FEBRUARY 2023 REPORT
FEBRUARY 2023 REPORT
DCCSP members along with Chief Inspector Mark Beavan, Body Worn Video [BWV] Systems Administrators Leanne Moorhouse, Tom Cunningham and Karen Janicka (BWV Subject Matter Experts for Devon & Cornwall) observed five BWVs selected by the panel from the previous month's cases. The following identifies points to action, D&C Police responses, case assessments and outstanding areas that require investigation. Leanne Moorhouse updated the panel on body worn video retention: the system of saving non- evidential recordings for a period of 31 days was put in place in 2017 to comply with MOPI and GDPR. A thematic review of data retention is currently being consulted with a proposal to increase the period of time Stop & Search [S&S] footage is saved to 365 days, allowing greater time for investiging areas of concern.
Body Worn Video Assessment .
Body Worn Video Assessment .
ASSESSING D&C POLICE STOP AND SEARCHES [S&S]
FEBRUARY 2023 REPORT
Body Worn Videos
Via Microsoft Teams, at the start of each case BWV Systems Administrator Leanne Moorhouse played selected clip, Chief Inspector Mark Beavan read the corresponding report submitted from case officer(s) before the DCCS Panel discussed and submitted the below feedback and assessments. Senior officers in each Force area where the cases under scrutiny took place have been asked to feedback the panel’s observations and reminders for officers. Supervising officers were contacted by MB after the panel meeting to enable Supervisors to view BWV footage that would not be retained beyond 31 days ahead of the panel report.
GROUNDS of the search
OBJECT of the search
WARRANT card [if not in uniform]
IDENTITY [officer name & number]
STATION [where officer is based]
ENTITLEMENT to receipt
LEGAL power used
YOU are detained for S&S
S&S BWV 1 feedback to be provided
Panel reported a degree of uncertainty on whether S&S was proportionate and ethical as subjects were handcuffed before GOWISELY was followed, however they appeared to run from officers.
Panel enquired how much detail was available to identify the subject(s) or if the description was based on their race. One member of the public identified the subjects but was very rushed.
Search came across as a little chaotic - difficult to follow and hear each officer but GOWISELY didn’t appear to be covered in full.
Officer mentioned ‘three reports’ about the subjects but the panel didn’t see/hear this.
Panel asked if white subject received similar treatment / outcome?
No knife was found - was it found on the white subject?
The haste / rushing into the location escalated the situation. Initial communication and explanation could have helped deescalate. The majority of the panel didn’t feel that in this context, the subject received the best service the police could have provided.
BWV was very difficult to watch as the camera pointed upwards and also went blank. Couldn't see who was on scene.
Did other officers present have their BWV turned on?
Actions to be commended:Panel members agreed that S&S was necessary due to the report of a weapon.
One of the male subjects stated he had been attacked - there was a follow up conversation with the mother outside about the allegation.
In what could have been a very volatile situation the officer kept the detained person calm and was able to complete the search.
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
“Happy for the scrutiny. It was one of the strongest grounds for stop search that I have done.
Information that formed my grounds.
Report came in that there was a fight between 6 males in their 20’s on QUEEN STREET, EXETER. As I am walking down the Highstreet (seen on the body worn) I am approached by a number of people stating there was a fight further down the street. I am then informed by coms that there were a number of witnesses including a off duty police officer. A further call from another member of the public stating that they had seen a knife on a male involved in the fight. The description was passed as followed on the log for the male with the knife.
Black skin, Dark clothing, hood up, tight cornrows, approx. age is 20, approx hight five foot ten inches.
Reporting person stated he saw a knife in the males right pocket and that they had walked off towards John Lewis from Burger King area. The reporting person for this call stated that the youth who they had been attacking appeared beaten up. As this is coming through the air I am walking down the High Street in the direction of the fight. A witness was speaking to me and then I noticed a group of males walking in my direction as per the log that matched perfectly the description passed. I walked away from the witness but as I go to cross the road the witness says to me “that’s them” indicating the group I had identified (this is heard on body worn). The two males who matched the description darted in JD Sport on the High Street, Exeter. The reason we rushed was because these males had been identified as being involved in a violent incident which potentially involved a knife and they had just entered a store with people inside. It was unclear at the time if they had gone into the store to avoid the police car that had just driven down the high street. The plan was to deal with the potential threat and secure them so a search could be carried out. Once the potential threat had been dealt with the circumstances of events can be established. This was done. I was not with the white male outside in the blue hoodie as he was with other officers. No knife was located.
Other officers did have body worn on 17339 and 10974 from my team.
Just for context of the job. All witnesses were spoken to and it appears that the males we stopped had followed a couple of shoplifters out of the store along with a number of other staff. There had been a confrontation on Queen Street. In which staff and shoplifters had got into a fight. From witnesses, the staff were just as aggressive and it was unknown who started the fight. Goods were returned to staff. A witness suggested that the males we stopped then returned to the store and left again to have another altercation with the shoplifter. This was when the knife was seen. The males at this point had put on jackets covering their JD Sports clothes. This was when they were stopped.
If you have any more questions then do not hesitate to ask.”
S&S BWV 2 feedback to be provided
Panel were overall unsure if the S&S was necessary - intelligence seemed vague, a ‘knife between the two of you’, there should have been a better description. S&S will still be having a detrimental impact even though they are ‘known’ to the police.
Members noted a stark contrast to previous S&S Case 1 with report of a knife - white subjects not handcuffed as black subjects were.
At the start of the BWV the officer challenged a young person recording on their phone - if young people want to record on their own devices, this is lawful and shouldn't be dissuaded, especially if it helps them feel safer.
Avoid using language like 'get your mate done' - very ambiguous and worried the subject when the officer just meant 'checked'.
Actions to be commended:All panel members assessed the S&S as proportionate and ethical.
GOWISELY was followed clearly.
Officer conducted themselves well and treated the two young males with dignity and respect.
Great example of how officers can engage with young people. Good humoured, pleasant, calm and clear.
The majority of panel members felt that in this context, the subjects received the best service the police could have provided.
S&S 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
Officer’s response not received.
Not yet received / TC I sent another email requesting the information last weekend. No response has been received from this officer.
S&S BWV 3 feedback to be provided
BWV at waist height as plain-clothes officers - needs addressing with this officer as incorrect use of equipment and makes scrutiny difficult. Plenty of time for officers to adjust camera angle to chest height as policy states and protect themselves as well as community.
All panel members were unsure if this incident was necessary as BWV started late with no apparent reason for chase/S&S except for “acting suspiciously”, which is not clear intelligence.
The majority of panel members stated they didn’t think the S&S was proportionate or ethical due to the lack of grounds, no object to the search and officers inappropriate language towards a ‘known’ subject - was the search carried out more because he was recognised as a former offender rather than having justified grounds?
Comments about ”fingers up a**” are unprofessional - just because the subject appears to be joking, doesn't mean he's not uncomfortable.
The majority of panel members were unsure that GOWISELY had been fully followed, especially as the audio was unclear at points and they were already beginning to search him so the subject wasn't concentrating on what was being said.
GOWISELY shouldn’t be followed after handcuffs and arrest - actionned at the start gives time for things to calm down / opportunity to de-escalate. Officer could at least give an introduction - quite a lot of information for the panel to process, let alone the subject who is in the situation.
Self-defined ethnicity shouldn’t involve leading questions - officer asked if his race was 'white foreign'?
Actions to be commended:Carried out in a friendly way, however the whole encounter felt too casual and unprofessional.
S&S BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
“Apologies again for the delay, haven’t been avoiding it, there have just been other priorities. I’ve only partially reviewed the BWV so is as far as I recall and responses as follows.
Detaining officer was PC 665 JAYCOCK and I was the BWV cover officer. I have conferred with PC JAYCOCK in the completion of this reply.
BWV at waist height as plain-clothes officers – by not having the camera at the correct height (as per policy) it makes scrutiny difficult and doesn’t protect officers or the public as well as it could.
In plain clothes and camera attached where felt it gave the best coverage and stood the best chance of not falling off should there be a struggle. Point noted – Thank you for the feedback – I will look to mount it in a better location when in plain clothes
Could you provide your grounds for the search?
The area in question is subject to a number of different intelligence reports in relation to a number of different individuals supplying drugs on a very small estate. On the date in question we were developing this intelligence and looking into a vehicle that was a subject of one of these reports to confirm or negate its involvement. The subject and another came out of a property and began getting into a car nearby. On seeing and realising we were officers, the subject gestured and said something to the driver who then looked and began to shut the car up quickly and drive off. The subject left the car with an immediate body language change, fast pace walking, head down, shoulders arched and furtive looking back at officers. They then began to walk back in the direction of the address they had appeared to come from. Subject known to detaining officer as previous involvement in street drug use and supply. Behaviour change in an area where there is active intelligence I believe is sufficient.
The question was raised about whether there were grounds or was it due to the officer knowing the subject?
Formed part of the grounds as above, but the immediate behaviour change in an area with active intelligence was the primary reasons.
Comments about ”fingers up a**” are unprofessional – just because the subject appears to be joking, doesn't mean he's not uncomfortable.
Some drug users and traffickers will secrete drugs within themselves, sometimes using tools or their fingers. The subject has an unexplained item and as part of what could be the beginnings of a criminal investigative process into drug trafficking or supply, it is a reasonable question as to what the device is possibly used for (it is on their person). An empty ballpoint pen case wrapped in clingfilm is not a standard item that a member of the public will carry and begs some questioning, in the context of the stop.
The majority of panel members were unsure that GOWISELY had been fully followed, especially as the audio was unclear at points and they were already beginning to search him so the subject wasn't concentrating on what was being said.
As far as I recall over the incident GOWISELY was covered although not necessarily in the standard order as this is not always practicable and can come across to a subject as robotic.
GOWISELY shouldn’t be followed after handcuffs and arrest - actioned at the start gives time for things to calm down / opportunity to de-escalate. Officer could at least give an introduction - quite a lot of information for the panel to process, let alone the subject who is in the situation.
A stop search is a dangerous situation for all. The subject was told they were detained on stopping them, the handcuffs were part of this. We are focusing on all aspects, the subject may be wanted for a violence offence and be in possession of weapons, may wish to escape or do us harm. We are in plain clothes and not wearing stab protection. The subject has already shown behaviour which may indicate a want to flee or avoid contact. Handcuffs are to prevent violence and escape and this is a proportionate use when dealing with an unknown who has already demonstrated a behaviour change. We also have a duty to keep the subject safe and this may also mean safely controlling the situation. Having experience of hundreds of stop searches, if subject flees running into roads or traffic, this puts them at risk as well and road users / members of the public. Furthermore, some drug users choose to swallow drugs putting themselves further at risk and I would not want to live with them dying because I hadn’t controlled the situation appropriately and given them the opportunity of belief that was their only option out of desperation.
Use of handcuffs in this instance is lawful under Common Law, Sec 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 and Sec 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 as a pre-emptive measure to prevent violence or escape.
Self-defined ethnicity shouldn’t involve leading questions – officer asked if his race was 'white foreign'?
To clarify, it has been a standard operational tag line for enquiring politely with a subject around diversity information for reporting. “I define myself as …… what do you define yours as?” as also, some subjects do not always understand “what do you define your ethnic background to be?”. In this instance I used this line and the subject’s response is “white foreign”, I repeat their answer as a means to clarify his response, he then states, “white British”. The repetition was clarifying his initial answer as I would not be able to categories his ethnicity formally as “white foreign” for reporting standards and had he not said “white British” I would have used further questioning to determine their ethnic background, if they were happy to continue to answer that question.
Carried out in a friendly way, however the whole encounter felt too casual and unprofessional
I am disappointed the panel can’t see that such an invasive process is being dealt with as much humanity and as calmy and as friendly manner as possible on a one to one level. I have found robotic and sterile interactions do not yield anything further than subject and community animosity. We have the consideration that once the search is complete, the subject may want to disclose their own issues to us (this does happen), i.e a substance abuse problem / addiction or being forced to sell drugs to pay a debt to dealers. I will always conduct a search with this in mind and that I might be dealing with a victim or someone who may even with to give intelligence regarding a rival, someone other vulnerable party or may simply want help, which we will try and give.
I appreciate the building of a rapport may seem unprofessional and acknowledge that it is not always suitable or appropriate, but this subject was engaging, compliant and appeared ok with what was being said. We would of course review this as we went and if it seemed inappropriate re-adjust our communication style, we are not robots. We have in mind this subject may come to our attention again and having that rapport already in place reduces the risk for all for any future encounters.
I hope these responses have clarified the points raised.”
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
FEBRUARY 2023 REPORT
Body Worn Videos
Via Microsoft Teams, at the start of each case BWV Systems Administrator Leanne Moorhouse played selected clip, Chief Inspector Mark Beavan read the corresponding report submitted from case officer(s) before the DCCS Panel discussed and submitted the below feedback and assessments. Senior officers in each Force area where the cases under scrutiny took place have been asked to feedback the panel’s observations and reminders for officers. Supervising officers were contacted by MB after the panel meeting to enable Supervisors to view BWV footage that would not be retained beyond 31 days ahead of the panel report.
PROPORTIONATE amount of force
LENGTH of force used
ACTIONS of subject warranted use of force
NECESSARY to use force to protect
TYPE used was minimum appropriate
ETHICAL to use force in situation
REASONABLE for officer to employ
UOF BWV 1 feedback to be provided
Panel assessed no deescalation - 7 or 8 officers grabbing 2 subjects with 2 types of force implemented immediately (handcuffing and drawn tasers). Appreciate deescalation is difficult when involving a vehicle and chaos / noise utilised by officers as a tool, however the level of aggression, shouting and swearing fuelled by adrenaline appeared uncontrolled and unprofessional, which could have escalated the situation.
Officer 16824 continued shouting and unprofessional language was unnecessary and could put his colleagues at risk. All other officers were relaxing as the situation was under control.
Use of unprofessional and forceful language - is this typical practice? Is there training on what you shouldn’t be doing for officers who could benefit?
The majority of the panel assessed the officer as not considering the welfare of the subjects and were unsure if powers were used constructively. Both males were not resisting arrest but were treated as if they were. One subject stated the officer was pushing his arms down while handcuffed across the car bonnet - when saying "ow" he was told to "shut up". Officer did loosen handcuffs at a later point.
Subjects were informed of reasons for S&S but there wasn’t a lot of detail. There were comments about subjects being ‘dangerous’ but not clear why.
Immediate drawing of taser was concerning - subjects hadn’t exited the car and the drivers feet were still near the car controls which must be dangerous. What is the officers reasoning for implementing this?
The panel could not reach a consensus on whether PLANTER was fully followed - didn’t feel it was proportionate or handled correctly.
Actions to be commended:Situation very quickly dealt with.
All panel members agreed it was reasonable for low level of force to be used.
UOF BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
“I acknowledge the number of points raised concerning my professionalism, use of force and my policing response to this incident. I would like to thank the panel for allowing me the opportunity to comment on the points raised.
In order to provide my response, I have reviewed my body worn video footage, my statement that was made at the time, my use of force report and discussed the use of force with the Operational Training Unit.
Before I address each of the points the panel raised, I would like to provide context to the incident. Which was all used in my decision making and the way in which I dealt with the incident.
Police were called to a report of three males wearing balaclavas and carrying weapons committing a burglary within Exeter. These individuals were seen on CCTV to enter a vehicle and make off. Due to the level of driver training I hold I deployed to the area as there was a foreseeable risk that the vehicle may fail to stop for the police. Police pursuits are considered a high risk area of policing. Other officers had sighted the vehicle and were monitoring the vehicle which was being driven in a suspect manner. Further information was received that the occupants had committed a burglary of a property with a cannabis grow and it was suspected to be a “drugs taxing”. In my experience “drugs taxings” are normally committed by rival drug dealers and associates and are at a particularly high risk of escalating violence usually involving weapons. The subject vehicle had attempted to ram a marked police vehicle before failing to stop and driving dangerously. ‘The vehicle was stopped using an approved Tactical Pursuit and Containment (TPAC) tactic that I am trained and authorised in and I was driving one of the vehicles used in this tactic’
Subjects were informed of reasons for S&S but there wasn’t a lot of detail. There were comments about subjects being ‘dangerous’ but not clear why.
I would like to clarify that this was a dynamic arrest and not a stop and search incident as such was not subject to GOWISELY or the requirements of stop search policy. Any search was conducted post arrest under different legislation. With regard to the powers I used I had given the subject sufficient information that he was aware that he was under arrest and for what offence.
The dangerous comment was aimed at my colleague from armed response in regards to arresting the driver who was also detained on the other side of the police for dangerous driving due to the police pursuit and the deliberate attempt to ram a marked police vehicle. This was to ensure that the driver was arrested on suspicion of that as well.
Panel assessed no de-escalation - 7 or 8 officers grabbing 2 subjects with 2 types of force implemented immediately (handcuffing and drawn tasers). Appreciate de-escalation is difficult when involving a vehicle and chaos / noise utilised by officers as a tool, however the level of aggression, shouting and swearing fuelled by adrenaline appeared uncontrolled and unprofessional, which could have escalated the situation.
I acknowledge my use of swear words and this is not a normal communication style for me. The swearing was a deliberate tactic to exert verbal dominance over the subjects in the vehicle and to ensure that I could gain full control and compliance as soon as I could. My communication style was in a manner in which I believed the subject would understand. I believed that all the occupants in the vehicle posed a real and credible threat to the safety of the public my colleagues and myself.
Once I had gained full control of the subject that I was focused on I was able to de-escalate both my words and actions. Until I had full control of the subject my threat assessment had not changed.
I would like to assure the panel that I was in control of my actions throughout this incident and I led a hot de-brief on the vehicle stop where no issues were raised.
I fully accept that my actions were robust in detaining the subject however I honestly believe my actions assisted in the safe resolution of the incident where three people were arrested, weapons were recovered from the vehicle and there were no injuries to my subject, the public, other officers and myself.
Officer 16824 continued shouting and unprofessional language was unnecessary and could put his colleagues at risk. All other officers were relaxing as the situation was under control.
I do not believe that I continued shouting any longer than was necessary. Initially I was shouting as the police vehicles sirens were still on and there were numerous others shouting. Until the subject had been searched he still presented a threat to me even while he was handcuffed. Once the search had been complete the subject was assisted to his feet and escorted to a police vehicle.
Use of unprofessional and forceful language - is this typical practice? Is there training on what you shouldn’t be doing for officers who could benefit?
This is not usual practice and not something I do unless I feel it is justified, necessary and proportionate. The use of language was part of my plan and tactic to gain dominance over the subject and therefore allowing for a swift and safe arrest of the detainee.
The majority of the panel assessed the officer as not considering the welfare of the subjects and were unsure if powers were used constructively. Both males were not resisting arrest but were treated as if they were. One subject stated the officer was pushing his arms down while handcuffed across the car bonnet - when saying "ow" he was told to "shut up". Officer did loosen handcuffs at a later point.
Once I had full control of the subject and did not consider him to be a threat I did consider his welfare.
I removed him from the floor onto the front of a police vehicle as soon as I could to allow him to be searched and the road was wet. I did not want him or I on the floor any longer than was necessary.
Once the subject was restrained on the front of the police vehicle I turned him onto his side to ensure that he could easily breath. I remained holding onto the subject handcuffs to ensure that he could be searched by another officer. By maintaining a reasonable level of force by holding onto the handcuffs and keeping the subject in that position until the search had been completed meant that I remained in complete control which made it safer for everyone.
At 7:18 minutes into the footage I have a conversation with the subject who informed me that his right wrist was hurting. I confirmed this by touching the hand to ensure that I knew which one he was complaining about. I then said “SIT UP” while assisting the subject from the prone position on the car to standing up straight. I believe the panel may have mistaken this for shut up. In my experience this movement will alleviate the pressure on the wrists from the handcuffs. I then escorted the subject to a police vehicle as members of my team were there to assist me. Prior to placing the subject in the police vehicle I checked the handcuffs for tightness and how they were applied as I considered that they had been applied in a non compliant manner. I was satisfied that the handcuffs were applied correctly. This was necessary as he was being transported in the rear of a police vehicle which can be uncomfortable when handcuffed to the rear.
Immediate drawing of taser was concerning - subjects hadn’t exited the car and the drivers feet were still near the car controls.
The drawing of taser was a considered choice in regards to a number of factors. I was focused on the front seat passenger and not the driver or the rear seat passenger. I was satisfied that taser was the safest option in these circumstances over my baton or incapacitant spray. Taser is a good visual tool and the effects can be stopped instantly if fired where as incapacitant spray has a much longer period to recover any effects.
My use of force was subject to a use of force report and justified in my statement. The use of force was reviewed by the operational training unit and found to be in line with my training.
As a result of the panel’s review and points that have been raised. I have taken part in a peer review of my use of force as a whole for this incident with the deputy chief taser officer.
In conclusion I would like to thank the panel for recognising the swift resolution and minimal use of force being used. The only reason this has happened was as a direct result of my tactics and decision making.
Submitted for consideration”
UOF BWV 2 feedback to be provided
The majority of panel did not assess deescalation and did not feel that use of police powers were used constructively.- whilst agreeing officers may have needed to gain entry, members asked if anyone tried knocking on the door or having a conversation before shouting for access and warning of tasers as the approach escalated quite aggressively?
BWV should have been turned on earlier to capture start of incident for effective scrutiny - not after force had commenced.
Panel were unsure why tasers needed to be drawn in this situation but appreciate this depends on intelligence given - panel requests more understanding on when taser use is appropriate.
Subjects were very compliant once the door was opened despite facing drawn tasers and being shouted at. They were immediately arrested and continued to be compliantint but the officer's tone / level didn’t change.
Police behaviour could have easily escalated if subjects weren’t so compliant. Some members felt the approach was an overreaction from the start and asked if officers are supported in managing their own emotions and responses?
Panel were unsure if the officers considered the subjects well being as didn’t adjust handcuffs that were hurting first subject (although they did acknowledge) and some members felt the officer could have been more tactful when asking about second subject’s diabetes button.
Panel members were unsure if PLANTER was followed as the majority felt the type of force was unnecessary or required to protect people.
Actions to be commended:Clear instructions given about force of entry and presence of tasers.
When officers realised someone was behind the door they stopped hitting it.
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 2
BWV should have been turned on earlier to capture start of incident for effective scrutiny - not after force had commenced.
Noted. I arrived at the scene and picked up the items of the method of entry kit I had brought with me. A 16kgs ram and the bag containing tools. At the time both hands were full, and I did not feel BWV needed to be on as I entered the building, there was nothing evidential at this point. That said I will endeavour to switch BWV “ON” when going code 6. I turned it on just prior to starting to hit the door.
The majority of panel did not assess de-escalation and did not feel that use of police powers were used constructively.- whilst agreeing officers may have needed to gain entry, members asked if anyone tried knocking on the door or having a conversation before shouting for access and warning of tasers as the approach escalated quite aggressively?
I was an early turn officer who was asked to attend the scene as soon as I arrived in the officer. A/PS PERCIVAL had made the decision to enter the premises and the log records a long period of time trying to raise the occupants prior to the final entry. I was not able to give any warning, as it can be seen in the BWV that A/PS PERCIVAL took that on herself.
Subjects were very compliant once the door was opened despite facing drawn tasers and being shouted at. They were immediately arrested and continued to be compliant but the officer's tone / level didn’t change.
Noted. There was the potential that there was a 3rd person in the property, it was a dynamic situation and we needed to take control of the premises quickly. Once under control everything was able to return to a more normal footing.
Police behaviour could have easily escalated if subjects weren’t so compliant. Some members felt the approach was an overreaction from the start and asked if officers are supported in managing their own emotions and responses?
As I mentioned to the occupants, but worded it badly, we all get an adrenaline dump during this sort of situation. Standing very close to a door when the person on the other side may have knives, is one of those situations.
Panel were unsure if the officers considered the subjects well being as didn’t adjust handcuffs that were hurting first subject (although they did acknowledge) and some members felt the officer could have been more tactful when asking about second subject’s diabetes button.
Suspects do complain about handcuffs being uncomfortable, this can be due to them having struggled when being handcuffed or having moved their hands post handcuffing. Position/tightness is checked as soon as practicable and adjusted accordingly or removed if it is safe to do so. There was only me and PC AVEN on the landing at the time, although uncomfortable for the person, it was still within the dynamic period of the incident and not a safe time to do anything more than a visual check. They were removed once the other officers came out of the flat.
I have not reviewed BWV for any of these responses. In relation to the diabetes monitor, I thought I asked what the item was and then said thank you, to his response. Having not seen one before it was new to me. I would be happy to receive guidance in what words or phrases I could have used
The Panel wanted to commend the following aspects of this Stop Search: Clear instructions given about force of entry and presence of tasers.
A/PS PERCIVAL did this
When officers realised someone was behind the door they stopped hitting it.
Thank you.
Is it possible to get context of what has been said on the radio to officers for future cases?
All transmissions on the main Airwave radio channels are recorded. However it does take a lot of work to go through it and pick the transmissions relating to a specific incident as the radio channel is managing multiple incidents at the same time across a wide geographic location.
Interested in making a difference?
Improve accountability, transparency and trust between D&C police and the communities they serve
Receive free training, work alongside inspiring individuals and help make positive changes
Scrutinise Stop & Search and Use of Force, or join Sub-committees to share your skills or learn new ones
