SEPTEMBER 2024 REPORT (3-5pm)
SEPTEMBER 2024 REPORT
DCCS Panel members along with Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham, Karen Janicka (BWV Subject Matter Expert for Devon & Cornwall) welcomed new panel members and visiting Superintendent Toby Davies and Graham Thomas for North and West Devon
This month’s cases selected BWV for time of year (high tourist periods) Areas - Plymouth / North & West Devon - Ethnicities: Asian, Black, Other
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 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 - New Devon plain-clothed officer covering Newquay Boardmasters Festival- drug dog indicated black male’s bag:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Initial BWV angle poor but officer readjusted
Most Panel members agreed that the usual GOWISELY protocol was followed, however it was rushed and the plain-clothed officers did not present their warrant card, which raised concerns about following proper identification protocol. Poor BWV audio also made it hard to hear in parts.
Several Panel members expressed discomfort with the fact that the search took place in a very public area, with many people walking by. Break off spaces are available - officers need to be aware of that extra level of trauma for subjects of colour. Panel members suggested a more private location would have been more respectful for the subject and quieter for BWV recording.
Best practice would be to run through the search / verbalise where officer would be touching
A few Panel members felt that the officers could have communicated more clearly, particularly regarding legal rights and procedures.
Panel questioned why the subject was asked where he was born and his telephone number requested as this isn’t required.
There was some concern about how the officers handled the subject’s prescription medication, particularly regarding the need for proof of a prescription at the time of the search.
Panel members asked if a patient access app can be used to prove medication when it’s inconvenient to take too many boxes (i.e. a festival / holiday). Context could have been more considered, the subject may not want to leave tablets in an insecure tent.
Panel didn’t see the outcome and asked was it the prescription drugs that triggered the police dog as no other drugs were found?
Actions to be commended:
The majority of the Panel agreed that the search was necessary with clear reason and grounds, primarily because a sniffer dog indicated the presence of drugs.
The encounter was viewed as proportionate by most of the Panel. Officers were calm, professional and respectful.
Officers mentioned complaints procedure, which hasn’t been heard discussed before.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Toby Davies
“The officer was with a team setup to disrupt criminality. Boardmasters has a very young demographic and issues with drugs / alcohol / overdoses and safeguarding. I don’t disagree that it was a very public location and should have been removed from being so visible to others. GOWISELY was scattered, and the officer conducting the S&S should have shown his warrant card. Officer was going over and above with complaint procedure - not required. Context taken into consideration as officers didn’t confiscate the medication after the subject answered questions.”
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
The DCCS Panel commends this officer's actions and use of police powers in this particular case. The rating reflects strong adherence to procedure, though some minor points for improvement were noted.
S&S Case 2 - Report of knife in Exeter City Centre - white male and female stopped and searched:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel noted that officers could benefit from better de-escalation strategies, particularly when dealing with agitated individuals or third parties. Subjects immediately handcuffed - no deescalation perceived. Officers could have allowed the subject to calm the female companion but acknowledge the report of a weapon required urgency.
One of the most prominent concerns was the treatment of a woman who was present during the search. The Panel members expressed that the use of force on her seemed disproportionate, especially when she was pushed by an officer and there was a mention of her being on the floor. The rough treatment of the woman escalated the situation unnecessarily, and more patience and care could have led to a calmer resolution. This use of force needs to be investigated. Panel interested in observing the female’s S&S.
The majority of the Panel didn’t hear all of GOWISELY covered - some challenges due to distractions and communication issues.
Several Panel members felt that communication could have been handled better, particularly during moments of heightened tension. There were instances where officers continued speaking even though it was clear the subject wasn’t listening and an officer shouted at the male subject to “shut up”.
Missed opportunity for further explanation: one Panellist pointed out that although the officer offered to provide more information after the search, they did not follow through on this offer. Officers should have enquired into the stolen money that the subject mentioned.
Panel asked if there was follow-up after the search to ensure that the subject understood the reasoning behind it.
Actions to be commended:
The majority of the Panel members felt that the search was necessary, especially as it was reported that the individual was seen on CCTV with a knife.
For the most part, Panel members considered the encounter proportionate. Handcuffing was understandable due to the potential weapon.
The officers were generally commended for their ethical behaviour, particularly their calm and professional demeanour throughout the encounter.
Officer verbalised that he was about to search the subject's waistband and asked for permission to search the subject’s backpack.
Officer reassured the subject's companion that he wasn’t being arrested.
Subject’s handcuffs were removed promptly when nothing was found.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Toby Davies
“There is a heightened sensitivity around knife crime in Exeter. There could have been more effort to pause that situation once there was control, and have more communication. I can see how the engagement with the female subject could have come across. Would like to know if there was communication with her after and reasoning explained for actions?”
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
The DCCS Panel commends this officer's actions and use of police powers in this particular case. The rating reflects strong adherence to procedure, though some minor points for improvement were noted.
S&S Case 3 - Reported group of young males with handgun:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel asks why there is no NICHE reference number.
Initial S&S was very poor. Hostile approach.
Conduct and communication of the first officer: the Panel was particularly critical of the first officer’s demeanour, noting that he appeared rude, condescending, and even threatening towards the young people. His aggressive tone, particularly when he threatened to arrest the entire group, was seen as unnecessary and counterproductive.
Several Panel members raised concerns about the aggressive language used by the first officer, particularly his threat to arrest the entire group within a time limit if they didn’t cooperate. This was seen as unnecessary and escalated an already tense situation.
One Panel member raised concerns about potential bias when it appeared that only the black suspect was asked where he lived, while other individuals were not. Officers should ensure that questions are asked uniformly and that all individuals are treated fairly.
Consideration should be given to the possibility that these young people may be neurodivergent and genuinely not understand. When asking about the grounds, the officer said “I’ve said it to you over and over again”, “how many times do I have to tell you”, “what part do you not understand” but the Panel also hadn’t heard it. If being asked repeatedly, this is a sign that communication isn’t clear enough.
Best practice would be to run through the search / verbalise where they will be touching, especially with young people.
Several panel members felt that GOWISELY was rushed and not clearly communicated to all individuals. While the first suspect received the information, there were doubts that the other boys heard or understood the legal grounds for the search. No matter how confident subjects may appear to be, this is a traumatising situation.
Many felt that the initial interaction was a missed opportunity to build rapport with the young people. Instead of engaging with them constructively during the quiet moments of the search, the first officer’s approach escalated tensions. Poor attempt at police-community relations.
Officers asked ages towards the end - this should have been established at the beginning.
Actions to be commended:
All Panel members assessed this encounter as necessary due to the suspected involvement of a weapon.
For most, the encounter was considered proportionate to the potential threat posed by the group. Once additional officers arrived, the situation was handled more smoothly and changed to a more calm and professional one. The second officer and female officer were much more controlled and courteous, and gave directions to the young people.
While there were criticisms of the first officer’s approach, the panel commended the professionalism of other officers on the scene. Specifically, the second officer and the female officer were praised for their respectful and calm demeanour.
Despite the initial chaos, GOWISELY was generally followed by the officers, though there were issues with how it was communicated in the early stages.
Male officers conducted the S&S on male subjects.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Toby Davies
“Very serious incident as a report - powers used were appropriate but quite quickly apparent it’s not as reported. Young people who may never have had contact with police and this engagement will make a lasting impression. Initial officer was hostile, curt and rude - didn’t need to be and this is disappointing. Need to be pragmatic with your response and what you are actually dealing with. Second officer and the female officer calmed the situation. Trained to be professional and no matter how heightened or alarming the situation, you’ve got to remain a professional and think how it comes across to others. As juveniles there will be follow ups with all their parents / carers. There needs to be a discussion with supervisor on manner and how to deal with situations in the future”
S&S BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
Officer’s response not received
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
SEPTEMBER 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 - Arrested black male subject refused to leave police vehicle to go into custody:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Several Panel members raised concerns that the PAVA spray was disproportionate and used unnecessarily, particularly when the subject was already restrained on the floor by multiple officers in handcuffs.
PLANTER was not fully followed.
Panel members noted that the spray was used without sufficient verbal warning, causing distress to the subject and potentially putting nearby officers at risk.
The subject's neurodiverse characteristics were recognised, yet some felt the situation could have been handled with more sensitivity to his heightened emotional state. He didn’t respond when asked if he understood. Waiting longer or using different strategies (such as involving the mother earlier) might have de-escalated the situation further.
Concerns were raised about potential racial bias, with some Panel members questioning if the outcome would have been the same if the subject had been a different ethnicity.
Subject appeared to be having a trauma response to being touched by so many people. Some Panel members felt that the situation escalated too quickly after the initial restraint, rather than focusing on calming the subject further before using additional force like the spray.
Actions to be commended:
Communication and de-escalation: from the onset, officers made efforts to explain the situation clearly to the subject and gave opportunities to comply. There was persuasive dialogue and attempts to offer alternative actions, such as informing the subject of what would happen if they didn’t cooperate. The subject’s mother was also permitted to stay with him throughout the process, which helped to provide support.
Consideration for wellbeing: officers acknowledged the subject’s dislike of being touched, likely due to neurodiverse sensitivities, and communicated this openly.
Medical care was provided after the use of spray, with officers helping the subject through breathing exercises and assisting him to stand.
For the most part, the Panel agreed that the use of handcuffs and restraint was proportionate given the circumstances.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Toby Davies
“Officers tried everything they reasonably could to get the subject out of the car. The PAVA spray appeared to be used because only one hand was handcuffed and he was flailing around on the floor which could cause more harm. Very unusual to bring the mother into the confines of the custody centre without knowing what response it may elicit. Officers held subjects head away from the floor and did all they could to avoid injury, even though it may not have looked that way”.
UOF BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
“This is a really useful exercise - good to see how these incidents are perceived by the public. Officers need to be really conscious of how we come across when managing situations”
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.
