Detailed below are the complaints recorded specifically in relation to stop and search. The Independent Advisory Group has been asked to look at these complaints to ensure they have been resolved appropriately. This table shows information relating to the last two years only.
Body Worn Video Footage Viewed.
Summary of Complaint
Independent Advisory Group District/Area Reviewing
The complainant said officers shouted at them to stay where they were before carrying out a search. They said the officers gave differing reasons for the stop and felt the reasons for the stop were not lawful.
The IAG found the stop was lawful and proportionate, and the search was carried out appropriately. They did feel the search could have been more thorough and certain administrative aspects of the process needed to be completed fully.
The complainant was unhappy he had been stopped and felt that officers had acted in a threatening manner and had stood on his feet.
There was no body-worn video available, which meant the IAG were unable to verify the stop was lawful, courteous and proportionate. They felt further written details should have been documented on the grounds for the stop.
The complainant stated he was being harassed by officers in his area. He stated he had been pulled over on 17 separate occasions in the prior eight weeks. He believed one officer in particular had an issue with him.
The IAG reviewed footage from three body-worn cameras. It was felt there was an inconsistency with the approach, which could be viewed as the individual being singled out, as others were not wearing face masks, which was the initial reason for speaking to them, and there was no evidence of others being spoken to for the same reason.
Complainant says the officer did not complete a search record for the stop, instead making notes in his pocket notebook.
He said the stop and search upset him as the officer did not identify himself (give name or collar number) and he feels officers should do this even if they know the person they are stopping.
The complainant said he felt the stop was unacceptable as he did not have THC on him, which was being searched for.
The IAG panel felt that the officer was very professional, polite and patient, despite objections and obstructions the officer remained calm.
The officer's grounds for the search were corect and the panel felt the search was appropriate.
Complainant reports her son was walking through a cut way with a friend when they were approached by officers, who asked them what they were doing. States her son explained they had come from a friend’s and were walking home. One of the officers then asked if he was aware he was in a location where people were known to take drugs. They were then searched and the officer proceeded to tell the complainant’s son he was part of a drug misuse programme and handed him a yellow slip. On the slip, this explanation was circled. Complainant reports her son was upset by what had happened and he had felt really uncomfortable. Complainant is extremely upset, explaining her son has never been in trouble or in anything to do with drugs. She wishes to know why this happened and why her son has been told he is part of a drugs misuse programme.
Locally resolved, with advice given to the officer
Overall opinion was that there was insufficient evidence supplied to negate the complaint.
Action suggested by the panel included to advise the officer to ensure body work footage and C12 slips are submitted on each occasion to avoid a repeat incident/complaint.
The panel were not able to view the body worn video footage as it was not saved correctly.