JULY 2024 REPORT (7-9pm)
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 BCU Commander Benjamin Deer
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 and visiting BCU Commander Benjamin Deer.
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 - Report of young people smoking cannabis in wooded area:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel asks why this footage was not served and there is no BWV reference for this case?
The Panel heard all of GOWISELY except for ‘you are detained’.
Officer gave questionable advice on how to not get stopped when you’re doing drugs - ‘don’t use a bong’ or don’t come here and be ‘too obvious’, ‘be more subtle’ - appreciate the officer may feel they’re being ‘realistic’ but this leniency may not help subjects in the long run as other officers won’t be as tolerant about it.
The Panel appreciates the officers' efforts to build a rapport but at times, the language was unprofessional - officer swore at one point / said “I’m being nice to you but not any more”. Officers needed to be aware of not being too over familiar, especially as the subjects are young people in an isolated area.
Female subject was not searched, only her coat checked - the Panel asked if this was due her age and only male officers available for search in the remote location?
Actions to be commended:
The Panel assessed this encounter as necessary.
The Panel assessed this encounter as proportionate.
The Panel assessed this encounter as ethical.
The officer showed good leadership and informed the subjects that the BWV was on.
Officers were friendly, explained the situation clearly and helped alleviate young people’s anxiety with tone and calm conduct. Very human interaction.
Officer introduced other officers, not just himself.
Officer thanked the subjects for their honesty.
Officer engaged in conversation and showed interest in the subjects’ lives whilst conducting the search.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Benjamin Deer
“Good human interaction but the officer may have gone too far with some of the comments.”
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S 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.
S&S Case 2 - Black male subjects refusing police access to vehicle at a standstill on motorway fast lane:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel was unsure if this encounter was necessary.
The lack of BWV on one officer and the poor camera angle on the other officer were flagged as significant concerns. The subject had to request the camera be turned on, which hindered the transparency of the encounter.
The Panel requests the shoulder number of the officer at the start of the video who mentioned he didn’t have a BWV.
Some members mentioned that poor audio quality (due to proximity to a dual carriageway) made it difficult to hear the officers’ explanations. It was unclear if the smell of cannabis alone was sufficient grounds for the search.
Suggestions were made to provide clear reasons for the search early on to help reduce the subject's concerns or frustrations. Strategies to build a conversation / rapport with subjects were completely absent.
Several panel members felt that the grounds for suspicion (suspicion of drugs) were unclear and not properly communicated, with concerns about assumptions being made and officers jumping to conclusions.
Officer appeared to be reacting to the subject recording the incident on his phone and opposing the search.
Several panel members questioned the need for handcuffing, especially in a situation where there were multiple officers and the subject had nowhere to run. There was a sense that the use of force was disproportionate and continued for too long.
The Panel was unsure if this encounter was ethical.
Multiple members noted that GOWISELY was either incomplete or unclear. Critical aspects, such as grounds for the search, were not explained early enough or fully verbalised before handcuffing.
Panel members expressed concerns about the officer’s communication, particularly around handcuffing, the search, and removing belongings (like his cash). It was suggested that officers provide more detailed explanations and leave personal belongings in sight to prevent mistrust from subjects.
Some panel members felt that officers appeared to find reasons to use police powers rather than addressing the actual situation. For instance, obstructing police could have been a more suitable ground than suspicion of drugs. If the issue was the car being a danger to the public, then this priority should have been made clearer, rather than focusing on a drug search. Communication was lost which hindered the process.
The use of informal language like “mate” was flagged as inappropriate, particularly in an encounter where the subject already mistrusted the officers.
In this context, the Panel did not assess the subject as receiving the best service the police could have provided.
Two Panel members requested this case for future dip sampling.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Benjamin Deer
“Officers have professional curiosity - if someone with a broken down car in the fast lane doesn’t want to hand their keys to police, it’s suspicious. My biggest concern with this case is the amount of officers who didn’t have their body-worn video on - I will be picking this up to understand why. A lot of questions are unanswerable at the moment because of this.”
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
S&S Case 3 - Report of drug taking by white male and female:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Poor audio quality and BWV camera angles were flagged as issues. The male officer’s camera was facing the wrong way, and much of the interaction with the male subject was not visible or audible. It was also noted that the female subject had to ask for the male subject to be moved out of the public view.
Several Panel members questioned the necessity of handcuffing, particularly for the male subject, as he was intoxicated but not aggressive or posing a direct threat. The use of handcuffs in public, without clear justification, was seen as inappropriate, especially when other measures could have been considered.
Best practice would have been for the S&S to be verbalised (i..e what they are doing and why).
A key concern was that the female subject was searched under her coat and asked to lift her top, which exposed her breasts in public. Officers should have prevented her from doing this. This is outside the powers related to outer clothing.
Multiple Panel members noted that the male officer did not fully follow GOWISELY when dealing with the subjects. The male officer was also noted to have talked over the female officer, which confused the GOWISELY process.
Several Panel members mentioned that the legal power being used, specifically “Section 23,” was not clearly explained. The officers should have fully verbalised what the section means to avoid confusion.
Some Panel members questioned whether the report of intoxicated individuals alone was enough grounds for a stop and search, suggesting that further clarification on this point was needed. Also Intelligence ‘matching your description’ is not clear - best practice would be to repeat what that is (i..e specific items of clothing as observed in this afternoon’s scrutiny).
One Panel member raised the point that the male subject, given his intoxicated state and unstable demeanour, could have been offered assistance to get to a safe place rather than being searched. There was also a suggestion to consider whether the female subject, who appeared more coherent, could take responsibility for the male.
Actions to be commended:
The majority of the Panel assessed this encounter as necessary.
The majority of the Panel assessed this encounter as proportionate
The female officer chose not to handcuff the female subject, recognizing her anxiety, which was seen as a compassionate decision. It was also noted that the female officer conducted the search of the female subject, which is considered best practice.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Benjamin Deer
“I’m also interested in finding out the grounds for this S&S. The officers should have prevented the female subject from lifting her top up instead of allowing her to go too far. If there were concerns about hidden items in her bra, she should have been taken to the station for a strip search. Officers should have been helped to maintain some of the subject’s dignity.”
S&S BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
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 from holiday park security of white male subject using threatening language and mentioned a weapon:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Handling of mental health issues: the Panel asked whether more thorough investigation or support might have been needed for the subject's wellbeing - appeared to be going through a mental health crisis. Was professional help sought?
Some Panel members assessed that the subject’s medical needs were not always prioritised as the male stated he had a broken hand when being handcuffed, which could have been addressed more proactively.
Consistency in officer behaviour - the female officer undermined her colleagues deescalation efforts by talking rudely over others, causing confusion and acting aggressively.
Better control of bystanders was needed: another officer erroneously and dangerously allowed the female subject to re-enter the situation and stand in front of male subject while the taser was drawn.
Actions to be commended:
Officers generally tried to de-escalate the volatile situation, staying calm, professional and respectful with vulnerable subjects who were nervous and agitated..
One officer took a lead, provided their first names, using subjects name repeatedly, reassuring that BWV was recording, clearly explaining why the taser was drawn, what was going to happen and how to prevent escalation.
Officers appeared attentive to subjects' mental health needs and physical welfare: the main male officer confirmed the subject was autistic and was careful to keep the situation calm. He reassured the subject repeatedly that he wouldn’t hurt him, commended the subject for working with them and reassured that the taser had been put away.
Use of force was justified, measured and PLANTER followed well. Non compliant subject became compliant - use of force was necessary, reasonable and professional.
Subjects were given time to talk, listened to and their previous trauma acknowledged - good use of ‘bearing witness’.
The main officer’s actions have hopefully improved these subjects' perceptions of police and restored some trust in D&C Police.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Benjamin Deer
“There’s been a lot of work in engaging with individuals with neurodiversity - officers could easily have justified additional use of force in this situation but this officer maintained control and avoided physical altercations which would have resulted in injury. This case is an excellent example for training.”
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.
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.
