Day 3, 100 Days of Law: Police Powers of Stop and Search

Introduction

 

  For Day 3 of my project '100 Days of Law', we'll be covering police powers of stop and search in the English legal system. This is an important topic to learn in law, when it comes to understanding rights and duties. There are many circumstances in which individuals can be stopped and searched, but the police must follow specific procedures when doing so. Otherwise, the search becomes unlawful and a violation of fundamental civil rights and liberties.

What is stop and search?

 Police officers have the power to stop and search people and vehicles in public places. They usually do this to search for illegal items (e.g. stolen goods, offensive weapons, drugs) or to prevent acts of terrorism or serious violence taking place. This power enables the police to fulfil their duty of preventing and detecting crime. Without it, many crimes might remain undetected, and offenders could easily escape the sanctions of the law.

   Nevertheless, the police have an equally important duty in respecting the civil rights and liberties of individuals, when conducting stop and search. Thus, the law has set strict guidelines for stop and search procedures by the police, which must be adhered to for any search to be valid as legal evidence of an offence. They are essentially safeguards for civil rights, and the police are obliged to follow them.

   In England and Wales, there are four main Acts of Parliament that set out police powers of stop and search:

1. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984)

2. Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

3. Terrorism Act 2000

4. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

PACE 1984 (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984)

  PACE 1984 gives the police the right to stop and search people or vehicles in public places. The laws for this are set out in Sections 1-7 and Code of Practice A of PACE.

  Section 1 defines what is meant by 'public place'. It states that a public place can be a street, as well as areas like car parks and even private gardens. The main point is that the police officer must reasonably believe that the suspect does not reside at the address or place where the stop and search is being performed.

  Under PACE, the main criteria for exercising the power of stop and search is that the police officer must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person possesses / a vehicle contains stolen goods or prohibited items. Offensive weapons (articles made for the purpose of injuring or incapacitating people), and articles intended for use in theft or burglary, are examples of prohibited items.

  There are 2 key cases that demonstrate the operation of police powers of stop and search under PACE:

1. Osman v DPP (1999)
2. Michaels v Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court (2009)

   These cases illustrate the mandatory requirements for police officers to give their names and stations, as well as the reason why they are conducting stop and search, when performing it on any individual. 

   In Osman v DPP (1999), the police officers failed to give their names and stations before searching the suspect. Consequently, the Queen's Bench Divisional Court ruled that the suspect, Mr. Osman, was not guilty of assaulting the police in the execution of their duty, as the search was unlawful under PACE 1984. It was emphasised that the requirement for officers to inform suspects of their names and stations was of 'great importance in relation to civil liberties', thus explaining the court's decision.

  Meanwhile, in Michaels v Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court (2009), the Queen's Bench Divisional Court quashed the conviction of a suspect for obstructing the police during their search of him. As in the case of Osman v DPP, the officers had omitted to give their names and station, which made the search illegal. The police had seen the suspect attempting to hide from them and placing something in his mouth. They subsequently questioned him and told him he was going to be searched, then discovered a wrap of drugs in his mouth. The suspect was taken hold off and instructed not to swallow the drugs, but he did, thus obstructing their search. Nevertheless, his conviction was quashed because of the illegality of the search.

 Any stop and search conducted by an officer without them giving a reason for it is also unlawful. In addition, under s2(9) of PACE, the officer can only request a suspect to remove their outer coat, jacket and gloves in public. 

  There are further details and guidance for the police to follow when performing stop and search under PACE 1984. These are given by Code of Practice A. In its exact wording, Paragraph 2.2B of Code A states:

'Reasonable suspicion can never be supported on the basis of personal factors.'

What does this mean? Precisely, it means that the police cannot use 'personal factors', e.g. a person's physical appearance or record/s of his or her previous convictions, as a reason for stop and search, either alone or in combination with each other. The only circumstance in which such 'personal factors' justify a stop and search is when the police have a description of the suspect.

Also, 'reasonable suspicion' entails that the police cannot use stereotypes of certain groups or categories of people being more likely to commit crime, e.g. ethnic minorities, as a basis for stop and search.

After a stop and search has been conducted under PACE 1984, a written record must be made of it as soon as possible.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Section 23(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 gives police the power to stop and search any individual, or vehicle, whom they have reasonable grounds to suspect of possessing controlled drugs.

There are 3 categories of controlled drugs under the Act:

Class A: The highest category and most dangerous, e.g. heroin, cocaine, Ecstasy, crystal meth

Class B: Moderately harmful, e.g. cannabis, ketamine, cannabis

Class C: The lowest category and least dangerous, e.g. GHB, khat, anabolic steroids

Terrorism Act 2000

   Under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000, police officers may stop and search any person or vehicle whom they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist. The object of such a search should be to discover if the person or vehicle possesses any evidence that the suspect in question is a terrorist, e.g. weapons.

  Section 47A of the Act, meanwhile, is unusual in that it does not require reasonable suspicion on the part of police officers conducting stop and search under the powers of this section. It stipulates that a senior police officer may authorise stop and search in a specific place or area (for both people and vehicles) to take place without there being reasonable suspicion that an individual is a terrorist. This may be regarded as a notable infringement of civil liberties of individuals. Nevertheless, there are clear limitations on these powers: this can only last for a maximum of 14 days, and the senior officer authorising stop and search under s47A must reasonably suspect that an act of terrorism will take place in that place or area.

CJPOA 1994 (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994)

  Under Section 60 of CJPOA 1994, the police can conduct stop and search on people and vehicles in anticipation of serious violence. This power can only be exercised after authorisation by a senior police officer, who must have reasonable belief that violence will occur in a locality or area.

  Section 60 (5) of the CJPOA, however, stipulates that officers do not need reasonable suspicion to stop people and vehicles, when acting under s60. They can conduct stop and search on any person or vehicle, whether they have valid grounds or not for suspecting that they will find 'weapons or (dangerous) articles'. Notwithstanding this, stop and search powers under s60 is limited to a duration of 24 hours, which reduces any impact they may have on civil liberties.

Conclusion: Are police powers of stop and search effective and just?

Now that we've learnt the main laws on police powers of stop and search, it might be helpful for us to evaluate them as a whole, weighing their advantages and disadvantages.

The obvious advantages of current laws on stop and search is that they enable police officers to prevent a wide range of crimes, e.g. drug possession, terrorism, violence, possession of prohibited items or stolen property, but balance this effectively with the protection of civil rights and liberties. This can be seen in the different purposes of all the aforementioned Acts for stop and search, as well as the fact that most require police officers to conduct stop and search with reasonable suspicion.

On the other hand, the laws on stop and search can be criticised for being too rigid, and also inconsistent in application. The cases of Osman v DPP and Michaels v Highbury Magistrates Court illustrate the importance of procedures for stop and search being followed under PACE 1984. Nevertheless, the question remains whether quashing the convictions of both suspects due to unlawful searches was entirely justifiable; in both cases, it was clear that offences had been committed (the assault of officers and obstruction of a search). In addition, Section 47A of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Section 60 of the CJPOA 1994 omit the standard requirement for police officers to have reasonable suspicion when searching people or vehicles, which is generally considered an important safeguard for civil rights and liberties. Although these sections only authorise searches for limited timeframes (14 days and 24 hours respectively), and in a specified area or place, they arguably compromise the civil liberties of individuals during the time they take place.

Overall, however, it seems that the laws on stop and search are generally effective and just. Collectively, they give the police comprehensive powers to detect crime, whilst upholding civil rights with specific provisions on reasonable suspicion being needed in most searches. Therefore, the law achieves an advantageous balance of rights and duties between police and individuals, which contributes to public society whilst respecting the rule of law.

*IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This website is not intended to provide legal advice in any form or capacity whatsoever, and it should not be relied on as such. Please note that this is a legal blog developed solely for educational purposes! Thank you.

Christabel Lee

Sources:

1. https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/resources/common-offences/drug-offences/

2. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/section/23

3. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents

References:

'The English Legal System' by Jacqueline Martin (Hodder Education)

'Cambridge International AS & A Level Law' (2nd edition) by Hodder Education