30 replies to this topic

[H0TFUZZ]

Your on foot patrol and you notice a male with his hood pulled over his head, carrying a rucksack. He see's police and he turns quickly in the opposite direction and starts running. You shout "Stop, police, your detained for a search". You carry on running and he runs into a house, shutting the door behind him.

Is he "unlawfully at large" because you have detained him for a search (assuming he did stop you would give the rest of GO WISELY?) and do you have a power of entry?

[L-M.A.B_90]

Hmm, good question -
That's one I wouldn't like to comment on, I know the power of entry is for persons who have entered a premises after having been arrested (escaping from 'lawful custody'); but not sure on whether it would apply following someone doing a runner...

Obstructing police, maybe?
(That's a guess..)

[Smiley Culture]

My initial thought is that you'd have to suspect him of committing an offence to use your S.17 PACE powers, and I'm not sure whether you wishing to detain him is in itself sufficient grounds. Then again, you could argue that he is obstructing police by doing a runner - but what level of force are you now proposing to use to get at him? Is it proportionate? Hmm. I'm not sure about this one either, but I think the question of whether running away from a search constitutes obstruction has been discussed on here quite recently. I'll see if I can find the link..

EDIT:

Here we go... http://www.policespe..._1#entry2110133

I'm not even going to go there with regards to whether S.117 PACE allows you to use force in the execution of S.23 MDA powers in the same way as it does S.1 PACE powers, which I see is going on in a nearby thread at the moment. ( http://www.policespe...3-drugs-search/ )

Edited by Smiley Culture, 22 February 2012 - 11:33 AM.

[1 Gaz]

Nothing you can do.

No grounds for a search under Sect 1 PACE

[L-M.A.B_90]

My initial thought is that you'd have to suspect him of committing an offence to use your S.17 PACE powers, and I'm not sure whether you wishing to detain him is in itself sufficient grounds. Then again, you could argue that he is obstructing police by doing a runner - but what level of force are you now proposing to use to get at him? Is it proportionate? Hmm. I'm not sure about this one either, but I think the question of whether running away from a search constitutes obstruction has been discussed on here quite recently. I'll see if I can find the link...

Yes - obstructing police was on my trail of thoughts too but to force entry on a simple hunch, could be a bit of a grey area...
But if there were 'reasonable grounds to believe', then possibly a forced entry could be accepted and permitted...

[supermancss]

Are you going to start arresting people for running around in the street? Breaking into their house for having their hood up and running along.

Prove they were running away from you, prove they aren't deaf and ran back home to get somthing..

NO grounds to do anything at all, you don't really have any grounds to search him if you stopped him from the information you passed. Would need to match a description for a potential offender or have authority from an inspector for a specific area/operation to search randoms for being in that area.

[Smiley Culture]

Nothing you can do.

No grounds for a search under Sect 1 PACE

I'm assuming that there's more to the situation than what the OP's already told us, otherwise I certainly wouldn't be kicking down any doors over it.

Edited by Smiley Culture, 22 February 2012 - 11:22 AM.

[H0TFUZZ]

I'm assuming that there's more to the situation than what the OP's already told us, otherwise I certainly wouldn't be kicking down any doors over it.

I was watching 'Prisoners Wive's' and there is a scene where two undercover officers are on a state watching a women they think may be a drug dealer. She gets scared and runs. They chase and she runs into her house, they kick the door and nick her.

I know its only a TV show but it got me thinking about what could really be done in that situation. I thought it to be unrealistic and unlawful at first, but I just thought about the things id do in that situation that could justify such action ...

If the subject is seen dealing then Id have the power to ... but just not sure if they leg it in front of you for no apparent reason

[Smiley Culture]

I was watching 'Prisoners Wive's' and there is a scene where two undercover officers are on a state watching a women they think may be a drug dealer. She gets scared and runs. They chase and she runs into her house, they kick the door and nick her.

I know its only a TV show but it got me thinking about what could really be done in that situation. I thought it to be unrealistic and unlawful at first, but I just thought about the things id do in that situation that could justify such action ...

If the subject is seen dealing then Id have the power to ... but just not sure if they leg it in front of you for no apparent reason

In that case, they presumably had grounds to suspect her of the substantive offence of being concerned in the supply of drugs, so that's when S.17 PACE kicks in - as opposed to the scenario that you gave at the beginning, in which the officers appeared not to have grounds to suspect an offence* and just wished to detain the man for a search under S.1 PACE (on slightly dubious grounds, if all he was doing was running around with a rucksack and a hooded top).

By the way, I haven't seen Prisoner's Wives so I can't comment on whether the scene that you mentioned was taking any artistic licence in with regard to the officer's actions. In real life, while they might have had a legal power to force entry, they would also be required to act in a manner that's proportionate and appropriate given the situation ("reasonable" in the terms of S.117 PACE).

*EDIT: Notwithstanding the obstruct police that he may or may not have then committed by running off, but I'm trying to keep it simple!

Edited by Smiley Culture, 22 February 2012 - 12:01 PM.

[mxbe]

ok lets add on to that there's been lots of knife point robbery's by someone with a hood up and backpack on giving you grounds for a sec 1 search, then they make off when you tell them there detained and they run of in to a house etc etc...

[Bobby-Bali]

Youd have no power of entry. to be unlawfully at large you must be either under arrest having escaped lawful custody, or be liable to arrest. The dp is neither of these things.

Also you have not given your gowisely prior to search, simply saying youre detained is not enough.

Now if you had given go wisely and you were searching him for s23, you still could not enter to arrest for obstructing a drugs search as the offence yku are arresting for must be indictable

[Smiley Culture]

Youd have no power of entry. to be unlawfully at large you must be either under arrest having escaped lawful custody, or be liable to arrest. The dp is neither of these things.

Also you have not given your gowisely prior to search, simply saying youre detained is not enough.

Now if you had given go wisely and you were searching him for s23, you still could not enter to arrest for obstructing a drugs search as the offence yku are arresting for must be indictable

I do recall from my training that the power to enter at a later time/date applies to indictable offences only - is this also the same for "hot pursuits"?

[bensonby]

"Unlawfully at Large" has a very specific meaning under the prisons act.

[securitas88]

If you are searching for drugs, weapons, stolen property etc. then surely you have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is comitting drug possession offences, possesion of offence weapon/bladed article or handling stolen goods/theft. Therefore, you could simply arrest them for one of these offences and search after arrest. This would give you a power of entry under S17 PACE because all the suspected offences are indictable.

[adslegend]

Now if you had given go wisely and you were searching him for s23, you still could not enter to arrest for obstructing a drugs search as the offence yku are arresting for must be indictable

You could, because obstructing a drugs search under S23 MDA is an indictable offence.

[rosco]

Nothing you can do.

No grounds for a search under Sect 1 PACE

Not suer on why you got -1 for this so evened it out. On what was originally presented by the OP, you've got no grounds : how do you even know that the person running off heard you say "Stop Police"?

[Bobby-Bali]

You could, because obstructing a drugs search under S23 MDA is an indictable offence.

So it is! Apologies.

If you are searching for drugs, weapons, stolen property etc. then surely you have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is comitting drug possession offences, possesion of offence weapon/bladed article or handling stolen goods/theft. Therefore, you could simply arrest them for one of these offences and search after arrest. This would give you a power of entry under S17 PACE because all the suspected offences are indictable.

Now that really is stretching things. youre going to arrest someone for drugs without finding any drugs? No.

The whole point of stop searching is to avoid unecessary arrests

Edited by Bobby-Bali, 23 February 2012 - 05:58 PM.

[arnie580]

If he runs into a house but not his house, power of entry to arrest on suspicion of burglary under S.17?

[Bobby-Bali]

You have.power to enter any premises..not just his house under 17. Does not have to be occupiednor controlled. it includes vehicle vessel, offshore energy installation or tent

[adslegend]

If he runs into a house but not his house, power of entry to arrest on suspicion of burglary under S.17?

This wouldn't be appropriate because you can't reasonably suspect their intention is to steal, cause damage or GBH if you actually believe the reason they are in there is to seek refuge. It doesn't mean that there isn't a solution to the problem though.

You have.power to enter any premises..not just his house under 17. Does not have to be occupiednor controlled. it includes vehicle vessel, offshore energy installation or tent

Even though their argument is flawed, I think arnie580 was getting at the fleeing person being a trespasser for the purposes of burglary, not that it must be a house.

[securitas88]

Now that really is stretching things. youre going to arrest someone for drugs without finding any drugs? No.

The whole point of stop searching is to avoid unecessary arrests

If you have reasonable grounds to suspect he has drugs then you can search or arrest (provided the necessities are met). If he runs (and runs into a house) it may be more appropriate to arrest and search afterwards- after all if you can't find anything on him and you don't beleive he has anything more concealed you can de-arrest. Arrest in this senario would be preferable because it would give you the power of entry into the house. Otherwise, you probably wouldn't arrest them for possession (perhaps for obstruction though) and would simply detain for a search.

[Bobby-Bali]

You would nlt arrest them for posession of drugs without any drugs...or at least i hope you wouldnt.

You would be detaining them and taking them to a police station for a strip search.

Otherwise good luck getting this past the custody skipper hed be out free and youd be getting a telling off i wojld assume.

By the letter of the law you could probs get away with it...maybe.

But with a second of worthwhile street experience youd know that route is so far from acceptable

[securitas88]

How would you detain them? You cannot enter the property they have run into, with or without force, and so you cannot take him back to the station for a strip search.

In this senario, the suspect has run into a house and so you cannot enter it and detain him for a search. Usually, you wouldn't simply arrest him, but obviously in this senario arresting them would give you a power of entry.

[Bobby-Bali]

It really depends on how you know he has drugs on him and how much of it...the only way youd be entering is if it was a substantial pwits and you were 100% sure that he had it on his person and 100% sure there were no serious officer safety risks which would be collected by slow time intelligence and a warrant.

None of which you can guarantee.

By the time you get in there those drugs are now the property of thames water...

[securitas88]

I don't agree- you don't need to be certain, only to have reasonable grounds to suspect in order to arrest (which is the same threshold required for a search). To enter you also only have to believe that he is on the premises; there is no need for certainty.

I don't really see the problem with making an arrest.