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

[TAE]

Very disturbing fact.

 

[detective-boy]

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.

I think I'm right in saying that the current Magistrates Courts set-up was created because the Police Courts next door to the station had become perceived as precisely that - "Police" Courts - i.e. not independent enough.

And the removal of the CPS would remove the ... er ... independence of the prosecution decision which is exactly why they were introduced - because it was perceived (with some merit) that the police were pursuing unfair / unfounded prosecutions out of malice in some cases.

A good deal more, I like to think, than Home Office types chasing the latest headline.

You'd be hard pressed to have done much less ...

 

[detective-boy]

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

It stands for "Taken into Consideration".

It is used where a person is guilty of one or more charges and, instead of listing a whole number more as additional charges, they are listed on a form as "Offences to be Taken into Consideration" instead. If the person agrees that they are guilty of them as well, they ask the Court to take them into consideration when sentencing for the charged offences.

Use of TICs fell into disrepute a number of years ago (some forces were getting defendants who were going down for a good while anyway to "clear the books") and so they are not used very much at all any more. When they are there are strict Home Office guidelines to be followed.

So (a) there has to be at least one actual charge; (b) the person charged has to be found gulty of that charge or, more usually, have pleaded guilty; (c) the person concerned has to have acknowledged responsibility for all the TIC and signed the form and (d) the person concerned (not the police or CPS) has to ask the Court to take them into consideration.

The answer to your question:

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

is ... er ... none.

Please try and do your homework before launching your rants. Otherwise people may conclude you are an ignorant fool.

 

[detective-boy]

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.

Not exactly "FACT". But there is no doubt that there have been some stupid applications of the powers contained within the terrorism legislation. They are, however, the minority of cases and some of the high-profile examples which keep being quoted (e.g. Walter Wolfgang) were not actually uses of the terrorism legislation at all.

There would be every reason to criticise this arrest if it was based solely on the fact that the person was seen photographing a tube station but I have seen nothing to suggest that actually is the case.

But to try and dismiss the possibility of the photographing of a tube station or any other venue ever amounting to part of the evidence of suspicion of terrorist motives is simply wrong and undermines the power of the argument.

 

[Azrael]

I think I'm right in saying that the current Magistrates Courts set-up was created because the Police Courts next door to the station had become perceived as precisely that - "Police" Courts - i.e. not independent enough.

That might have been one reason given, and there was probably some truth to it, but the over-riding issue was cost and political ideology. Many local magistrates courts were swept away in the 1960s out of demands for centralisation and efficiency, not suspect's rights. (Why it's more "efficient" to ferry suspects out of town I'm not too sure.) In fact, the powers of magistrates to hear witnesses at commital were removed about the same time.

I'd support the option of a jury for any crime (perhaps a six-person jury for minor offences), but that wouldn't stop the police courts dealing with the stack of guilty pleas, commitals, warrants etc.

And the removal of the CPS would remove the ... er ... independence of the prosecution decision which is exactly why they were introduced - because it was perceived (with some merit) that the police were pursuing unfair / unfounded prosecutions out of malice in some cases.

There are surely many other ways of achieving that without creating the vast CPS bureaucracy (complete with thousands of new civil service jobs). Tightening up the rules at committal, having a District Attorney system, or a Scottish procurator fiscal system, running preliminary inquiries if the charges look on the light side ...

Government's first insinct is to set up a vast new department.

 

[snadge]

It stands for "Taken into Consideration".

It is used where a person is guilty of one or more charges and, instead of listing a whole number more as additional charges, they are listed on a form as "Offences to be Taken into Consideration" instead. If the person agrees that they are guilty of them as well, they ask the Court to take them into consideration when sentencing for the charged offences.

Use of TICs fell into disrepute a number of years ago (some forces were getting defendants who were going down for a good while anyway to "clear the books") and so they are not used very much at all any more. When they are there are strict Home Office guidelines to be followed.

So (a) there has to be at least one actual charge; (b) the person charged has to be found gulty of that charge or, more usually, have pleaded guilty; (c) the person concerned has to have acknowledged responsibility for all the TIC and signed the form and (d) the person concerned (not the police or CPS) has to ask the Court to take them into consideration.

The answer to your question:



is ... er ... none.

Please try and do your homework before launching your rants. Otherwise people may conclude you are an ignorant fool.

lol, thanks for that DB, my tic was missing a "k" as in a tick.

I just didn't spot it untill you made such a song about it, so I left it for you.

 

[snadge]

Not exactly "FACT". But there is no doubt that there have been some stupid applications of the powers contained within the terrorism legislation. They are, however, the minority of cases and some of the high-profile examples which keep being quoted (e.g. Walter Wolfgang) were not actually uses of the terrorism legislation at all.

As you say ,stupid but that still doesn't stop any copper taking a dislike to someone, arresting them and then searching their house.

That is why the terrorism bill is a sham, it allows bent filth to search for evidence without evidence of any wrongdoing.

 

[detective-boy]

In fact, the powers of magistrates to hear witnesses at commital were removed about the same time.

There was still scope for an "old-style committal" with witnesses being heard right up into the 90s.

...having a District Attorney system, or a Scottish procurator fiscal system, ...

Is the CPS not simply one of these by a different design / name? I think you'd find an equally large bureaucracy behind each of them as is behind the CPS (because the basic problem is that as soon as you need to tell someone else the story you have to write out a load of reports, take statements, etc. and NO lawyer anywhere in the world does ANYTHING if it is not on paper ... )

 

[detective-boy]

lol, thanks for that DB, my tic was missing a "k" as in a tick.

It doesn't actually make any difference to the point though, actually. No ticks are put in any crime solved column where actions are taken simply on suspicion. If the suspicions are allayed then there never was any "crime" and it hasn't been "solved". The only "tick" there is is one in the "arrests made" column ... and the police quite specifically DO NOT have that as a performance indicator for eactly these reasons.

Although periodically some well-meaning supervisor tries to introduce some for of activity based performance measurement dealing with the exercise of coercive powers (not just arrest but stop/search; traffic offence reports; etc.) it never lasts very long.

 

[snadge]

It doesn't actually make any difference to the point though, actually. No ticks are put in any crime solved column where actions are taken simply on suspicion. If the suspicions are allayed then there never was any "crime" and it hasn't been "solved". The only "tick" there is is one in the "arrests made" column ... and the police quite specifically DO NOT have that as a performance indicator for eactly these reasons.

Although periodically some well-meaning supervisor tries to introduce some for of activity based performance measurement dealing with the exercise of coercive powers (not just arrest but stop/search; traffic offence reports; etc.) it never lasts very long.

So for example, I get lifted taking pictures of a tube station ( which is entirely plausible), my house is searched and you find a kilo of cocaine, do I then not get arrested for that offence and tried?


And would that not get listed then, as a crime solved....

 

[detective-boy]

That is why the terrorism bill is a sham, it allows bent filth to search for evidence without evidence of any wrongdoing.

It is no different from any other legislation. The police are given powers to act "on suspicion" because, if you take the time to think about it, there is no other workable alternative.

It is why the police should always remember that the public have placed a huge amount of power in their hands and they should always be ready to account for the use of it. It is why I regularly post that I would like to see more public accountability in extreme cases (such as where the police have used force which has led to someone's death (e.g. Jean Charles de Menezes)).

If a police officer wanted to, they could unlawfully arrest you on suspicion of anything. If they wanted to, they could fit you up in any way that they wanted to by planting evidence, conspiring with potential witnesses / victims or whatever. There are extensive checks and balances in place which would now make it very difficult. But, like most other things in this life, it is simply ... er ... impossible to make it impossible.

But the reality is that there are very few examples of entirely unlawful arrests and of "fit-ups" in recent times which have not, one way or another, fallen at one or other of the stages. There are examples in all sorts of poor behaviour at arrest and during prosecution, for sure. But very few examples of what you claim / fear.

 

[detective-boy]

And would that not get listed then, as a crime solved....

Yes. It would. But it actually would be a crime solved. If nothing were found then it wouldn't.

In the UK as the law stands (and I do not see it changing as it is a pretty settled concept in UK law), the fact that the kilo of cocaine was found during an unlawful search which followed an unlawful arrest would not automatically rule it out as evidence.

In the US I understand that it would, but the UK Courts, whilst having the power to rule it out if they wished, have the discretion to allow it if they consider that it is in the public interest to allow it. In the example you give, I would have no doubt that they would - they would see the end of a significant drug dealer / importer as of far more public interest than the unlawful arrest / search. If it were a couple of wraps, however, I would expect them to take the opposite view.

In either case, the conviction for a drugs offence would not interfere with any disciplinary action taken in relation to the unlawful arrest / search (and I would expect a judge to order an investigation if one had not been carried out already), nor would it prevent the (presumably jailed) drug dealer from suing for unlawful arrest / search and probably succeeding and receiving compensation.

 

[soulman]

It is no different from any other legislation. The police are given powers to act "on suspicion" because, if you take the time to think about it, there is no other workable alternative.

It is why the police should always remember that the public have placed a huge amount of power in their hands and they should always be ready to account for the use of it. It is why I regularly post that I would like to see more public accountability in extreme cases (such as where the police have used force which has led to someone's death (e.g. Jean Charles de Menezes)).

If a police officer wanted to, they could unlawfully arrest you on suspicion of anything. If they wanted to, they could fit you up in any way that they wanted to by planting evidence, conspiring with potential witnesses / victims or whatever. There are extensive checks and balances in place which would now make it very difficult. But, like most other things in this life, it is simply ... er ... impossible to make it impossible.

But the reality is that there are very few examples of entirely unlawful arrests and of "fit-ups" in recent times which have not, one way or another, fallen at one or other of the stages. There are examples in all sorts of poor behaviour at arrest and during prosecution, for sure. But very few examples of what you claim / fear.

And therein lies the rub because the police can now arrest you on suspicion of anything, of their choosing, and you can have your DNA taken by force and your home can be searched/ransacked without a warrent. Your DNA won't be given back and your home will remain ransacked, regardless of whether the police actions are later viewed as unlawful.

 

[detective-boy]

And therein lies the rub because the police can now arrest you on suspicion of anything, of their choosing, and you can have your DNA taken by force and your home can be searched/ransacked without a warrent. Your DNA won't be given back and your home will remain ransacked, regardless of whether the police actions are later viewed as unlawful.

The only bit that "now" refers to is the keeping of DNA - about which I have posted repeatedly elsewhere.

There is absolutely nothing new about powers of arrest on suspicion of things, nor is there anything new about powers of search post arrest. And, even if there were anything new about the power, what those powers are is entirely irrelevant because what you are describing is entirely unlawful in any event.

There is NO law now, nor has there ever been, which allows people to be arrested without reasonable grounds for suspicion of an offence, testable in the Courts. Nor is there any law now, nor has there ever been, which allows people's houses to be searched (or, as you appear to prefer, "ransacked") without the need for an authorisation or warrant based on reasonable grounds to suspect the possession there of some unlawful item or some item of evidence.

You do yourself, and the valid points which your argument may well have, by entirely exaggerating the situation.

 

[snadge]

Yes. It would. But it actually would be a crime solved. If nothing were found then it wouldn't.

There be the rub, it isn't a crime solved at all, you weren't investigating that crime.

but it is classed as one to make the percentages look better.

My problem is this, police now search peoples homes when arrested ( usually for absolutely no reason ) at demos and protests.

Now they can just lift you on suspicion of terrorism and search your home.

picture this, copper knows someone "might" be drug dealing, spreads the word, suspected drug dealer get's lifted in London for taking photos of a tube station, the law then search his house for drugs.


Don't say this doesn't happen.

AS I say, a valid excuse to search someones house...

 

[detective-boy]

There be the rub, it isn't a crime solved at all, you weren't investigating that crime.

So a copper is walking down the street and an armed robber comes running out of a bank. They're nicked and convicted ... but it shouldn't count as a crime solved because the copper was just going to get a cup of tea from the cafe next door - they weren't "investigating that crime" ...

picture this, copper knows someone "might" be drug dealing, spreads the word, suspected drug dealer get's lifted in London for taking photos of a tube station, the law then search his house for drugs.

Don't say this doesn't happen.

It doesn't. You're fucking mad mate. All that would happen is that the copper would go to a Magistrates Court, give the information they have on oath, get a search warrant and ... er ... go and search the house.

 

[soulman]

The only bit that "now" refers to is the keeping of DNA - about which I have posted repeatedly elsewhere.

There is absolutely nothing new about powers of arrest on suspicion of things, nor is there anything new about powers of search post arrest. And, even if there were anything new about the power, what those powers are is entirely irrelevant because what you are describing is entirely unlawful in any event.

There is NO law now, nor has there ever been, which allows people to be arrested without reasonable grounds for suspicion of an offence, testable in the Courts. Nor is there any law now, nor has there ever been, which allows people's houses to be searched (or, as you appear to prefer, "ransacked") without the need for an authorisation or warrant based on reasonable grounds to suspect the possession there of some unlawful item or some item of evidence.

You do yourself, and the valid points which your argument may well have, by entirely exaggerating the situation.

When I find myself forced to communicate with you I tend to play down the points I make for the simple reason you always manage to out yourself, your mindless adherance to a job you profess to have left, but not left behind, and that cop you'll never get out of your head.

My previous post is totally accurate and you've offered nothing in your defence of the state, their laws and people like yourself who choose to enforce their laws, to prove otherwise.

I get the feeling you may have outgrown your usefulness for certain posters on these boards. There's now a number of sites where people can get up-to-date legal advice, without the continuous police propaganda you spew out at every opportunity.

 

[snadge]

So a copper is walking down the street and an armed robber comes running out of a bank. They're nicked and convicted ... but it shouldn't count as a crime solved because the copper was just going to get a cup of tea from the cafe next door - they weren't "investigating that crime" ...


It doesn't. You're fucking mad mate. All that would happen is that the copper would go to a Magistrates Court, give the information they have on oath, get a search warrant and ... er ... go and search the house.

I know people that have been arrested on marches and their homes fucking ransacked with coppers shouting at flatmates " where's the drugs, all you lot are on them..", I have witnessed it.


And now we have reports of people who get arrested using the terrorism act for something as innocent as using a mobile phone or wearing a jacket or taking a picture and their homes are ransacked, computers and electrical gear confiscated etc fucking etc.

your all bent as fuck..

 

[Fullyplumped]

I get the feeling you may have outgrown your usefulness for certain posters on these boards. There's now a number of sites where people can get up-to-date legal advice, without the continuous police propaganda you spew out at every opportunity.

Do you mean we may need to review his contract?

 

[snadge]

It doesn't. You're fucking mad mate. All that would happen is that the copper would go to a Magistrates Court, give the information they have on oath, get a search warrant and ... er ... go and search the house.

What if he can't get a warrant due to "lack of evidence"?

He get's a free house search under the terrorism act.

 

[snadge]

What if he can't get a warrant due to "lack of evidence"?

He get's a free house search under the terrorism act.

We're arresting you under the terrorism act for using a mobile phone suspiciously.

And this has happened.

 

[soulman]

Do you mean we may need to review his contract?

Aye he's redundant again

 

[Azrael]

There was still scope for an "old-style committal" with witnesses being heard right up into the 90s.

So there was, excuse me, I was referring to Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 reducing the scope of those committals. Not that I want to get into minutiae of committal procedure, I was just making the general point that procedural safeguards weren't an over-riding priority in the Sixties. (A better example would be abolition of unanimous jury verdicts by supposed uber-liberal Roy Jenkins.)

Regarding police courts, I think a major problem was that many were, in effect, in the same building as the police station. Romford Magistrates Court is a better example of what I have in mind: if you've had the good fortune not to go there, it's right next door to Romford nick but very much a separate building. Proceedings I've watched didn't seem any different to Mag courts located miles from the nearest police station.

(Why it's so close I couldn't say, but being Romford I imagine the police have need of it on an extremely regular basis. )

Is the CPS not simply one of these by a different design / name? I think you'd find an equally large bureaucracy behind each of them as is behind the CPS (because the basic problem is that as soon as you need to tell someone else the story you have to write out a load of reports, take statements, etc. and NO lawyer anywhere in the world does ANYTHING if it is not on paper ... )

Going on what law books and Scottish police officers have told me, the Procurator seems a lot less bureaucratic than the CPS, and in serious cases, acts much like a Continental investigating magistrate. DAs differ by the state, but often they're more concerned with the practicalities of prosecuting an offence in court than second-guessing police investigations. There's certainly no move to have them decide whether people should even be charged or not.

Those are only possibilities. Personally I'd prefer a preliminary inquiry if a JP thinks the evidence looks questionable, which would involve an hour or two in court a few weeks after charges have been laid, but not a vast extra-judicial bureaucracy chucking out perfectly sound cases.

What I don't like is the current situation where suspects are arrested, processed and released, and can spend weeks or months on bail while the CPS review the case, without ever stepping foot in a court. (It happened in the case I was a witness for, later dropped by the CPS despite the fact myself and another witness could offer a perfectly decent description of the toerags in question taking apart the front of a local shop with a mixture of bricks, karate kicks, and Stella.) Contempt for the legal sclerosis amongst criminals creates calls for rash authoritarian changes, not to mention putting the public at risk.

 

[Azrael]

Yes. It would. But it actually would be a crime solved. If nothing were found then it wouldn't.

In the UK as the law stands (and I do not see it changing as it is a pretty settled concept in UK law), the fact that the kilo of cocaine was found during an unlawful search which followed an unlawful arrest would not automatically rule it out as evidence.

In the US I understand that it would, but the UK Courts, whilst having the power to rule it out if they wished, have the discretion to allow it if they consider that it is in the public interest to allow it. In the example you give, I would have no doubt that they would - they would see the end of a significant drug dealer / importer as of far more public interest than the unlawful arrest / search. If it were a couple of wraps, however, I would expect them to take the opposite view.

In either case, the conviction for a drugs offence would not interfere with any disciplinary action taken in relation to the unlawful arrest / search (and I would expect a judge to order an investigation if one had not been carried out already), nor would it prevent the (presumably jailed) drug dealer from suing for unlawful arrest / search and probably succeeding and receiving compensation.

Not wanting to send the whole thread spiraling off on a tangent, but this is exactly the reason I oppose the exclusionary rule.

As I see it, procedural safeguards have one over-riding faction: protecting the innocent from wrongful conviction. The exclusionary rule turns that on its head by protecting people it knows to be guilty "for the greater good". Employing utilitarianism in this way brings civil liberty into disrepute.

 

[detective-boy]

I get the feeling you may have outgrown your usefulness for certain posters on these boards.

Whatever. The constant PM's I receive expressing exactly the opposite view tend to suggest you may be somewhat misguided if you believe you are talking on behalf of many other, however.

Legal advice is offered on lots of other sites. It always has been. But (a) it rarely focuses on the application of the law by the police and / or police operational practices and (b) if sometimes inaccurate, misleadlingly skewed or manages to overlook some or other aspect which means it is not as clear cut as it might at first appear.

You are not "forced" to communicate with me at all. Just don't read my posts. Like I'll care ...

 

[detective-boy]

What if he can't get a warrant due to "lack of evidence"?

He get's a free house search under the terrorism act.

If he has enough evidence to justify an arrest and obtain a search authority under the Terrorism Act, he will have enough to obtain a search warrant.

You are drawing a distinction in the amount / type of evidence / information required which does not exist in reality.

 

[snadge]

If he has enough evidence to justify an arrest and obtain a search authority under the Terrorism Act, he will have enough to obtain a search warrant.

You are drawing a distinction in the amount / type of evidence / information required which does not exist in reality.

But as has been demonstrated by the link I provided, arrest under the terrorism act can be affected by "looking at a copper the wrong way" or "using a mobile phone suspiciously" or as has been documented "taking a photo of a tube station".

So in reality coppers can just lift anyone they damn well please under this act for any reason and then ransack their house.

I'm not saying that that is the norm but it does happen and it is open for abuse by bent coppers.

 

[detective-boy]

Going on what law books and Scottish police officers have told me, the Procurator seems a lot less bureaucratic than the CPS, and in serious cases, acts much like a Continental investigating magistrate.
...

What I don't like is the current situation where suspects are arrested, processed and released, and can spend weeks or months on bail while the CPS review the case, without ever stepping foot in a court.

I am sure the CPS could be made a lot less bureaucratic and a lot swifter in it's decision making without the need to remove it altogether. But I think we agree "something" needs to be done. I particulary agree with your concerns over the CPS's (somewhat arbitrary) requirement that the police to have an investigation "ready to go" on a first hearing. This was brought in in an (entirely laudable) attempt to reduce the use of "holding charges". But, as usual, one step forward has managed to simultaneously include two steps back. Unfortunately I have also seen evidence that this requirement is now being used as an excuse for abandoning prosecutions altogether, by allowing them to drag on so long that, eventually, they can be written off as any proceedings would now be considered an "abuse of process".

As for the Continental system of examining Magistrates, there is a very significant downside there in that the Magistrate (part of the judiciary) becomes, in effect, the senior investigating officer, directing the investigation in a very hands-on way. I personally think this blurs the boundaries between the job of the police (to find the evidence); the prosecutor (to assess and present the evidence on appropriate and justifiable charges) and the Courts (to hear, test and decide guilt, based upon the evidence). I would far rather keep our current clear distinctions and find ways of better managing the boundaries and handovers than blurring the boundaries like that.

 

[detective-boy]

The exclusionary rule turns that on its head by protecting people it knows to be guilty "for the greater good". Employing utilitarianism in this way brings civil liberty into disrepute.

I understand your point entirely.

But application of the rule the oyther way round does exactly the same. It protects people it knows to be guilty (or, at least, people who have a case to answer) "for the greater good". If we had a hard and fast exclusuionary rule the lawyers would make an absolute mint finding the tiniest procedural error in an effort to get some aspect of the investigation ruled illegal (see speedings Mr Loophole, where he does exactly this).

Whilst the public may agree in significant numbers with evidence being excluded and possible murderers walking free on the basis of malicious bending of the rules (which happens now, to be honest - any malicious rule bending is very likely to result in evidence being excluded), do you think they want that to happen due to inadvertent, mistaken or entirely technical rule-bending?

I don't. I think our current law probably has the best of both worlds. It relies on the Judges to strike a balance in an individual case in a just way ... but that is what they are there for and if we cannot trust them to do that then we may as well all give up.

 

[detective-boy]

But as has been demonstrated by the link I provided, arrest under the terrorism act can be affected by "looking at a copper the wrong way" or "using a mobile phone suspiciously" or as has been documented "taking a photo of a tube station".

As I have repeatedly posted you CANNOT be lawfully arrested simply for "looking at a copper the wrong way" or taking photographs of a tube station. You have now added "using a mobile phone suspiciously" - but what do you mean by "suspiciously"? - some circumstances may justify arrest on their own, but the majority would not.

The link you have provided may have demonstrated that an unlawful arrest has taken place or it may simply have omitted some other facts which would make the arrest lawful. None of us know. But it has NOT demonstrated that an arrest on those sparse grounds would routinely be lawful (which is the point I keep making and you keeping either missing or ignoring).

For you to be arrested under the Terrorism Act on these inadequate grounds would be unlawful. If an officer is willing to make an unlawful arrest under that act, then why piss about waiting for the circumstances to present themselves. If they are that desperate to search the blokes house, why not simply make up the grounds to arrest them immediately for a Misuse of Drugs Act offence?

You are continuing to mix up a number of aspects and using them to reach an unjustifiable conclusion.