JULY 2024 REPORT (3-5pm)
JULY 2024 REPORT
DCCS Panel members along with Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham, Karen Janicka (BWV Subject Matter Expert for Devon & Cornwall) and Lauren Duguid, (Body Worn Video Subject Matter Expert Support for Devon & Cornwall), welcomed new panel members and visiting Scott Bradley BCU Commander Plymouth
This month’s cases selected BWV involving repeat subjects of stop and search (red/amber officers prioritised)
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]
JULY 2024 REPORT
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 - Black male who’d been stopped repeatedly, stopped by three female police officers in Plymouth:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel did not assess this encounter as necessary. The initial engagement and grounds were confusing - it appeared that the officers were searching for a lawful reason as the grounds for the S&S changed from ‘section 23 / drugs’, ‘‘someone being cut up’, ‘call about someone in the area’, to ‘illegal begging’ and ‘something being passed to him’.
It appeared that the intelligence was based on the area rather than a description of the subject, and the officers focused their attention on him only after they couldn’t engage with the female originally wanted.
The Panel did not assess this encounter as proportionate. There were three female officers to one male subject - he was handcuffed and restrained by two officers during the search. There was no reason for handcuffs and detainment to continue after nothing was found and the subject calmed down.
The Panel did not assess this encounter as ethical - officers' communication was poor and confusing. With no reasonable grounds, being followed down the street by three officers repeatedly telling an increasingly agitated person to 'calm down' appeared to actually be harassment.
The subject appeared to be detained and arrested as a reaction to him refusing to cooperate rather than actual grounds.
Subject was topless and in public view - could have been removed from the road. No dignity given.
Officers questioning the subject's name at the end suggested he was being profiled. The search wasn’t legitimate and bias was involved. The officers weren't clear who they had even stopped.
Panel members found this S&S very uncomfortable and chaotic. No officers took ultimate responsibility of the situation and there was very little authority or control.
The Panel assessed that in this context, the subject did not receive the best service the police could have provided. The situation escalated as a response to officers' poor conduct, policing and communication.
Best practice would have been to verbalise the search and communicate where they were going to touch, especially considering it's female officers searching a male. They could have asked if a male officer was available nearby on the radio.
Officer heard saying ‘shouldn’t have done that search’.
Panel members asked if this subject did have a lawful reason preventing him from being in the area as mentioned? Investigate whether he also was disproportionality stopped multiple times over 2 days as stated.
Panel members found it concerning that these new officers have been signed off when they evidently aren’t ready and require further training.
Actions to be commended:
GOWISELY followed.
Officers didn’t react to later personal comments, insults or swearing when it escalated.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“I echo the Panel - this was a chaotic scene and officers lacked operational clarity with what they wanted to achieve. Focus of S&S was confusing - off camera it sounded like they were also discussing the female.
There appeared to be a real difficulty in de-escalating this encounter and the officers actions didn’t help this, especially considering the amount of times the subject had already been searched by police that week. Clarity was needed and the length of time he was detained in handcuffs did not help. The more drawn out the incident, the more risk to officers, subjects and passers by.
Requesting the subject’s name may have been to check previous incidents from the day.
Wherever practical, same sex officers would be preferred when conducting a search but not required if subjects are being searched over their clothes.
Lack of experience from young in-service officers was perhaps why they made the comment about whether they ‘should have searched’.
A support structure is needed for young in-service officers who clearly require support re: leadership and effectively controlling the situation.
More officers need exposure to the feedback at these community scrutiny panels to create time and space for them to learn from these situations, pause and reflect.
If there are outstanding offences (such as a prior warning for vagrancy act), these can be followed up after a S&S.”
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
S&S Case 2 - Black male suspected of drug dealing, Plymouth:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel was unsure if this encounter was proportionate as some members questioned if handcuffing was necessary with one cooperative, calm subject and three officers present.
The Panel was unsure if this encounter was ethical. Some Panel members questioned if bias was present when assessing the marijuana found. It appeared to be for personal use in one bag, not for dealing / distribution. Panel asks how it is decided that there is intent to supply? How can officers decide what is typical for someone to use personally? Similar amounts have been found in previous cases observed and the subject has been given a community resolution rather than arrested.
The subject could have been moved off the pavement into the lane rather than having small children witness and comment on the incident. An opportunity missed for police officers to demonstrate a respectful approach to the community,
Greater communication was needed with the subject, and consideration given towards a possible language barrier. The subject asked a number of times what was happening.
Best practice would have been to verbalise the search and where officers were going to touch.
The Panel is unsure if GOWISELY was fully followed- please check to see if this was funny covered.
The discussion between student officer and trainer should have been shared with the subject as it’s not clear on the body-worn video about subject dealing.
Panel would like to see this officer’s conduct in the future when the trainer is not present.
Actions to be commended:
The Panel assessed this encounter as necessary.
The officer used good intelligence based on clothing details (blue baseball cap, green top) for identification instead of subject characteristics.
Tutor used good questioning with the student officer.
Officer’s tone was respectful and calm.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Scott Bradley
“The communication / language barrier required greater dialogue from officers as well as a better explanation of what was happening, and I agree with the Panel that the subject didn’t need to be handcuffed in public view for that amount of time. While the trainer and officer were in discussion, he should have been put in the car to minimise embarrassment.
It was a thorough search by officers and trainer’s questions were effective at helping the student officer.
There is no specific legislation on amount / weight that suggests personal use vs. dealing. In this case, following an interview in custody, the outcome was a community resolution.
Handcuffing is a personal subjective stance for officers to take, no matter how calm a subject may appear.”
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
UOF Case 3 - Report from security guard of two young males tampering with moped - foot chase with police dogs present, Plymouth:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel was unsure if this encounter was ethical as GOWISELY was not fully covered.
There was no communication given before the officer started touching the subject for the search, nor communication during except to tell him to lift arms.
The search was not very thorough. Appeared to be an arrest without search.
Officer ran through the subject’s rights very quickly.
The officer’s language was unprofessional and inappropriate with a young subject - very informal and appeared too jovial when reading the subject’s rights. Some Panel members found it patronising. This is a serious situation, especially for a young subject. Even if they are known to the police, each encounter should be treated with the same lawful procedures.
The Panel asked what safeguarding is put in place for these young people?
Panel members recommended ‘GOWISELY cards’ for officers to give to subjects - these would be very helpful for those with communication barriers
Actions to be commended:
The Panel assessed this encounter as necessary.
The Panel assessed this encounter as proportionate.
The use of force implemented (police dog) was helpful and deescalated the chase.
Officer gave very clear communication on where to stand and what to do once the subject was found.
Officer used an appropriate voice level, considering adrenaline following the chase.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Scott Bradley
“I agree there is danger when officers make flippant remarks that it doesn’t sound good - happened in this interaction and they added no value. Comments like this cause the situation to escalate.
The speed of delivery with arrest and caution was too quick. Officers may tend to do this with subjects that are known (doesn’t mean it’s right) and if there is an arrest, officers may not elongate the incident by running through GOWISELY.
Electronic versions of GOWISELY may now be available but hard copies in the car would be helpful.
Officer’s control was spot on when the subjects were caught up with.”
S&S BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
JULY 2024 REPORT
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 - Report of female with blue shorts carrying a knife:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
BWV audio was difficult to hear.
Subject appeared disorientated and the officers' initial instructions were a bit confusing. Clearer communication and more dialogue with her once the situation was controlled would have been beneficial.
The assisting female officer appeared to be holding the handcuffs threateningly.
Actions to be commended:
The Panel assessed the use of force as necessary.
Speed and efficiency was appropriate due to the weapon present.
Tone of the taser-holding officer was clear and concise.
Effective policing given the potential risk. No escalation / risk to subject, officers or public.
Use of force was proportionate considering the presence of a knife.
Officer considered the subject’s well-being - permitted them to change position from lying down as she was calm, cooperating and indicated there was a medical issue.
The situation was controlled and the weapon dropped immediately.
PLANTER was followed.
Officer’s communication was slow and clear when explaining the reasons for arrest.
The female subject's mental health was considered quickly after the arrest and took priority over the criminal offence for which she was arrested. She was assessed and taken to a mental health unit for ongoing care.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Scott Bradley
“It is a tactic for officers to hold handcuffs like this when there is a taser present to signal to their colleagues that they are ready to move in when needed.
These incidents can escalate very quickly. The officers' communication and actions were clear in this case and kept everyone safe.
I agree that there were confusing messages when the subject was told to lie on the floor, however the subject displayed a reluctance and stepping in and enforcing this may have escalated the situation. Providing another alternative helped control the situation in case she had another weapon.
Once the initial danger ended, I would have liked to have seen the officers use this opportunity to educate and support the subject.”
UOF BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
The DCCS Panel recognises that there are areas of excellent practice from this officer and areas of learning. May the former be a strong foundation for the latter.
“All officers would benefit from exposure to the view and feedback at these community scrutiny panels.”
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.
