Should Police Officers Apologise...

[agchristie]

For stop and searches that reveal nothing on the person?

Would officers carry out searches that are 'unwarranted' or 'unreasonable'? Is this proposal casting doubt on officer's integrity?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-officers-could-have-to-give-facetoface-apologies-for-unwarranted-stop-and-searches-10459653.html

[agchristie]

Thanks retro...

AOG made a good point on his thread about who is most likely to be stop searched in some areas.

Some communities have a high BME contingent so you would expect more searches from some groups depending on the area.

[retrocop]

agchristie
I was actually thinking of personal experiences as a humble street copper back in the early 70's. Whole different concept and approach to policing today.
Stop and search was really used for recovering stolen property more than anything else.
We did not have drug related turf wars with armed youth carrying guns and knives back then. No need for operation trident in those days. No yardies etc. but I can see how the need for stop and search has been extended and particularly towards a certain section of society. :-(.

[anotheoldgit]

Welcome back retrocop, nice to have your valuable input back on the news section.

[retrocop]

Thanks aog
Great to be riding along side you again. :-)Thanks for your support.

[vulcan42]

Have to agree with retrocop, I can't think of anybody else who has to apologise for doing their job.

[anotheoldgit]

vulcan42

/// Have to agree with retrocop, I can't think of anybody else who has to apologise for doing their job. ///

Having said that there are plenty who should, and we are not talking about the police, or anyone else who are at the sharp end.

[ludwig]

Of course not. Just because the search doesn't reveal anything doesn't mean it was unwarranted or unreasonable.

When they search you at an airport they don't have to say 'I must apologise for searching you because it turned out you weren't carrying a bomb' to everyone that wasn't carrying a bomb.

They could thank people for their co-operation and patience however. That wouldn't be unreasonable.

[bazwillrun]

"If a reasonable search reveals nothing, then a simple apology takes the sting out of the situation for all concerned. "

not if you have a massive chip on your shoulder..

[agchristie]

@ retro

// I do not recall any resentment from any member of society with whom I stopped.//

Over 40 years on from then, seems like it is more of a problem these days.

Two jobs I wouldn't fancy these days are a police officer and a teacher.

[youngmafbog]

No need for an appology. Retrocops apprach seems more tgan adequate.

Too many appologies woukd lead to more compo being paid out as it us tantamount to an admission.

[New Judge]

“…individual officers could be forced to apologise to those they wrongfully stop and search.”

There is quite a difference between being “wrongfully” stopped and searched and justifiably stopped and searched with negative results (the exact point that Ludwig is making). The article does not seem to make that differentiation but instead mentioned "unreasonable" stops. I won’t list the reasons for justifiable stop and search but I believe few if any officers stop somebody without justification.

“Members of the public who have been unreasonably stopped and searched should be given the opportunity to seek a face-to-face apology from the officer in question and discuss the impact it had on them,” he [Adam Simmonds, Northamptonshire’s police and crime commissioner] said.

Mr Simmonds of all people should realise that police officers do not have the time to fanny about with this nonsense. If people need psychiatric support or counselling as a result of the traumatic experiences they experience when trying to go about their business they should seek it via the NHS.

“All police activity should be warranted not done on a whim for a laugh.”

I don’t know how many police officers you encounter, OG, but I meet a lot in the course of some work that I do. I can say with some confidence that I know of none of them who would undertake their duties “on a whim for a laugh”. They are too busy trying to do a very difficult job to the best of their abilities, often hamstrung by politicians and their senior officers.

We live in difficult times and stopping people in the street is an important strategy the police can adopt to disrupt crime. It’s a nuisance if you are stopped but it’s not the end of the world. The approach suggested by Retro is simple, courteous and effective and police officers should not have to apologise for doing their job

As an aside, Duwayne Brooks (whom Mr Simmonds has appointed to investigate stop and search) should try to move on a little. It was tragic that he was present when his friend Stephen Lawrence was murdered. But that was more than twenty years ago. He was quoted last year (in the Grauniad, natch) as saying "I don't want to feel angry and upset about this for the rest of my life.” Well he’s making a pretty good job of it. He has been blamed (he says) by both the police and Doreen Lawrence for Stephen’s murder. He has received the now almost customary honour that any of Stephen Lawrence’s acquaintances seem to get but his political career seems to have come to an untimely end. He may therefore consider seeking some gainful employment instead of continually becoming involved in the sort of issues he wishes no longer to be upset and angry about.

[Davemano]

Only the Police Officer knows whether his stop and search was not warranted or unreasonable and who is to doubt him. It would be purely the opinion of the 'doubter' Believe the question is a 'non starter'

[Davemano]

I posted not seeing report by NJ. and as usual he is 'spot on'.

[retrocop]

NJ
is quite correct. Police officers have less time now to fanny about than they used to. I quoted two written entries that I had to make when stopping and searching. A stop slip with carbon copy for the person stopped and the main copy for the Collator's tray. The "Stop Book" entry held in the Station Office.
Nowadays ,thanks to PACE, there is a miriad more amount of forms to fill in on one stop.
The little effort I had just to fill in my small amount of paperwork would ensure my target stops were well considered and justified with a good probability of a positive result. I couldn't be bothered stopping "at a whim" and I am sure present day officers do not either.It is a heck of a load of writing for nothing otherwise.

[anotheoldgit]

Being an octogenarian, I have only been stopped by the police once, and that was in my much younger days.

I happened to be driving my car and a two policemen who had been following me in their car stopped me and asked me what my registration number was, where I had been and where I was going.

After I had provided them with the answers they thanked me, and knowing that they must have had a reason to stop me I bade them farewell and carried on my way.

Agree they have a very difficult job and if only others appreciated that fact, and cooperated with them the better it would be.

[agchristie]

I know Restorative Justice approaches are being used to resolve issues between victim and perpetrators but Restorative face to face approaches where an officer has made a 'false stop' is a nonsense.

It's like saying that an officer would make an unreasonable stop in the first place which goes back to my OP of doubting their integrity.

@ NJ

Excellent post.

@ AOG

I wonder why they asked you what your vehicle plate was?

[New Judge]

It is done to try to establish if the vehicle has been stolen, agchristie. Owners are assumed supposed to know their Reg No. whereas a thief might not.

In practice most owners (certainly older ones like me) cannot remember theirs and even have to go to look at it when asked to enter it into a car park ticket machine, so it's not a very reliable method of establishing ownership. :-)

[woofgang]

If I was stopped and searched I would expect some kind of acknowledgement of the fact that the officer(s) involved had made a mistake and an apology for inconveniencing me. I think its a fact of life that police aren't going to get it right 100% of the time. I think there is a difference though between a genuine mistake and an unwarranted or unreasonable stop and search and officers who ring up an excessive amount of those should indeed be "retrained"
As for "casting doubt on an officer's integrity", there are arrogant anuses and bad apples in every job. Why should the police be any different?

[agchristie]

Ah yes, of course thanks NJ.

I saw a programme the other day where a cop pulled someone over querying the plate. Some kids had used a marker pen to change marking a 3 to an 8. Vehicle was suspected of having no insurance.

Could have received a hefty fine but he was sent on his way....