UK Police - procedures for search of a female

If you haven't read the Human Rights Act, then - and I honestly don't mean to be rude here - you don't know about human rights in English law. It is the only piece of Human Rights legislation in English law. What specific situations do you mean?

No, but - in cases like this - the police don't know if the suspect is a criminal or not. You can't have police pushing people around before they even know if they're criminals, that's why we have trials. Otherwise, not only would there be no incentive for the police to make sure they get the person who's actually guilty, but you, me and everyone else would not be safe. You want evidence? Look at the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, they made retroactive laws that punished people for things which weren't crimes at the time they were committed, and Stalin had 40,000 people killed for an alleged assassination plot. And that's not even the worst of it by a long way. Be thankful that we have rights in this country, such as the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal, that protect your rights BEFORE IT CAN BE PROVEN THAT YOU ARE A CRIMINAL, and don't just take it for granted that you have freedom.

Sorry but I don't see how this answers my question. How would informing the citizen for the reasons for the search and having two female officers present make the search any less effective? I understand your argument about how the police shouldn't have to pussy-foot around, and now I'm asking for specifics.

And then, when the offenders go back into society, they will reoffend because they're in an even worse position to make a new life for themselves. Recidivism by people who served custodial sentences is a serious problem in the UK, and as much as it sounds more satisfying than the "soft option" of rehabilitation, the fact is that it just doesn't work for the purposes of preventing reoffending. Also, crime has several causes, such as poverty, which may not justify the crimes committed but make it far too simplistic to just say "let's be tougher".

 

I said that I treated everyone's posts with respect - but your style of wording tempts me to make an exception

You're young, you're male, you're a martial arts pratitioner, and you live in a box (and the cops in your box are rough??? )

I suspect your profile's declared 'interest' in women hasn't gone as far as looking after one for a number of years.

From your own signature:

... I'm sure it continues:

He who knows woman is a rare and understanding character,
He who understands woman......... Sorry! There's no such man!


{Cheers Johnno - I'll pass on your kind words }

 

Not too sure what you want from me, I am referring to police having to be very soft with various folk dud to potential repercussions, such as potential legal action as in the case at hand, as a result of such actions the police have to get softer.

I disagree, I don’t think its wrong for police to push people around before they even know if their criminals. I am not saying that innocent people should get battered, but I don’t see anything wrong with the police being rough with folk, if they have not done anything wrong then they will be released and also have negative memories of the police, thus in future they are less likely to want to be in such a position, I think it’s a good deterrent. I’m not saying anything about retroactive laws, I’m just saying that IMO it is beneficial to public safety if the police are heavy handed.

Not too sure if get your point. From what you say, I don’t see how informing the citizen for the reasons for the search and having two female officers present makes the search any less effective. What I was referring to was that IMO, it is enough to have a suspicious feeling/hunch about an individual in order to instigate a search. I don’t think the police should have to declare why they are searching an individual.

I think this is a whole different issue, or maybe I’m just not seeing the connection. I have views on how prisoners should be treated and rehabilitated but of what relevance is this to the matter at hand.

Just to add, I think the perfect, or best police force in terms of effectiveness is in Singapore, consequently they have a very low crime rate. I use them as my ideal model of a police force and their prison/rehabilitation services are pretty good too.

Kindly give me an example so that I can see exactly what you mean by "my style of wording".

LOL… ahh ok… yeah the cops in my box are the roughest around..

You know what they say about assumptions…

This is true..

 

I think you've watched too many episodes of the Shield

 

LOL… How did you know?

My opinion is formed by contact with various police forces and their effects on me and the people around me, and of course my skewed world views have also been of relevance.

How many different police forces have you had contact with, i.e. seen long and short term effects of their policies/policing? Me, I’ve seen a few, Russian, Singaporean and British, I am merely regurgitating my perceptions and experiences.

 

but how often did you see the Singaporean police do anything? another thought, how often do you see a police car with their siren on in that country?

 

In this case they should have been "softer" or at least shown common courtesy and kept the presumption of innocence in mind. If they had to chase her down an alley and tackle her I don't think there would be much concern about how they handled things.

WHAT! The police force are public servants, criminals should fear them but the average citizen should never fear the police. If the citizens fear the police then the police have become the criminals they swore to protect the public from.

Fortunately for all, your opinion is not what's on the legal books.

This case is a perfect example: It sounds like the officers involved were under the gun and decided to presume everyone guilty and lean on them in hopes the perpetrator would crack. Nice theory, as you will get the guilty party eventually; however, the ends do not justify the means. Violating the civil rights of innocent citizens to catch a petty thief is not a fair trade.

 

Yes, This was legal

As harsh as this statement seems, what your wife went through was completly legal. The measure of the system is that your wife never asked for legal representation, and vertially consented to each step of the process, never stopping nor asking for the process to stop. Your wife had not committed a crime, but was profiled to be a possible accomplice in a crime. Your wife should have asked if she was under arrest, and if not, declined further comment until her attorney could be present, or allowed to leave. At this point the arresting officer would have to establish whether enough evidence could be established for a felony charge, which they could of held her for no longer than 24 hours, or appearance infront of a judge or magistrate.

I''m posting a little information in hope that it might help in the future, and clarify rights.

IF YOU'RE ARRESTED

Stay calm. Provide identification but don't answer any questions without a lawyer. (ASK FOR A LAWYER), questioning has to stop at that point until your legal council is present.

Anything you say can be used against you.

Try to remember the details surrounding the arrest, including:


everything you or the officers said or did before, during and after the arrest
the names, badge numbers and descriptions of any officers who were present
the details of the physical space, including where you and the officers were
the names and descriptions of anyone else who was present
Ask to talk to a lawyer

Don’t make any decisions without talking to a lawyer first. The biggest mistakes you can make are panicking, trying to get it over with quickly either by coperating with the police,(who can lie to you, place false statements infront of you, and vertually use any means at their disposal to get information from you, even by “confessing,”, or what may be deemed a confession throught statement of facts or acknowledgements. Don't try to talk your way out of the problem, or try to deal with the police on your own. If you can’t afford a lawyer, you may be entitled to a public defender free of charge. Ask to have one appointed before you make any statements to the police or in court – it’s your right.

Find a good lawyer if you don't already have one.
Your lawyer should be a criminal defense attorney, who understands the law and the courts where the arrest occurred.

Write everything down.
Write down all the details as soon as possible, and share them only with your attorney. Ask your attorney who else it is safe to talk to in confidence.

Know your legal options
Make sure you understand the charges and discuss all the possible outcomes with your lawyer, including the consequences of any plea or conviction. These could include:

a fine
jail time
forfeiting property
effects on your military or immigration status
consequences for your employment, licensing or child custody
Tell your lawyer about any confidential circumstances.
Be sure to tell your lawyer whether you have a relationship with anyone who you don’t want to find out about your arrest.

Ask your lawyer questions, including:


Is it possible to get the charges dismissed because of conduct by the police?
Will I have a criminal record? Are there programs to avoid one?
Could I get my record cleared at some point?
Will the record be sealed?
Do I need to take time off from work to go to court?
Get support.
It’s okay to use anonymous hotlines to ask questions, and talk about your experience. .

Your wife was caught up in a very undesirable situation, but for some reason her actions (concerns) caused her to be detained as a reasonable suspect, event though it was clear with her release her actions could not support a felony charge, or any other charge.

 

Good advice...for the U.S.!

The general "be polite" aspects are always good. Unfortunately some of the specifics you mention are inapplicable in terms of this incident. In the U.K. you are arrested so the matter can be investigated, not just to be charged

It was NOT a legal search due to the breaches of PACE described. And in the U.K. if you are to be searched you do not have the right to wait for your brief/solicitor - you will be searched by force if necessary. This is rare, but I have done it.

There is no such thing as a search by consent in U.K. law anymore (or "voluntary search" as it was known). If the officers have no grounds they have no search - in other words you cannot just "go fishing"

 

Current residing Penal Code

(a) The Legislature finds and declares that law enforcement policies and practices for conducting strip or body cavity searches of detained persons vary widely throughout the United States. Consequently, some people have been arbitrarily subjected to unnecessary strip and body cavity searches after arrests for minor misdemeanor and infraction offenses. Some present search practices violate state and federal constitutional rights to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to protect the state and federal constitutional rights of the people of California by establishing a statewide policy strictly limiting strip and body cavity searches.

(b) The provisions of this section shall apply only to prearraignment detainees arrested for infraction or misdemeanor offenses and to any minor detained prior to a detention hearing on the grounds that he or she is a person described in Section 300, 601, or 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code alleged to have committed a misdemeanor or infraction offense. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any person in the custody of the Director of the Department of Corrections or the Director of the Youth Authority.

(c) As used in this section, "strip search" means a search which requires a person to remove or arrange some or all of his or her clothing so as to permit a visual inspection of the underclothing, breasts, buttocks, or genitalia of such person.

(d) As used in this section:

(1) "Body cavity" only means the stomach or rectal cavity of a person, and vagina of a female person.

(2) "Visual body cavity search" means visual inspection of a body cavity.

(3) "Physical body cavity search" means physical intrusion into a body cavity for the purpose of discovering any object concealed in the body cavity.

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including Section 40304.5 of the Vehicle Code, when a person is arrested and taken into custody, that person may be subjected to patdown searches, metal detector searches, and thorough clothing searches in order to discover and retrieve concealed weapons and contraband substances prior to being placed in a booking cell.

(f) No person arrested and held in custody on a misdemeanor or infraction offense, except those involving weapons, controlled substances or violence nor any minor detained prior to a detention hearing on the grounds that he or she is a person described in Section 300, 601 or 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, except for those minors alleged to have committed felonies or offenses involving weapons, controlled substances or violence, shall be subjected to a strip search or visual body cavity search prior to placement in the general jail population, unless a peace officer has determined there is reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts to believe such person is concealing a weapon or contraband, and a strip search will result in the discovery of the weapon or contraband. No strip search or visual body cavity search or both may be conducted without the prior written authorization of the supervising officer on duty. The authorization shall include the specific and articulable facts and circumstances upon which the reasonable suspicion determination was made by the supervisor.

(g) (1) Except pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (2), no person arrested and held in custody on a misdemeanor or infraction offense not involving weapons, controlled substances or violence, shall be confined in the general jail population unless all of the following are true:

(i) The person is not cited and released.

(ii) The person is not released on his or her own recognizance pursuant to Article 9 (commencing with Section 1318) of Chapter 1 of Title 10 of Part 2.

(iii) The person is not able to post bail within a reasonable time not less than three hours.

(2) No person may be housed in the general jail population prior to release pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) unless a documented emergency exists and there is no reasonable alternative to such placement. Such person shall be placed in the general population only upon prior written authorization documenting the specific facts and circumstances of the emergency. The written authorization shall be signed by the uniformed supervisor of the facility or by a uniformed watch commander. Any person confined in the general jail population pursuant to paragraph (1) shall retain all rights to release on citation, his or her own recognizance, or bail which were preempted as a consequence of the emergency.

(h) No person arrested on a misdemeanor or infraction offense, nor any minor described in subdivision (b), shall be subjected to a physical body cavity search except under the authority of a search warrant issued by a magistrate specifically authorizing the physical body cavity search.

(i) A copy of the prior written authorization required by subdivisions (f) and (g) and the search warrant required by subdivision (h) shall be placed in the agency's records and made available, on request, to the person searched or his or her authorized representative. With regard to any strip, visual or body search, the time, date and place of the search, the name and sex of the person conducting the search and a statement of the results of the search, including a list of any items removed from the person searched, shall be recorded in the agency's records and made available, upon request, to the person searched or his or her authorized representative.

(j) Persons conducting a strip search or a visual body cavity search shall not touch the breasts, buttocks, or genitalia of the person being searched.

(k) A physical body cavity search shall be conducted under sanitary conditions, and only by a physician, nurse practitioner, registered nurse, licensed vocational nurse or emergency medical technician Level II licensed to practice in this state. Any physician engaged in providing health care to detainees and inmates of the facility may conduct physical body cavity searches.

(l) All persons conducting or otherwise present during a strip search or visual or physical body cavity search shall be of the same sex as the person being searched, except for physicians or licensed medical personnel.

(m) All strip, visual and physical body cavity searches shall be conducted in an area of privacy so that the search cannot be observed by persons not participating in the search. Persons are considered to be participating in the search if their official duties relative to search procedure require them to be present at the time the search is conducted.

(n) A person who knowingly and willfully authorizes or conducts a strip, visual or physical body cavity search in violation of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(o) Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting any common law or statutory rights of any person regarding any action for damages or injunctive relief, or as precluding the prosecution under another provision of law of any peace officer or other person who has violated this section.

(p) Any person who suffers damage or harm as a result of a violation of this section may bring a civil action to recover actual damages, or one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever is greater. In addition, the court may, in its discretion, award punitive damages, equitable relief as it deems necessary and proper, and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees.

 

Before you state that this California Penal Code

This is the precise penal code followed currently by Law enforcement in the United States, originated and forgone by the state of California, adopted by the 48 of 50 States Penal systems. In compliance with State, Federal and International standards of Human Rights.

 

Good Point

The vastness of US law and International Law, processes may differ. I quote US dictative directive, agree through National Human Rights, that may not apply in the UK or entirely be accepted, they certainly have their share of Interpetations of the standards, and the need to apply adaptive methodolgy to their own issues. Do you want to trade Bush for Blair?

 

Whose bush or how many ounces?

 

Not very often at all, but why is this so. Good policing, deterrent, lack of crime could be either of these, or a combination, and potentially self reinforcing. You also don’t see much police presence anywhere, other than the airport, but if trouble kicks off they seem to appear almost instantly. I think they have their whole country on CCTV.

I agree, but I don’t think its absolutely terrible what they did. If the cops are harassing you I think you should just let them, at the end of the day if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear other than a bit of abuse, so be nice and things will soon be over. Easier said than done I guess.

Ideologically this makes sense, but personally I think any member of the public is a potential criminal. Hence, the greater the fear of the police, the greater the deterrent, and the lesser percentage of public are criminal.

I guess… but I still think my way would cut crime even if it was not the friendliest way to do it.

I believe that if the police constantly respect everyone’s civil rights, then criminals are effectively defended by the law. I think that if you want lower crime, you need to give up some of your civil liberties.

If a citizen has not done anything wrong then there is nothing to fear. If by some chance a citizen is accused and somehow their civil liberties are abused, then this will in turn set up a negative perception of the police and act as a further deterrent for avoiding them, i.e. a deterrent to commit crime. These sorts of perceptions would also spread between peoples, in turn increasing the anxiety of confrontations with the police, end result more deterrent, less crime.

I know this sounds kind of dictator like, but ideally after several years of this sort of aggressive policy, the deterrent will have its effect and the police will naturally calm down as there will be less crime to deal with. I think that once you get this sort of cycle in place that puts pressure on the criminal element of society, it will reinforce itself, lower crime and eventually transform society to one with a lower percentage of criminals.

Then again, we wont really know if this is the case until we try it. In fact the complete opposite may occur. In the sense that if civil liberties are repressed and crime does not start to drop, you’ll effectively end up with overzealous cops fueled by criminals taking their aggression out on the public, in turn this may cause higher crime rates and general civil unrest. I guess it could go either way.

 

Effective Policing is done by the consent of the people and through correct investigative procedures. There is no reason that you cannot be polite and professional whilst you do that.

You catch more flies with sugar than you do with salt

 

I'm sure that such a possibility exists. I still like the "fear" option though.

I dont really get this, are you saying that we should be nice to criminals and they'll put themselves in jail.

 

Nope. Re-read my earlier post for why this approach works better than the "Iron Fist".

When you create "Us and Them" you create problems

 

Yeah, I understood that bit.. and it makes sense, but if that is the approach taken in the UK, then I would say its not very effective, but hey I'm no expert.

 

LOL!

I am not an expert per se - just experienced!

The problem is that a lot DON'T adopt the reciprocal approach. They are no heavy handed, but do miss out on golden opportunities for information and in some cases confessions.

Where the U.K. system fails is in punishing offenders AFTER they have been delat with ever-so-nicely by the bobbies.

 

This is true.. have seen it too often in the news.. literally getting away with murder.. but hey, what can we do..