do, and I think this problem of them stopping photographers is being blown out of all proportion.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I think national identity cards are a good idea too :)
 
cowasaki said:
Thats what I said it is JUST guidance issued to ONE police force it is not a national guideline and not law or caselaw. It is meaningless outside of the met's police area.

Most of us don't live in London, in fact I've not even been there for 15 years!
Click to expand...

The MPS information was a reference to support my earlier point as I hadn't provided a link to their statement at that time.

Are you saying the ACPO Guidelines and Home Office circular (addressed to "All Chief Officers of Police ... to clarify counter-terrorism legislation in relation to photography in a public place") are meaningless outside London too, though? :shrug:
 
STARKAST said:
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.
Click to expand...

Skipping over all the legalities of s44, I think you need to learn a lesson for this. The police are obliged (or I think actually bound) to investigate these type of situations.

You seem to have taken offence to the security guard getting involved in your business? In an ideal world there would be no terrorists, and security guards wouldn't even be needed. But there are, and they are. He might have been being a bit nosey, or it might have just been a friendly warning that you might be getting approached by the police.

What exactly was your reaction to him saying that? Was it "Thanks mate, have a good day", or something less polite ;)? From your post, I'm getting the impression it was your reaction that prompted him to call the police.... (possibly erroneously :shrug:)

Hope I haven't caused any offence! :)

Chris
 
Re: security guards, especially in the City of London

It appears to be the new SOP.

Amateur Photographer Friday 11th December 2009


AP said:
POLICE CRACKDOWN ON CITY PHOTOGRAPHERS

Among the latest victims of the crackdown is Graham White who was taking photos of a building for a website.

He told Amateur Photographer that he was stopped by a security guard while taking pictures of the Linklaters building on Silk Street, EC2 last Friday (see image above).

'The security guard told me I wasn't allowed to take pictures of their building. I pointed out that it was a public place and there were no restrictions on any photography, and that if he could show I was on private property I would happily stop and move on.

'He replied that the Linklaters building was of no architectural interest (a matter of opinion) and that the City of London Police were asking that anyone seen taking pictures be reported to them.'

A security official for Linklaters, a law firm, told Amateur Photographer that all the firm's security staff have been instructed to alert police about anyone taking photos - amateur or professional - unless the photographer has already notified security about their intentions.

'We can't stop them [the photographer],' he admitted but added: 'We would notify police that someone is taking photos of the building.'

He said security guards have to be aware of photographers seen taking pictures 'looking into the building' and which appear to include security staff.

A spokeswoman for City of London Police said that if security see someone taking pictures of 'personnel, entrances or cameras,' for example, and they feel concerned after asking them 'what they are doing', then they are right to report it to the police.

She said security guards alert police 'if they are unsure' as to the nature of the photos.

Police advise photographers to inform a security official of their intentions, prior to taking pictures.

'We are chock full of iconic buildings and have had terrorist attacks,' the spokeswoman added.
Click to expand...
 
Musicman said:
The MPS information was a reference to support my earlier point as I hadn't provided a link to their statement at that time.

Are you saying the ACPO Guidelines and Home Office circular (addressed to "All Chief Officers of Police ... to clarify counter-terrorism legislation in relation to photography in a public place") are meaningless outside London too, though? :shrug:
Click to expand...

The MPS stuff is only to do with them

I have already commented about the about the home office guidelines. It is just in relation to s44 and how they deal with photographs WHEN it is a s44 stop. If an officer comes up to someone and it is not a s44 stop then the viewing of photographs is not specifically a search.
 
cowasaki said:
I totally agree. I think national identity cards are a good idea too :)
Click to expand...

Interesting. At which point do you think identity cards would have helped with any of the terrorist attacks we've had in this country?

I'm not convinced that I need to pay a significant amount of money for the Govt to hold a further 52 points of info about me on another database system.
Fancy convincing me otherwise?
 
Byker28i said:
Interesting. At which point do you think identity cards would have helped with any of the terrorist attacks we've had in this country?

I'm not convinced that I need to pay a significant amount of money for the Govt to hold a further 52 points of info about me on another database system.
Fancy convincing me otherwise?
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with anti terrorism but to do with crime in general. People have accident in cars and the other person is uninsured and the car unregistered then they just give them fault information. If we had ID cards this would be more difficult. That is just one example. People get stopped and give false info when they are wanted. People who are banned from football matches give false info. etc etc.

Lots of reasons but yes none of the headline terrorism cases would have been affected.
 
cowasaki said:
Nothing to do with anti terrorism but to do with crime in general. People have accident in cars and the other person is uninsured and the car unregistered then they just give them fault information. If we had ID cards this would be more difficult. That is just one example. People get stopped and give false info when they are wanted. People who are banned from football matches give false info. etc etc.

Lots of reasons but yes none of the headline terrorism cases would have been affected.
Click to expand...

Stop being so reasonable. I had a great quote prepared :D

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Hermann Goering


Thing is, most people have some sort of id on them. Bank cards, driving licence cards etc. There's so many cards we have to have I don't think I need to buy another.
 
Byker28i said:
Thing is, most people have some sort of id on them. Bank cards, driving licence cards etc. There's so many cards we have to have I don't think I need to buy another.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. I think that everyone should be issued with one when they turn 14 and update the picture every five years. In America the driving licence acts like this and they even issue NON DRIVING driving licences for those who don't/can't drive.

You can use the national ID card as a passport across most of Europe too so another advantage.
 
cowasaki said:
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.
Click to expand...

The government can derrogate from sections of the ECHR for reasons of national security. It doesn't change the treaty, it means that for a period certain parts don't apply.

They elected not to do so when they lost in the courts on indefinite detention without trial. I don't see them doing so on searching photograhpers.
 
cowasaki said:
Neither do I. I think that everyone should be issued with one when they turn 14 and update the picture every five years.
Click to expand...

LOL, but you and I know that they'll be charged for, with fines for not keeping current, plus the estimated cost was £5 billion (so twice that by the time they've messed up the IT systems), which lets face it in the current climate should go towards paying off the huge debts.
 
onomatopoeia said:
The government can derrogate from sections of the ECHR for reasons of national security. It doesn't change the treaty, it means that for a period certain parts don't apply.

They elected not to do so when they lost in the courts on indefinite detention without trial. I don't see them doing so on searching photograhpers.
Click to expand...

We can only really wait and see. The government and police want s44 and there is not much opposition from other parties. Nothing will happen now till after the election so it is just a matter of wait and see for now.
 
cowasaki said:
The MPS stuff is only to do with them

I have already commented about the about the home office guidelines. It is just in relation to s44 and how they deal with photographs WHEN it is a s44 stop. If an officer comes up to someone and it is not a s44 stop then the viewing of photographs is not specifically a search.
Click to expand...

Er. I was rather under the impression that we were discussing it exactly in the context of a s44 stop, as stated by the OP?

STARKAST said:
It was section 44(2) TA 2000.
Click to expand...

:thinking:
 
Musicman said:
Er. I was rather under the impression that we were discussing it exactly in the context of a s44 stop, as stated by the OP?

:thinking:
Click to expand...

That was not in the OPs original post but a few moments later and I missed it BUT

These are only guidelines and the discussion had moved on from just the one thing. The reality is that until the dust settles any officer can still do exactly what has been done. There are lots of home office "guidelines" that specific forces disagree with and do not necessarily comply with. There are quite a few police forces that are now refusing to record all the stats that the government want for their records now.

Until a final decision is made it is all up in the air, we can discuss it to death but the officer did nothing wrong at all as per the law as it currently stands.
 
You fancy making yourself a test case of the idea that viewing digital images on a camera is not a search and therefore unlawful under s44, then? :D
 
Musicman said:
You fancy making yourself a test case of the idea that viewing digital images on a camera is not a search and therefore unlawful under s44, then? :D
Click to expand...

No asking to see someone's images does not necessarily form a search and therefore would not be a problem. That is the point. The stop is under s44 then the viewing of images is just part of the chat about why you are there.

OR

It would form part of the s44 and be fine anyway.

This is the problem and until it is all sorted which will not happen for a while we are discussing something with no right or wrong answer. I don't really care if I get stopped they will be happily walking away again moments later and so will I. There is only an issue because some people chose to make it one.
 
EDIT - ! (I thought it could have been something other than s44 but re-read the 1st page!)

Why do threads like this always bring out the armchair experts?

The OP got asked what he was doing by law enforcers as a result of a member of the public reporting him for something they thought sus. Annoying but no big deal, get over it!

At the end of the day, the only persons who should be concerned about this are those with something to hide, lets be realistic about this - no harm was done was it? And all those that go on about civil liberties, well, there are lots of criminals locked up as a result of stop and searches (usually though sec 1 PACE searches etc), and those that bleat on about civil liberties and human rights should think about one thing - the civil liberties movement and HRA are responsible for thousands of free convicted criminals walking our streets and being allowed to further blight the lives of decent human beings as we speak.

People should really take a step back and look at the wider picture.
 
odd jim said:
EDIT - ! (I thought it could have been something other than s44 but re-read the 1st page!)

Why do threads like this always bring out the armchair experts?
Click to expand...

threads like this always bring out both camps. If people just talk reasonably to the police and cooperate there isn't an issue!
 
cowasaki said:
threads like this always bring out both camps. If people just talk reasonably to the police and cooperate there isn't an issue!
Click to expand...

Well, I really wish it was that simple but in my experience of being stopped by them it wasn't. I was being as co-operative as I could, the male officer kept speaking over me and his female partner officer actually said to me something along the lines of 'so you think you're innocent don't you' while she was looking at the photos on my camera.

I was on the way to get my bloody shopping as well!

Photographers being stopped by the police is the same as sports car drivers being stopped by them. It's the 'oh he is doing such and such with a such and such therefore he must be suspicious, so lets stop him'.
 
Sometimes you need to look at it from the Police Officers side, what is the easiest stop, a group of gobby louts or a single photographer? When they have targets to acheive it's always going to be the quick and easy option so the photographer will carry on being targetted.:bang::bang:
 
Parklife said:
Sometimes you need to look at it from the Police Officers side, what is the easiest stop, a group of gobby louts or a single photographer? When they have targets to acheive it's always going to be the quick and easy option so the photographer will carry on being targetted.:bang::bang:
Click to expand...

Reminds me of that line in GTA:Vice City, that comes over the radio when you're in a police car - 'We need more arrests - just bag anyone'. Sad thing is, I think there's some truth in it.
 
trencheel303 said:
Reminds me of that line in GTA:Vice City, that comes over the radio when you're in a police car - 'We need more arrests - just bag anyone'. Sad thing is, I think there's some truth in it.
Click to expand...

There's no truth in it.
 
Parklife said:
Sometimes you need to look at it from the Police Officers side, what is the easiest stop, a group of gobby louts or a single photographer? When they have targets to acheive it's always going to be the quick and easy option so the photographer will carry on being targetted.:bang::bang:
Click to expand...

What have the gobby louts got to do with stop searches? Why would a police officer avoid gobby louts, and on what policing experience is your comment based exactly? A group of gobby louts = easy public order / d&d arrest. Its a completely different situation! So if a police officer had targets, these would be the ones they are interested in! An easy arrest looks better than a piece of paper with a few tick boxes at the end of the shift.

Yet more armchair experts.
 
odd jim said:
Yet more armchair experts.
Click to expand...

No not proclaiming to be an any kind of expert, just speaking from past knowledge and experience. We can all have our opinions and thoughts, a forum is for just that kind of discussion.
Quotes like 'Yet more armchair experts' help little and do nothing for online communities, in fact harm the whole idea of a forum as it sets about to not let a balanced discussion take place.

I've added my two-penneth and I'll leave it as that:thumbs:
 
Parklife said:
No not proclaiming to be an any kind of expert, just speaking from past knowledge and experience.
Click to expand...

So I can only summise that from this:

Parklife said:
Sometimes you need to look at it from the Police Officers side, what is the easiest stop, a group of gobby louts or a single photographer? When they have targets to acheive it's always going to be the quick and easy option so the photographer will carry on being targetted.:bang::bang:
Click to expand...

You must be or have been a police officer.
 
odd jim said:
the civil liberties movement and HRA are responsible for thousands of free convicted criminals walking our streets and being allowed to further blight the lives of decent human beings as we speak.
Click to expand...

A bold statement with no facts to back it up.

I'd imagine there are quite a few convicted criminals that post on TP ...
 
Hmmm,

Maybe we need a new section on TP for "stop and search" ????

Personally, and this is just me, I have absolutely no problem in a policeman, PCSO, security guard etc etc ask me what I am doing if I am out and about with the camera. I will happily explain and also let them see the pics, though I don't think a 230000 dot 2.7" screen will show them much - other than blown / dark areas which flash yellow and red!!! :lol:

Yes, I know my rights, and I could stand there and make an ar$e of myself, and make it awkward, but why bother tying up too much police time for something trivial, only to find out the little old granny 2 streets away was mugged for £5 and police couldn't attend in time as they were dealing with an ar$e of a togger who "knew" his rights and was being awkward?

Cilvil liberties etc etc and all that. I too, like Darren (Cowasaki) have no problem with having a national identity card but then I guess, I have nothing to hide.

(I will also say, on the NIC, I would also happily have blood group, next of kin details, and organ donor wishes, along with a myriad of other things!)
 
onomatopoeia said:
A bold statement with no facts to back it up.

I'd imagine there are quite a few convicted criminals that post on TP ...
Click to expand...

Oh please. I could write a book on criminals that were either let out of prison early on licence or let out on unconditional bail due to 'human rights issues' all who re-offended when they should have been residing at Her Majesty's pleasure.

But as long as their 'rights' arn't infringed, thats all that matters... :bang:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top