SEPTEMBER 2023 REPORT (7-9pm)
SEPTEMBER 2023 REPORT (7-9pm)
DCCS Panel members along with Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham and Body Worn Video [BWV] Systems Administrators Karen Janicka welcomed new panel members and visiting Benjamin Deer - BCU Cornwall and Chair of the Race Action Plan.
This month’s cases selected BWV are from high season times in Plymouth.
Before observing body-worn footage selected by the panel from the previous month's cases, the Chair reminded panel members of wellness practice and the opportunity for debriefing at the end of the meeting.
The following report identifies points to action, D&C Police responses, case assessments and outstanding areas that require investigation.
Body-Worn Video Assessment .
Body-Worn Video Assessment .
ASSESSING D&C POLICE STOP AND SEARCH [S&S]
SEPTEMBER 2023 REPORT (7-9pm)
Body-Worn Videos
Via Microsoft Teams, at the start of each case BWV Systems Administrator Karen Janicka played the clip selected by the panel before members completed their anonymous assessment, discussed and submitted the below feedback.
Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham circulated this report with actions and recommendations to D&C Police Basic Command Unit, Operations Department, Learning and Development, Force Stop and Search Lead and Force Use of Force Lead.
All confirmed discussions, decisions and/or actions taken by officers and supervisors following receipt of the DCCS Panel report are identified in bold blue text.
Panel members use GOWISELY as part of their scrutiny assessment. It is an acronym that officers must use to provide information to a subject before the Stop and Search. If the GOWISELY procedure is not followed then the S&S is highly likely to have been unlawful.
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 Case 1 - 17 year old male in a house being searched
BWV 1 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Panel members were unsure if this encounter was proportionate or ethical as a strip search was conducted. Panel recognised that authorisation was gained for this, however there was concern that this was approved outside of custody without a neutral adult present and no audio recording for protection of subject and officer when BWV switched off.
The officers use of language was unprofessional and derogatory saying the subject “had no friends”l and and perceived by some members as coercive as the language suggested a strip search was going to happen again and may be why the subject approved it.
All panel members assessed GOWISELY as not being followed.
A subject being ‘known’ isn’t grounds for S&S - suggests bias and prejudgement. This may be why the subject was so compliant.
Officer didn’t identify himself, his station or entitlement to a search record.
Subject shouldn’t have been led to remove his shoes and socks when not necessary.
More information needs to be given to minors about their power to consent or deny strip search.
The majority of panel members assessed this as not the best police service that could be provided.
TC - Refresher mandatory stop search training being rolled across from tomorrow .Actions to be commended:
Panel members assessed this encounter as necessary as there was intelligence of Class A drugs.
Officer was calm
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received.
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
SEPTEMBER 2023 REPORT (7-9pm)
Body-Worn Videos
Panel members use PLANTER as part of their Use of Force scrutiny assessment:
PROPORTIONATE amount of force implemented
LENGTH of force used
ACTIONS of subject warranted use of force
NECESSARY to use force to protect the subject, officers or members of the public
TYPE used was minimum appropriate
ETHICAL to use force in the situation
REASONABLE for officer(s) to employ
UOF Case 1 - Forced entry for wanted male subject | Non compliant handcuffing, PAVA spray, taser
BWV 1 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Panel members were unsure if officers tried to deescalate the situation as the officer's use of sarcastic tone, antagonistic language and goading comments appeared to create escalation.
This officer’s unprofessional conduct did not support his fellow officers or members of the public - training required.
The panel recognised officer’s concerns that he was “tooled up”, however the majority of the panel did not think this use of force was proportionate with the number of officers present, multiple deployed tasers and use of PAVA spray in a small, contained space.
PLANTER was not fully followed.
Someone mentioned calling an ambulance but this didn’t appear to be actioned.
A young person was present in the room - should have been removed earlier
Actions to be commended:
Assisting officer used dialogue and appropriate tone to converse with occupants.
Same officer checked on welfare repeatedly after tasering.
UOF BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received.
UOF Case 2 - Young male arrested, Newquay, non compliant handcuffing, leg restraint, spit guard, unarmed defense technique
BWV 2 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
All panel members did not assess the officers as trying to deescalate the situation. Female officer very quickly approached the subject, ordering him away and created the incident with her behaviour and misuse of power. Her reaction was at a high level and escalated the situation. The member of the public seemed generally frustrated that the police weren't involved in the fight / drug dealing reported down the road (was this investigated?) Very poor example of community policing.
The majority of the panel were not satisfied that the officers did not discriminate, act with prejudice or bias. Panel requests investigation into why the situation happened in the first place. Strongly recommend reviewing.
Panel asked why leg restraints were used as they didn't see the subject kick out? Female officer appeared visibly happy by this.
The majority of the panel assessed the officers as not considering the welfare and wellbeing of the subject. Officer pushed the subject away by throat - very concerning. He repeatedly stated “I can't breathe” and the handcuffs hurting. Some panel members questioned the use of a spit guard when breathing was compromised, and not allowing him to sit up. Officers could have done a better job of looking after not only his physical self but mental - this was a traumatic experience to go through, whether he was intoxicated or not.
Unprofessional language and swearing “tw**/ cu**” used in the alleyway and street is unjustified.
The majority of the panel assessed that PLANTER was not followed. The encounter was not necessary, force was not proportionate for the number of officers present and the type of force
All the public involved now have a poor perception of police.
Taken straight to custody - not the hospital.
Actions to be commended:
The officer with BWV treated the subject with more care - talked to him, searched for an inhaler, reduced discomfort where possible and stayed with him for the duration.
Ambulance called.
Some restraints were removed and handcuffs loosened in the van.
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received.
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.
