58 replies to this topic

[mdon]

Without wanting to drag the thread off-topic, I'm stunned that a serving officer is unaware of the requirement for GOWISELY prior to a search. This is basic stuff...

Well before I joined the glow in the dark police I was trained to do go wisely during the search in any order as long as you got it all out, each search is different as Section 60 searches they don't have an entitlement to the form there and then? (so I was trained) terrorism searches they aren't entitled to your name, collar number only and must be same sex, Hence why I assumed GOWISELY was a best practice guide. But that's why I'm a member of this forum in order to learn things as everyday is a school day!

[David]

Well before I joined the glow in the dark police I was trained to do go wisely during the search in any order as long as you got it all out, each search is different as Section 60 searches they don't have an entitlement to the form there and then? (so I was trained) terrorism searches they aren't entitled to your name, collar number only and must be same sex, Hence why I assumed GOWISELY was a best practice guide. But that's why I'm a member of this forum in order to learn things as everyday is a school day!

Again, if this a Reg talking, this surprises me - unless by 'glow in the dark' you refer to nuclear policing which perhaps has a different remit to Home Office Forces (or even BTP), but even that said, I thought stop and search rules would have been the same.

The 'same sex' bit also confuses me because - unless things have changed - a stop and search on the street does not have to be same sex. This also annoys me when you see it on policing programmes and wonder why they persist. It might be best practice, but isn't a legal requirement. However, if PACE has changed could someone let me know and/or clarify because my understanding is that the same sex necessity only becomes part of PACE once back at the station.

[wanabe]

Stop and search on the street don't have to be 'same sex' however I would always shout up to see if a female PC could assist first. If non are available then I do them myself. If I'm in the town centre I also ask CCTV to monitor my search of the female. Just covers my back in case of any accusations.

[Somner]

The way I think of it is that if I'm carrying my warrant card then I know where it is and I know that it is in my possession. If I'm not carrying it I can't be 100% sure where it is and who has it. Therefore I carry mine with me at all times. On occasion that I go out for a drink I don't get stupidly drunk so it's not an issue.

[Police Constable 1]

Well before I joined the glow in the dark police I was trained to do go wisely during the search in any order as long as you got it all out, each search is different as Section 60 searches they don't have an entitlement to the form there and then? (so I was trained) terrorism searches they aren't entitled to your name, collar number only and must be same sex, Hence why I assumed GOWISELY was a best practice guide. But that's why I'm a member of this forum in order to learn things as everyday is a school day!

I think you are getting confused, GOWISELY as a term itsself is not in law, but what it stands for is, some bright spark just made it into GOWISELY so that officers can remember what they need to say.

edit: due to incorrect part

Edited by Police Constable 1, 04 March 2012 - 01:44 PM.

[mdon]

Again, if this a Reg talking, this surprises me - unless by 'glow in the dark' you refer to nuclear policing which perhaps has a different remit to Home Office Forces (or even BTP), but even that said, I thought stop and search rules would have been the same.

The 'same sex' bit also confuses me because - unless things have changed - a stop and search on the street does not have to be same sex. This also annoys me when you see it on policing programmes and wonder why they persist. It might be best practice, but isn't a legal requirement. However, if PACE has changed could someone let me know and/or clarify because my understanding is that the same sex necessity only becomes part of PACE once back at the station.

It's only terrorism act searches that needs to be same sex it states it in section 43. This also allows you to remove head dress along with JOG (but discression to religious views do obviously better done in private)

[Burnie]

It's only terrorism act searches that needs to be same sex it states it in section 43. This also allows you to remove head dress along with JOG (but discression to religious views do obviously better done in private)

+ strip or intimate searches

[CmdKeen]

To jump back onto topic a little

In Scotland we don't have that lovely PACE thingamabobby so that bit doesn't apply. But the force standard operating procedure I served under stated there was an expectation you'd have your warrant card on you any time you'd use a power and that if you didn't you'd need a good reason why not.


I believe the phrase when arresting is "as soon as reasonably practical" that you have to prove you're an officer. Which applies equally to plainclothes officers with a warrant card on them. If they chase after someone shouting that they are police then they don't have to show a warrant card before leaping on them. The reasonably practical bit applies in that situation to having got the person caught/restrained.
If you can justify why your warrant card wasn't on your person that works as well for a "reasonably practical" approach. If you can't then you might be facing some sticky questions as you aren't fulfilling the requirement.

[Fry]

I didnt google it Fry I went off of what I could remember, I knew it wasnt 'warrant card...' Sort of similar, I dont think I was far off.

I didn't google it either, I just happened to remember what the law said I did kinda google it after I posted after I had a sudden crisis of confidence.

I'm just a bit sad, to be honest, but our jurisdiction is something I try and remember because it's an occasional argument that crops up and I like to make sure I'm right when it does. It's usually when dealing with some drunk, but I feel it helps my confidence when I'm confident that I know what powers I actually have off the station.

[SkinSte]

mdon, for someone who seems to be so down on Special's it's amusing you've had to be corrected by them on something so basic. S2 of PACE applies to all searches (unless specifically mentioned, see the COP).

Case law has found that for searches the officer must give their name and station first for the search to be legal. It has found that deviation on other parts of GOWISELY (or rather the law surrounding the mnemonic) would not necessarily render the search unlawful, but failure on the name and station would do.

Anyway... I carry my warrant card at all times with one or two exceptions; it's a Standard Operating Procedure in my force that we do so, whether you're going out on the lash or not.

[Damsel]

In fairness to mdon, it's probably not something he deals with on a day to day basis. And like it or not, if a power isn't used on a regular basis, one might become unsure as to exactly what that power is, or how to go about using it.

[clint_degrey]

mdon, for someone who seems to be so down on Special's it's amusing you've had to be corrected by them on something so basic. S2 of PACE applies to all searches (unless specifically mentioned, see the COP).

Case law has found that for searches the officer must give their name and station first for the search to be legal. It has found that deviation on other parts of GOWISELY (or rather the law surrounding the mnemonic) would not necessarily render the search unlawful, but failure on the name and station would do.

Anyway... I carry my warrant card at all times with one or two exceptions; it's a Standard Operating Procedure in my force that we do so, whether you're going out on the lash or not.

Im halfway through my training to be a Special Constable, we were told that GOWISELY could be given in ANY order, aslong as it was all there. A few people have suggested that we refer to it as 'YGOWISEL' and say that 'you are being detained for the purpose of a search' first. This was in relation to S1 PACE though. Is the rule where you have to give your name and station first just applied to S2, or am I being told wrong and it is in S1 PACE aswell? I'm a bit confused.

Edited by clint_degrey, 05 March 2012 - 11:04 PM.

[Fry]

Im halfway through my training to be a Special Constable, we were told that GOWISELY could be given in ANY order, aslong as it was all there. A few people have suggested that we refer to it as 'YGOWISEL' and say that 'you are being detained for the purpose of a search' first. This was in relation to S1 PACE though, so the must give 'thier name and station first' bit, is this just S2. I'm a bit confused.

YGOWISEL, if I hadn't read your signature I would have thought you were in training for a Welsh force

The idea that the the officers name and station should be given first comes from some caselaw concerning a drugs search, where it was held that the search was illegal (and a conviction for assault police overturned) because the officer hadn't given his name and station. So therefore you should give name and station before diving on people swallowing drugs.

s2 is just where the legal requirement for the information in GOWISELY comes from.

[clint_degrey]

YGOWISEL, if I hadn't read your signature I would have thought you were in training for a Welsh force

The idea that the the officers name and station should be given first comes from some caselaw concerning a drugs search, where it was held that the search was illegal (and a conviction for assault police overturned) because the officer hadn't given his name and station. So therefore you should give name and station before diving on people swallowing drugs.

s2 is just where the legal requirement for the information in GOWISELY comes from.

Thank you for clearing that up Fry. I must admit, I thought that too when a certain officer in my constabulary suggested it.

[Somner]

We were taught ISLAWFUL last year

I - Identity
S - Station

L - Looking For
A - Act
W - Warrant
F - Form
U - U Are Detained
L - Lawful Grounds

Could have the two L's mixed up, but it's important to do IS first.

[GreenGerkin]

We were taught the GOWISELY mnemonic, although the way most people seem to do it is:
I am SC name from station, you are detained for the purpose of a search under act, looking for item/drugs etc because lawful grounds. You will be entitled to a copy of the form.

[MerseyLLB]

I have heard many a search along the lines

"Alright fella, just gonna give you a quick search okay..."

then at the end of search...

"...now I've got some paperwork to do which you can wait around for if you really want or..."

Tut tut

[GreenGerkin]

I have heard many a search along the lines

"Alright fella, just gonna give you a quick search okay..."

then at the end of search...

"...now I've got some paperwork to do which you can wait around for if you really want or..."

Tut tut

That is asking for trouble. Anyhow we are moving off topic here

[Jeebs]

I have heard many a search along the lines

"Alright fella, just gonna give you a quick search okay..."

then at the end of search...

"...now I've got some paperwork to do which you can wait around for if you really want or..."

Tut tut

Do we still have to give a search receipt? For some reason I've got it in my head that it's no longer a requirement!

[Alex_101]

Do we still have to give a search receipt? For some reason I've got it in my head that it's no longer a requirement!

They should be informed that they are entitled to a copy of the search record. They are not obliged to take it.

[Jeebs]

I thought it had changed, we don't give them a copy there and then, we just inform them that they can get a copy of the search record from a police station within 12 months. I might be way off the mark and picked up this bad habit from the full timers!

[Burnie]

I thought it had changed, we don't give them a copy there and then, we just inform them that they can get a copy of the search record from a police station within 12 months. I might be way off the mark and picked up this bad habit from the full timers!

I believe (unlike last time i'm not going trawling through legislation.gov.uk) that they are entitled to a copy but you dont have to provide it there and then.

In fact it must be right as my force has had a new electronic system HO validated where at the scene we generate a unique reference number, give this to the searched person and then we can fill out the rest of the electronic form later. if they want a full record they have to go to a station/phone in with the reference number and a proforma letter with all the information on can be printed off for them.

[Jeebs]

Cheers Burnie, that sounds about right.

The paper form is now pretty much just a record for us and the force, we also have an electronic form to fill in on the force system once a search or stop has been completed. We don't give any sort of ref. number, they just need to go and ask for a search record at the front desk of a nick and provide their particulars.

[adslegend]

U - U Are Detained

Please don't use 'txt tlk'. Thanks

[mdon]

1330939976[/url]' post='2211957']
mdon, for someone who seems to be so down on Special's it's amusing you've had to be corrected by them on something so basic. S2 of PACE applies to all searches (unless specifically mentioned, see the COP).

Case law has found that for searches the officer must give their name and station first for the search to be legal. It has found that deviation on other parts of GOWISELY (or rather the law surrounding the mnemonic) would not necessarily render the search unlawful, but failure on the name and station would do.

Anyway... I carry my warrant card at all times with one or two exceptions; it's a Standard Operating Procedure in my force that we do so, whether you're going out on the lash or not.

I don't have a downer on specials, I used to be one for five years and they were the best years of my life and I have even tried to rejoin them but can't due to being an officer in another force. The only time I'm hard on specials is when they introduce themselves as PCs when they are not, I worked hard over those 5 years always putting in triple the amount of hours needed which saw my hard work pay off in getting response driving courses and sex offender visit jobs etc etc, I was very proud to be an SC and I feel others should be too.

Anyhow back to searching, I knew GOWISELY had some legal elements to it and I honestly thought as long as you gave your name and collar number along with station then showing the warrant card was optional but now I know!

I also like how someone -1'd the same sex S43 terrorism act post I made, is that because they don't believe it? Lol

Now back to the original topic, always carry it unless your on a night out around town.

Edited by mdon, 06 March 2012 - 09:43 AM.