Police searching house when they arrest you - is this new?

[Brainaddict]

There are no / very few "blatantly unjustified searches" being carried out. If there were then the solicitors, etc, would be jumping up and down about them.

This is a bit like saying there's no corruption in politics otherwise all the politicians would be in prison. The question is whether it has become so normalised that no one notices or cares.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

With regard to the tube station thing, Amateur Photographer has pretty much weekly coverage these days of some poor sod being harassed and/or arrested by the police for taking pictures of something that the police think makes them a suspected terrorist and/or nonce.

eta. In most cases their solicitors were or are successfully 'jumping up and down about it'. Chief Constables have in some cases been forced to write letters of apology, but it still means that you are at risk from police harassment and/or arrest if you are a photographer in this fucked up country.

 

[Azrael]

This is a bit like saying there's no corruption in politics otherwise all the politicians would be in prison. The question is whether it has become so normalised that no one notices or cares.

Also, many people who fall victim to an unjust search and arrest don't want to make more trouble by having a solicitor "jump up and down about it", they just want to forget the experience and move on with life. And if they do want to set an attorney jiggling on their behalf it doesn't come cheap. (Unless they can offer up a juicy human rights case, preferably involving a fashionable cause and a career-making trip to Strasbourg.)

For some reason these restrictions don't seem to affect genuine toerags intent on "having their rights".

 

[detective-boy]

Why on earth should some random person carrying a computer down the street need to justfy his/her actions to the police at all?

Sorry, I thought everyone wanted more "bobbies on the beat" - what exactly do you expect them to do there if they are not allowed to speak to anyone?

Or do you expect them to have some sort of sixth sense which enables them to instantly identify wrong 'uns and question them whilst leaving hard-working families alone?

 

[detective-boy]

I'm not sure that regular refusals are needed to justify a warrant system: if warrants are usually issued, it could equally be a sign that they're serving their purpose and producing a decent standard of evidence.

I could use exactly the same argument to support my proposition that the current system is working perfectly fairly and well. If there are no screams of unfairness from the suspects and their solicitors, it could be a sign that there is no problem.

The fact remains the police authorise themselves. The current system is fairly incoherent: why should the police require more authorisation before arrest than after? As it's all based on reasonable suspicion, they might as well nick the suspect and search his house under their own power.

I would agree that it would be theoreticaly better for the authorisation to be granted by an independent person / organisation. My suport for the current system is entirely based on pragmatism. IF a Magistrate were as readily available as an Inspector then there would be no reason not to use them. That would, however, result in a very significant increase in cost and I would rather see it spent on other aspects of the legal system we have.

The difference pre-arrest and post-arrest is that in the latter situation the person who's house is to be searched has already had their liberty removed by the State and so the search of the premises is not the big thing it would be if it were someone not under arrest. Where an operation is pre-planned, officers will often get a search warrant rather than rely on post-arrest powers because it does provide an additional degree of protection.

I'm concerned with the burden of proof and the motives of the party authorising it.

And I am saying to you that in the vast, vast majority of cases the power is properly exercised, authorised and accounted for. If you do not believe me, go and research the matter further. Go and speak to some defendants about their experience, go and speak to some of their lawyers (not one of each, but a proper sample). Or, even better still, go and become a Lay Visitor and activey play a part in protecting the rights of people in police detention. I know how the police operate and the checks and balances that are in place. There is a way for you to find out too. Why not go and do it?

 

[detective-boy]

The question is whether it has become so normalised that no one notices or cares.

And the answer is "No, it hasn't". If someone who knew what they were talking about went and examined 1000 cases of people in police detention, I would expect them to find that a search of the persons premises should have been conducted, but wasn't, in far, far more cases than when one was which should not have been authorised.

 

[detective-boy]

... but it still means that you are at risk from police harassment and/or arrest if you are a photographer in this fucked up country.

Which is an entirely different issue to the issue of post-arrest searches of premises. As I have previously posted, if someone were arrested simply for taking photographs of a tube station then that would clearly be unlawful and complaints, civil actions, etc. should be pursued.

 

[detective-boy]

Also, many people who fall victim to an unjust search and arrest don't want to make more trouble by having a solicitor "jump up and down about it", they just want to forget the experience and move on with life. And if they do want to set an attorney jiggling on their behalf it doesn't come cheap. (Unless they can offer up a juicy human rights case, preferably involving a fashionable cause and a career-making trip to Strasbourg.)

I'm not only talking about pursuit of actual complaints / civil cases. I'm talking about the likes of Gareth Pierce and Imran Khan who, I can assure you, would not be letting it go if they had any genuine concerns over it.

 

[In Bloom]

What do you expect to happen?

I don't expect anything different to happen. Doesn't make it right.

The very idea that 'suspicion' alone is a good enough reason to arrest somebody is rediculous.

 

[detective-boy]

The very idea that 'suspicion' alone is a good enough reason to arrest somebody is rediculous.

So what would your alternative be?

 

[In Bloom]

So what would your alternative be?

Not arresting people without concrete evidence would be a good start.

 

[detective-boy]

Not arresting people without concrete evidence would be a good start.

And what is "concrete evidence"?

 

[snadge]

And what is "concrete evidence"?

The type of evidence that gives a strong possibility that a tourist photographing a tube station is in fact, breaking the law.

 

[Giles]

Ah so it's not new. Does is generally happen before or after they're charged? Cos that's what really shocks me - that they could intrude on your privacy like this before you're even charged with anything.

A friend of mine also recently went to the Stock Exchange building to try and acquire some headed paper for an art project. He asked the door staff some questions, established that he couldn't get any paper, then went to the bar next door to get a coffee. A few minutes later the police arrived...
In that case they searched him but didn't arrest him (though they did confiscate his weed ). What bothers me about that story is that my friend has a beard, and I suspect that was the real reason the door staff got so paranoid they called the police.

If someone came to my office and asked for some of our blank printed letterhead, I would find that *very* suspicious indeed.

People are bound to think that they want it for some sort of fraud - so they can produce a genuine-looking letter purporting to be from the company or organisation.

I don't blame them for calling the police at all, I'm afraid.

I doubt his beard had much to do with it.

Giles..

 

[detective-boy]

The type of evidence that gives a strong possibility that a tourist photographing a tube station is in fact, breaking the law.

Such as? Some examples of what you would say was enough to give a "strong possibility".

 

[detective-boy]

I would find that *very* suspicious indeed.

Well you're just as racist as the police then.

It was for a fucking "art project"! Why wouldn't you have known that?

And anyway he would have told you that? Everyone always tells the truth - everyone knows that! - so even if your original suspicions were justified as soon as he told you, that would be the end of it. It's just 'cos he had a beard!

Huh! Some people! ...

 

[snadge]

Such as? Some examples of what you would say was enough to give a "strong possibility".

so tell me why is photographing tube stations cause for arrest, I know that the argument of "terrorism" is used.

If that is the case, can you please explain why on earth a "would be" terrorist would photograph a tube station?

 

[snadge]

http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html

Notice that his flat is searched under the terrorism act.


arseholes

 

[detective-boy]

so tell me why is photographing tube stations cause for arrest

If you read my fucking posts you would see that I have repeatedly said that on it's own it fucking isn't.

Why not answer the question? We know you can ask them. Why not fucking answer one for a change.

If that is the case, can you please explain why on earth a "would be" terrorist would photograph a tube station?

There are lots of reasons why a would-be terrorist may want a photograph of a tube station - where to enter /exit ; briefing others ; to compare with others to select best option; to see where CCTV positions / fields of vision are;

Why would a terrorist never take a photograph of a tube station? As that would be the only justification for your position?

 

[detective-boy]

Notice that his flat is searched under the terrorism act.

And your point is ...

 

[snadge]

I'll tell you my theory why so many people get arrested for absolutely nothing using "terrorist" excuses, it includes a fucking free house search.

what self respecting copper wouldn't jump at the oppurtunity to arrest a person for anything at all that was deemed suspicous BY THEM, and search their house for free.

I wonder how many tics are added in the crime solved column this way.


cunts.

 

[snadge]

There are lots of reasons why a would-be terrorist may want a photograph of a tube station - where to enter /exit ; briefing others ; to compare with others to select best option; to see where CCTV positions / fields of vision are;

Why would a terrorist never take a photograph of a tube station? As that would be the only justification for your position?

Why the fuck should a terrorist take a chance on using a camera to photograph a target when there are "thousands" of photographs, from all possible angles, here on the net of fucking every tube station inside and out.

FFS there are even live webcam feeds for them to check out.


carry on with your "free house searches" and cover it up with whatever shite you want.


fucking terrorism act my arse.

 

[snadge]

And your point is ...

My point is they searched his flat using the cause as "suspicious use of a mobile phone." FFS.

 

[TAE]

Sorry

No need for appologies.

I thought everyone wanted more "bobbies on the beat" - what exactly do you expect them to do there if they are not allowed to speak to anyone?

Are you being serious?

Or do you expect them to have some sort of sixth sense which enables them to instantly identify wrong 'uns and question them whilst leaving hard-working families alone?

It seems you are not being serious.

 

[TAE]

http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html

Notice that his flat is searched under the terrorism act.


arseholes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1575532,00.html

Unbelievable.

 

[Giles]

Well you're just as racist as the police then.

It was for a fucking "art project"! Why wouldn't you have known that?

And anyway he would have told you that? Everyone always tells the truth - everyone knows that! - so even if your original suspicions were justified as soon as he told you, that would be the end of it. It's just 'cos he had a beard!

Huh! Some people! ...

I admit it. I am a beardist. Fucking beardie cunts, coming over here, photographing our trains and asking for letterheded paper. Fucking scroungers.

Giles..

 

[detective-boy]

what self respecting copper wouldn't jump at the oppurtunity to arrest a person for anything at all that was deemed suspicous BY THEM, and search their house for free.

Er ... thousands. Every day. The majority of cases in which a police officer finds it necessary to speak to someone about some suspicions which have arisen are immediately dealt with by the person concerned simply providing an explanation and dispelling the suspicions without anyone being arrested or anything else.

And of the people arrested, I doubt even 50% of them are accompanied by any search of premises at all.

I wonder how many tics are added in the crime solved column this way.

Er ... none. You do know what a TIC is don't you? You couldn't possibly be ranting on about something you know absolutely fuck all about, could you?

Cunt.

 

[detective-boy]

My point is they searched his flat using the cause as "suspicious use of a mobile phone." FFS.

I doubt very much that that is the reason recorded on the authorisation. Why don't you ask to see it and then tell us what the reasons were?

 

[Azrael]

I could use exactly the same argument to support my proposition that the current system is working perfectly fairly and well. If there are no screams of unfairness from the suspects and their solicitors, it could be a sign that there is no problem.

It's lawyers who first made me aware of these problems, so some clearly have an issue with it.

I don't see what "screams of unfairness" you're expecting, and in which circumstances. Restoring warrants post-arrest is a decision for parliament. If the procedures are followed in a specific case what possible good is it going to do a solicitor to get worked up about it?

I would agree that it would be theoreticaly better for the authorisation to be granted by an independent person / organisation. My suport for the current system is entirely based on pragmatism. IF a Magistrate were as readily available as an Inspector then there would be no reason not to use them. That would, however, result in a very significant increase in cost and I would rather see it spent on other aspects of the legal system we have.

If you appointed more JPs just to authorise search warrants, then I'd agree. But if the change were part of a programme of localisation and red-tape cutting it could reduce costs significantly.

A police court next-door to the station, just think of the cost-cutting. No bills for shipping suspects across town. No needless delays while the CPS covers its collective backside. A return to an appearance the next morning being the norm.

For all the money that would save you could issue warrants for tea-breaks and still be in pocket.

The difference pre-arrest and post-arrest is that in the latter situation the person who's house is to be searched has already had their liberty removed by the State and so the search of the premises is not the big thing it would be if it were someone not under arrest.

There's no reason why they should altomatically loose their security of property along with their liberty. They're as (legally) innocent as the non-arrested person.

And I am saying to you that in the vast, vast majority of cases the power is properly exercised, authorised and accounted for. If you do not believe me, go and research the matter further. Go and speak to some defendants about their experience, go and speak to some of their lawyers (not one of each, but a proper sample). Or, even better still, go and become a Lay Visitor and activey play a part in protecting the rights of people in police detention. I know how the police operate and the checks and balances that are in place. There is a way for you to find out too. Why not go and do it?

Bar lay visiting (which I have inquired about but just don't have time for at the moment) I've done all those things, in addition to being a police witness, speaking to quite a few serving and ex-coppers in real life, and being a victim of crime myself. Oh yes, and sitting in the public gallery at magistrate and Crown courts.

As I've said before, I don't believe the system is widely abused. I do believe there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed, but I always take practical experiences into account. A good deal more, I like to think, than Home Office types chasing the latest headline.

 

[snadge]

I doubt very much that that is the reason recorded on the authorisation. Why don't you ask to see it and then tell us what the reasons were?

you haven't even read that have you?

why don't you tell us what a tic is then.

nothing can get away from the fact that the law can arrest you for anything they want by using the terrorism act and then search your home.


FACT.