178 replies to this topic

[5460]

Oooh, while I remember - PNLD FAQ reference is D17269.

I don't have a PNLD u/p, any chance you could paste the contents? Saves having to go into work to read it!

[Yagoobian]

The fact this is a 5 page discussion shows it's not a simple answer.

1. Try reading Code A of the PACE codes of Practice in particular Paragraph 3.2 - Which covers Using Force.

2. Then read Paragraph 3.8 ( c ) - That tells you to Inform them of the legal SEARCH POWER which the search is being conducted under.

3. Then read Annex A of Code A, PACE codes of Practice, SUMMARY OF MAIN STOP AND SEARCH POWERS, in particular number 3 - Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 s23

If you read it properly you will see a whole list of Search Powers that are governed by PACE and must be PACE compliant! Therefore S117 use of force applies and will give you the power to put your hands in someones pocket. It will even allow you to handcuff them in order to conduct the search.

Note Sec 1 PACE search is also listed in Annex A.


SIMPLE!

1. Read the whole thread, the discussion is around is there a power of use of force for a search. You have come up with a workaround which is lovely, but haven't answered the question. I'm sure many would respect an answer of "there's no power for a use of force, however if someone obstructs...." etc

Perhaps I missed the fact that you were asking a question that is answered in the first few pages of PACE, and instead assumed you were asking a complicated one, hence my attempt to give you a scenario. My fault and I'm sorry!

As a serving officer let me say that when you are told you have a power to search someone, go and search them rather than debate if you can use force to put your hand in their pocket!

2. What would be your power of arrest for obstruct police? Prompt and effective? In my mind that doesn't really stick, and once you have obstruct police you'd be better just taking them to court for that offence. It doesn't sit too well to arrest for obstruct police to facilitate a drugs search! The finding of drugs for obstruct police should be a bonus and not a facilitation method surely?

It would be effective yes and I can't see why it wouldn't stick, It is an offence!!!!

Are you saying that if you believe someone is in possession of drugs and prevents you from searching them, would you really give up and walk away because you don't thing you have a power!!!

Conducting a S32 search after arrest to ensure they have nothing on them that they could swallow whilst being conveyed to custody is perfectly reasonable and advisable and not necessarily is there to facilitate a drugs search.

Not being rude, but try going out there and policing rather than questioning everything.

PS If a trainer tells you it is correct, 9 times out of 10, it is!!

One of those negs is mine because it's the daftest answer so far in this thread. You have either missed the point completely, or deliberately not answered. Because there isn't much to be gained from that post. I hope anyone just starting out doesn't take it as fact anyway.

And a search after arrest is a Sec. 32 not 23.

Please see my last post and it's possibly the daftest anwer due to responding to the daftest question!

And it is daft if a Power (S23 MDA) says you can search someone, but then you question if you can 'Use force' to put your hand in their pockets! How else are you going to search?

I missed the point as I thought 5 pages of debate was over something more complicated than your simple everyday powers stated in the first few pages of PACE - sorry and thanks for the neg, I won't reciprocate!


PS. sec 23 was a typo, but thanks for pointing that out!

Edited by Yagoobian, 20 February 2012 - 06:13 PM.

[SkinSte]

It's hard to debate with someone who comes up with the response "try policing instead of posting on an internet forum". I call either troll or idiot.

So, the current answer seems to be S3 CLA...

[Bobby-Bali]

Although rudely put above, that is good and shows that all searches would be governed by 117 pace.

alternatively, pnld have said s3 criminal law act. so does it really matter where the power comes from directly?

The fact is, there is a power eminating from one or tother.

Until it is directly tested in court no one will know as it is not set down.

Re obstructing a drugs search, that is obviously a slecific offence and i have locked up before for prompt and effective just fine.

[Yagoobian]

It's hard to debate with someone who comes up with the response "try policing instead of posting on an internet forum". I call either troll or idiot.

So, the current answer seems to be S3 CLA...

Maybe if the initial response hadn't been so 'in your face' perhaps I wouldn't have felt the need to say it.

Now you're being rude, and clearly being ignorant despite the evidence put to you. Sad really.

[SkinSte]

Ah, the evidence of your one post of opinion, as opposed to the 6 pages of debate , meetings with authors of books, discussions with PNLD, etc. You're right, how sad of me!

[Yagoobian]

Although rudely put above, that is good and shows that all searches would be governed by 117 pace.

alternatively, pnld have said s3 criminal law act. so does it really matter where the power comes from directly?

The fact is, there is a power eminating from one or tother.

Until it is directly tested in court no one will know as it is not set down.

Re obstructing a drugs search, that is obviously a slecific offence and i have locked up before for prompt and effective just fine.

Perhaps it came across as rude, but wasn't totally intended that way. Just a bit peeved by the rudeness of the others response to my initial post.

Code A of PACE tells police officers how to conduct searches whether it is Sec 1 PACE or S23 MDA. It really doesn't matter which one, what is clear is how you conduct the searches and what you can and can't do. One thing is for sure, PACE allows you to use force which comes from Sec117.

[Bobby-Bali]

To be fair...does it really matter where the power comes from?

As long as you know you have a power to use force, do so if it conforms to PLAN!

[Yagoobian]

Ah, the evidence of your one post of opinion, as opposed to the 6 pages of debate , meetings with authors of books, discussions with PNLD, etc. You're right, how sad of me!

Not six pages of debate or my opinion, but 26 pages of Code A, PACE Codes of Practise. Read it, if you think its just my opinion (google search).

I take it you're in the S3 CLA camp?

[SkinSte]

If you'd read the thread you might have a clue. Your "argument" is just rehashing a range of other posts.

BB, I think it matters. I prefer to know where the powers I'm using come from, otherwise you run the risk of going down the road of "At the end of the day, I can justify what I'm doing as it's aimed to help people", which officer's trot out whilst carrying out illegal acts because in their view they're acting for the greater good (yes yes hot fuzz etc).

[MerseyLLB]

I sure hope a certain someone isn't my tutor con....

[Yagoobian]

If you'd read the thread you might have a clue. Your "argument" is just rehashing a range of other posts.

LOL !

You just can't win with some people.

[Bobby-Bali]

We clearly arent going down that road...we are talking about a specific action of searching for drugs...which you know you have a power to useforce to do so. Where it comes from is irrelevant for the practical implementation on the street in reality in this instance because you know of the 2 of them 1 will suffice

Anyway...this thread has gone around in circles for months now...mods?

[5460]

1. Try reading Code A of the PACE codes of Practice in particular Paragraph 3.2 - Which covers Using Force.

2. Then read Paragraph 3.8 ( c ) - That tells you to Inform them of the legal SEARCH POWER which the search is being conducted under.

3. Then read Annex A of Code A, PACE codes of Practice, SUMMARY OF MAIN STOP AND SEARCH POWERS, in particular number 3 - Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 s23

If you read it properly you will see a whole list of Search Powers that are governed by PACE and must be PACE compliant! Therefore S117 use of force applies and will give you the power to put your hands in someones pocket. It will even allow you to handcuff them in order to conduct the search.

Note Sec 1 PACE search is also listed in Annex A.

1. no reply - still digesting
2. s23 MDA is indeed the search power
3. That only covers the stop and search power, and not the use of force per-se.

Perhaps I missed the fact that you were asking a question that is answered in the first few pages of PACE, and instead assumed you were asking a complicated one, hence my attempt to give you a scenario. My fault and I'm sorry!

Are you saying that if you believe someone is in possession of drugs and prevents you from searching them, would you really give up and walk away because you don't thing you have a power!!!

PS If a trainer tells you it is correct, 9 times out of 10, it is!!

If it were so daft, why would it have so many conflicting answers from many sources?

Nope, I wouldn't walk away, that'd be daft.

Oh, and my trainer told me there is no power for use of force, must be that 1 time out of 10 huh. There have been a few posts from peoples trainers all giving differing opinions, this is one of the reasons why this is being debated so much.

To clarify my stance, the use of force is there to prevent the need for an arrest, so if use of force is approved then you shouldn't need to arrest for obstruct police as you should be able to use reasonable force to carry out the search. Code A specifically states that all powers of search are there to prevent an unnecessary arrest, not to gain grounds that weren't there before. So, I am not 100% sold on the obstruct police angle for that reason. No-one is debating there is no use of force power, rather which one. In addition I'd also point out a previous discussion on use of force to prevent an obstruction.

It will even allow you to handcuff them in order to conduct the search.

It would be effective yes and I can't see why it wouldn't stick, It is an offence!!!!

Not being rude, but try going out there and policing rather than questioning everything.

PS. sec 23 was a typo, but thanks for pointing that out!

No, not automatically. Cuffing everyone for a s23 search would not be proportionate. Try reading Code A of the PACE codes of Practice in particular Paragraph 3.2 - Which covers Using Force.

I wouldn't see it as proportionate for every officer to arrest for obstruct police every time someone was a bit resistant on the street. I'm not going down the policing by consent route, but do think it would be disproportionate. I'm not saying it wouldn't stick.

Not being rude either, but people become better officers by questioning the law to not only get a better understanding, but so they can challenge their own knowledge and become more effective. If we didn't question, this forum would be fairly empty!

Oh, and one hell of a time to make a typo

To be fair...does it really matter where the power comes from?

As long as you know you have a power to use force, do so if it conforms to PLAN!

I'm not sure if someone claimed it was an unlawful search and you were asked in court that that reply would wash.

We clearly arent going down that road...we are talking about a specific action of searching for drugs...which you know you have a power to useforce to do so. Where it comes from is irrelevant for the practical implementation on the street in reality in this instance because you know of the 2 of them 1 will suffice

Anyway...this thread has gone around in circles for months now...mods?

It may be irrelevant for the practical implication, but you need to remain lawful at all times, which is why this is being asked. If both cover it, then that's great, but no-one can state either way.

As you've raised another fairly important thought, I'm not sure it should be closed just yet?

[Bobby-Bali]

Sorry to be pedantic but its really annoying me ha...

Obstruct police and obstructing a drugs search are two completely different offences.

With regards this, make sure you have rock solid grounds for search before arresting for obstructing a search.

Friend of mine just had one dropped because cps said grounds were a bit thin. which of course they werent in our eyes.

Anyway he headbutted an officer and spat and used racial slurs and he has had it all nfad as cps are morons

No one can state either way because there is no case law on it...so this roundabout is pointless largely! Until it is tested in court, we will not have a correct or definitive answer

[Yagoobian]

Oh, and my trainer told me there is no power for use of force, must be that 1 time out of 10 huh. There have been a few posts from peoples trainers all giving differing opinions, this is one of the reasons why this is being debated so much.

No, not automatically. Cuffing everyone for a s23 search would not be proportionate. Try reading Code A of the PACE codes of Practice in particular Paragraph 3.2 - Which covers Using Force.

I wouldn't see it as proportionate for every officer to arrest for obstruct police every time someone was a bit resistant on the street. I'm not going down the policing by consent route, but do think it would be disproportionate. I'm not saying it wouldn't stick.

Oh, and one hell of a time to make a typo

5460, apologies if I was a bit harsh with my earlier reply.

What is Sec 117 if not a power to use force?

Didn't say cuff everyone every time, just stated it was there if you need it.

Also didn't say arrest every time for obstruct.

It was one hell of a time for a typo.

Appreciate if you don't ask you don't learn, I just think that sometimes the way it is debated on this site is questionable.

You can use force to search like taking hold of their arm, but if they then pulled away and tried to run off just as you were about to check a certain pocket, to me that would be obstruct and grounds for arrest. Prior to that they may have been polite and compliant which gave no reason or concerns to use cuffs.

just food for thought!

[Fry]

What is Sec 117 if not a power to use force?

Well, s117 is a power to use force where any provision of PACE confers a power upon a constable. As it is s23 MDA that confers the power to search, then how does s117 PACE confer the power to use reasonable force?

[Yagoobian]

Well, s117 is a power to use force where any provision of PACE confers a power upon a constable. As it is s23 MDA that confers the power to search, then how does s117 PACE confer the power to use reasonable force?

Misuse of Drugs act 1971 was obviously created before PACE (1984)

PACE was introduced to make sure we did things properly and lawfully.

Therefore all searches are conducted and governed by PACE namely Code A which is why S23 MDA is listed in Annex A as a Power to Stop and Search. Code A also tells us that we can use Reasonalbe force if required (Paragraph 3.2 of Code A), Conferring the power upon the Constable.

[Fry]

Misuse of Drugs act 1971 was obviously created before PACE (1984)

PACE was introduced to make sure we did things properly and lawfully.

Therefore all searches are conducted and governed by PACE namely Code A which is why S23 MDA is listed in Annex A as a Power to Stop and Search. Code A also tells us that we can use Reasonalbe force if required (Paragraph 3.2 of Code A), Conferring the power upon the Constable.

I think we're on a losing battle, but it's quite clear you've not bothered to read the thread, or if you have you've not bothered to understand it. I'm glad things are simple for you, but I'm afraid the reality is that it isn't as clear as you rather patronisingly like to suggest.

Edit, typo

Edited by Fry, 20 February 2012 - 11:15 PM.

[richr]

Therefore all searches are conducted and governed by PACE namely Code A which is why S23 MDA is listed in Annex A as a Power to Stop and Search. Code A also tells us that we can use Reasonalbe force if required (Paragraph 3.2 of Code A), Conferring the power upon the Constable.

No, the code of practice does not confer a power. s117 only provides for PACE or specified powers. The fact that S23 MDA is a stop and search power and governed by PACE codes of practice does not magically imbue it with the essence of PACE for the purposes of s117.

If you'd care to read the thread (and the PNLD note I referenced), the PNLD response is that s23 MDA (and others which don't specifically specify the use of force) powers are obtained by way of s3 of the Criminal Law Act. Specifically, that they are searches for the prevention of crime, and so "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime" applies.

It still feels like a bit of a reach to me, but nothing like trying to justify s117. What I'd like to see is a bit of legislation to amend all S&S powers to specifically allow reasonable force - I still remain very surprised that no enterprising defence brief has had a go at it.

I don't have a PNLD u/p, any chance you could paste the contents? Saves having to go into work to read it!

I'll have to do it from work! I'm going into the nick tomorrow to sort out a pile of evidence for the IPS process, someone remind me at about 1630 tomorrow!

[MerseyLLB]

Sorry to repetitive but:

A Code of Practice CANNOT confer additional powers.

[Yagoobian]

Bizarre. I passed this round the briefing table containing an Insp, 2 sgts and a handful of pc's (all regulars including myself) and we unanimously agreed S117.

Some people obviously know better, and all us regulars are wrong!

Anyway, wasted too much of my life on this site which I thought would be useful and helpful but appears to just be down right confusing.


(please feel free to make derogatory comments which seems to be common on this site)

[MetPaul]

Just had a quick look in the Blackstone's PNLD book in the drugs search section, and it does specifically state that our use of force for a s23 search comes from s117.

[adslegend]

Just had a quick look in the Blackstone's PNLD book in the drugs search section, and it does specifically state that our use of force for a s23 search comes from s117.

Blackstones are notorious for being wrong.

S117 PACE only confers powers to use force when excercising other powers under PACE.

[5460]

Bizarre. I passed this round the briefing table containing an Insp, 2 sgts and a handful of pc's (all regulars including myself) and we unanimously agreed S117.

Some people obviously know better, and all us regulars are wrong!

Anyway, wasted too much of my life on this site which I thought would be useful and helpful but appears to just be down right confusing.


(please feel free to make derogatory comments which seems to be common on this site)

Yagoobian,

I think it's fair to say from most people here, certainly me, that I appreciate your input thus far. Your content on the Policing side is of great value to everyone, and if you had kept your posts to what you believe to be true then I think people would have taken your posts with great value, even if they disagree with it. It is the snide comments written in addition to your beliefs that people have taken umbridge to, and not the content of your police related discussion.

I'd be curious to your response on the recent comments, adslegend for example. I do appreciate you have stated more than once that s23MDA is in the annex of code A, but firstly it's just an annex rather confering s117 powers over the search, and also it doesn't specifically say that s117 covers use of force for any search power by a different act. Are you only stating it's valid because it's in the annex, or did I miss something?

Ohh and if you want a derogatory comment, how about god dammit, all fish are cold blooded?