Police Powers Under PACE
Certain police powers under the police and criminal evidence Act 1984
(PACE) were implemented on 1 January 1986. For provisions set out in
section 5, 50 and 55 of the act, there is statutory requirement for
chief officers of police to collect and publish statistics monitoring
their use. These provisions cover stop ad searches of persons or
vehicles, road checks and intimate searches of persons.
Information giving the ethnic appearance of persons stopped and
searched was published in January 2001 a publication under section 95
of the criminal justice act 1991.
A search for one type of article may result in a different category of
article being found. From April 1991 only one record need to be
completed if a person is in a vehicle and both searched and the object
and grounds for the search are the same.
The powers to stop and search contained in section 1 of the act added
to some existing powers of this kind. Searches for drugs are still
permitted by the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971 and those for firearms under
the Firearms Act 1968, but these laws do vary such as under the
Prevention Of Terrorism Act 1989, Section 15; various poaching and
wildlife conversation legislation.
The criminal justice and public order act 1994 introduced new powers
to stop and search vehicles and person. Section 81 enables stops and
searches of vehicles and occupants to be made to prevent acts of
terrorism. Section 60 enables stop and searches to be made in
anticipation of violence. The new powers to stop and search in
anticipation of violence on 10 April 1995. In addition, the prevention
of terrorism act was further amended by the Prevention of terrorism
act 1996 on 3rd April 1996. This added a new section 13B, which
introduced stops and searches of pedestrians in order to prevent acts
of terrorism.
The detention in police custody under PACE implies police custody
before charge on the authority of a police officer is limited to 24
hours except where the alleged offence is a serious arrestable one,
The duties of a police officer are to ensure that there is maintenance of public peace and order. In order to perform their duties and obligations they require certain powers, authority in order to perform their duties and this extends the power to arrest. This paper focuses on the decision of the court in DPP v Carr, the amendments on Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) section 99 and a critical evaluation of statements made by Sentas and Cowdery.
Police Powers in N.S.W The Police Force in N.S.W must have sufficient powers so that they are able to enforce the law properly and effectively for the safety of the community and its occupants. Powers, which provide Police to maintain and enforce the law, include: stop search powers, powers of arrest, move on powers, confiscation powers and the power to obtain personal details along with various others. Search powers permit police officers, for example, who have reasonable cause to suspect that a person has unlawful custody of a dangerous implement, to search the person and to examine any other personal effects, the person in question has with them (Summary Offences Act section 28A). After this search police may confiscate the implement or implements in the possession of the person who has it in their unlawful custody (Summary Offences Act 28B). After this the officer may formally charge the person or proceed with a summons, now the person must divulge their name and address.
There many levels of intrusion when it comes to stop and frisk. The first level of intrusion is a method to request evidence, allowable only when there is an objective believable reason for an intervention. Police do not necessarily need to suspect criminal activity. The second level of intrusion is known as the common-law right to inquire and is permissible only when the officer has a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. This is a larger intrusion since the officer can interfere with a citizen in an effort to gain explanatory information. However, at this level the intrusion must fall short of a forcible search. The third level of intrusion is sanctioned when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, or is about to commit an offense or misdemeanor. At this level, an officer is also authorized to make a forcible stop and detain the citizen for questioning. Furthermore, an ...
It is easy for police to get caught up in the idea that it is them against the rest of society (Barkan, 2012). Many citizens in today’s democratic society have a negative or fearful view of our law enforcement. Think back to grade school, who was that one kid in class that everyone was annoyed by or despised? Most people would answer the teacher’s pet or the tattletale. We have grown up from a young age to have a negative view towards those that get us into trouble when we think we can get away with something we know is wrong. In the adult world, the police force can equate to those tattletales.
The purpose of stop and search, an investigative tool to prevent crime is arguably different to the current practice of this procedure, current research suggests that it is used to gain intelligence and for social control (Bowling and Phillip, 2007). Following this, there is substantial evidence suggesting that thirty police forces have no understanding of how to use their powers to complete a stop and search (HMIC, 2013). Furthermore, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984, c60) states that a police officer can only stop and search a citizen if they have reasonable grounds to suspect they have stolen or prohibited items on their person. However, statistical evide...
With the current environment of law enforcement and the struggle with trust and legitimacy within communities; police departments are exploring programs that seek to increase police legitimacy. The You Have Options program is such an example of a program that can build trust and legitimacy with a vulnerable population within communities. Research by Mazerolle et al. (2013) noted that “police legitimacy is thought to be a sure pathway for police to elicit cooperation, obtain compliance and gain satisfaction from the public.” The pathway to promoting legitimacy is through procedural justice where police provide a high quality of treatment, are fair, and make good decisions. The 20 elements of the You Have Options program
The results of the study data found that the strategy of hot spot identification and targeting caused a lasting reduction of crime and disorder behaviors within the target areas. Vehicle patrols within the target areas were found to cause a residual deterrent effect but research data showed that the duration at which officers need to stay within the hot spot area in order to have a greater residual effect is approximately 10 minutes. Further, the optimal time frame for officers to stay within the target area is 10 to 14 minutes. Continued officer presence within the hot spot area after 14 minutes has a diminished effect (Koper, 1995). In addition, the strategy of intensified patrols was found to reduce total police calls for service within
The degree of force that officers use is heavily influenced by police discretion in real-world situations rather than espoused by a certain agenda. Discretion can be classified into four different categories where administrators, the community, and the individual police officer exercise differing degrees of influence in decision-making. What is needed to help officer discretion is a central ethos that will guide discretion when all other rules fail to help.
This paper is analyzing two scenarios and the motion to suppress rule. An explanation of Motion to Suppress rule will be given, for each scenario. This paper will clarify the approach that police officers will take and the method that officers use their power. Additionally, referencing court cases and supporting evidence with legal citations for the reaction stated (AIU, 2016).
“Discretion is the perfection of reason, and a guide to us, in all the duties of life” (Jean de La Bruyère, n.d), this quote epitomises the use of discretion in life moreover in policing. Police discretion is a constant consideration within the law enforcement. Many people are of the view that police discretion is both an essential part of policing as well as a constant source of issues. There has been a constant quandary between enforcing the law to the latter. Police officers are faced with a vast array of situations each day which they must deal with, in which no two circumstances they encounter are the same. Moreover officers are frequently placed in the position of formulating decisions on how to handle a specific matter alone, without immediate supervision or any additional advice. The purpose of this paper is to examine the controversial topic of police discretion. Discretion in policing is an imperative aspect thus herein the benefits of the exercise of discretion will be explored. By firstly defining what the term discretion refers to and how it fits within the context of policing. Next, factors that influence police discretion will be discussed. Finally an examination of explanations supporting discretion will be articulated, which will illustrate why police discretion is essential in policing.
One of the major court decisions for the “Search Incident to Arrest” was Gant vs. Arizona. Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended driving license. When the police officers arrested him and had him hand cuffed in the back seat of the police car, they then did a search on his vehicle. The police then didn’t have a reason to think there were illegal things in his car just from driving with a suspended license. The search warrant to arrest states that a police officer may conduct a warrantless search if there are any suspensions found within the area. In Gant versus Arizona this was not the case. The police officer had no reason to search Rodney’s car just because he had a suspended drivers license. As the police officer was searching the car he found cocaine in a jacket pocket in the back seat. A previous case ruling such as New York versus Belton, they had made the bright-line rule. The bright-line says that a police can search the compartment on the passenger side of a vehicle or any containers that are within the reach or “grabbing area” of the arrestee. Later over the years there was another court casing, Thornton versus United States. During the courts ruling they had changed the Belton rule again. It now said that the police cannot pursue a warrantless search if the arrestee is secured and locked up in a police car and has no access to the inside of the vehicle. After hearing the revised rule, the court did not give up. In the final courts ruling, a police can still perform a warrantless search only if there is any reason to believe there is other crime related evidence in the vehicle. Since the time of Gants arrest the police had no suspicions to conduct a warrantless search because of a suspended driving license, Gant
When examining the fundamentals of police legitimacy, the adoption of evidence based policing is one proven to be preferred. Proven ethical standers of transparency within police agencies back this practice of policing. The fundamental of this practice includes goals, objectives, and plans for the community. This also includes the development of the agencies employees using the latest proven techniques such as deescalating tactics. (Swanson 2017)
The Political Era of policing occurred in the early 1800’s and lasted until the 1930’s, and was under the direct influence of the local government and politicians. There were benefits of political influence; police departments began to develop intimate relationships within their communities offering a wide array of services to citizens. For example, the police worked soup kitchens and provided temporary housing for immigrants searching for work (Peak, 2015). In addition to providing an array of services to the community, officers were integrated into neighborhoods, which helped to prevent and contain riots. Typically, officers were assigned to neighborhoods where they lived or had the same ethnic background. Police departments
The prevailing presence and growth of the computer industry has rapidly escalated the threat of digital crimes orchestrated by terrorists and common criminals. "The emergence of computer technologies and the growing threats created by digital criminals and terrorists have worked to produce a wide array of challenges for law enforcement officials charged with protecting individuals, private businesses, and governments from these threats"(Digital Crime). Due to the size and complexity of this evolving and growing threat, the federal government and agencies have led the effort to target and deter all computer crimes. Collectively they commit the very best technical expertise combined with political leverage which provides lucrative financial
Search warrants and arrest warrants are somehow different but give almost the same kinds of authorities. A search