MARCH 2025 REPORT (7-9PM)
MARCH 2025 REPORT
DCCS Panel members along with Chief Inspector Dom Nicholls (stepping in for Tom Cunningham), Karen Janicka (BWV Subject Matter Expert for Devon & Cornwall) and welcomed new panel members and visiting Superintendent Ben Asprey - South Devon Commander
This month’s cases were filtered for both Stop and Search and Use of Force as follows: •Age •South Devon BCU
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]
MARCH 2025 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 - Drug stop at train station, identified by passive drug dog / asian male subject:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Search Location and Dignity: The stop and search took place on a train station platform in public view with a dog and other officers present. It was suggested that the subject could have been moved to a more private area to preserve dignity.
BWV Quality: The body-worn camera (BWV) footage angle was poor, which hindered the view of the search, and the audio was difficult to hear at the start of the footage. This affects the overall clarity and transparency of the encounter.
Ethical Concerns: There were concerns raised regarding the officer asking the subject if they had been stopped and searched previously. Some Panel members questioned whether this was necessary and if too many personal questions were asked.
GOWISELY Protocol: The object was not explicitly stated at the beginning of the search. However, it was explained later during the encounter. Best practice would suggest that this should be stated clearly at the start.
Search Process: The question about the subject's pain should have been asked before the search began, rather than during it. This would have been a better practice for ensuring comfort and respect for the subject, as well as talking them through the search / where they were going to be touching.
Officer Interaction: The female officer who was not involved in the search kept engaging the other officer in conversation. This was seen as distracting and potentially impolite, as it detracted from the focus on the subject and the search process.
Actions to be commended:
Respectful and Clear Communication: The officer was noted for maintaining a calm, respectful tone throughout the encounter. The subject was treated with dignity, and their side of the story was heard.
Ethnicity Recording: The officer made a conscious effort to clarify how the subject would like their ethnicity recorded, ensuring that data was captured in a respectful manner rather than assuming or leaving it blank.
Subject's Health Consideration: The officer asked if the subject was in any pain, which is seen as a positive interaction and demonstrates empathy.
Explanation of Next Steps: The officer clearly explained what would happen next after the search and provided the subject with information about possible outcomes, demonstrating transparency.
Community Resolution: The object of the search as found. The officer explained potential community resolution measures and provided reassurance, helping to create a sense of clarity and trust.
Gratitude and Closure: The officer checked if the subject had any questions before leaving and thanked them, which helped to end the encounter on a polite and respectful note.
The majority of the Panel agreed that the encounter was necessary and proportionate. However, some Panel members raised concerns about the low level of the offense (e.g., suspected drug possession) and the context of the encounter.
The majority of the Panel felt the encounter was ethical, though some raised concerns about the personal questions asked and whether it was necessary to inquire about the subject's previous stop and search experiences.
Most Panel members confirmed that GOWISELY was followed, though there was a concern regarding the object not being explicitly stated at the beginning of the search.
The majority of Panel members stated that in this context, the subject received the best service the police could have provided.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Asprey
“I agree with the Panel's feedback on the stop and search, particularly regarding the location of the search. In future, more consideration could be given to moving the subject away from the busy train platform to be more courteous and preserve dignity, especially with a planned event as this was.
The officer was respectful and spoke with dignity. Asking about previous stop and search experiences is a common practice, as it helps officers understand the subject's knowledge and potential reaction to the encounter. However, regarding the interruption by the female officer, I agree that it detracted from the officer's focus on the subject and could have been a safeguarding issue, which should have been avoided.I agree with the BWV quality - there are external factors that can impact this, such as the officers jacket and the dog's involvement. Overall circumstances were legally sound - passive drug dogs indicated, which gave grounds that were genuine and objective.”
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
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. Positive professional behaviours, such as empathy, de-escalation, and active listening, were observed. The majority of the Panel believed the subject received the best possible service from D&C Police.
S&S Case 2 - Drug stop at train station / white male subject:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
GOWISELY not followed: There was no coverage of GOWISELY before the search, and it was not heard during the encounter. This needs investigation to determine if the procedure was omitted.
Lack of clarity on grounds for the search: There was no context or explanation given regarding why the subject was stopped. This was unclear to the Panel.
Search location: The search took place at a train station with several officers present. The subject could have been taken away from public view to preserve dignity, and a separate space arranged, especially being a planned event
Poor BWV quality: The BWV angle made it difficult to observe the search being conducted, and the audio was hard to hear, especially due to rustling sounds from evidence bags. This raises concerns about the equipment’s effectiveness, and it would be beneficial for the officers involved to receive additional training on BWV use.
Best practices: Best practice would have been to explain the search, especially around where the subject might be touched.
Ethics of personal questions: There was concern regarding whether asking if the subject had been previously stopped and searched was appropriate, and whether too many personal questions were asked.
Lack of explanation of entitlement: The subject was not informed that entitlement could be collected at the station.
Bag search not thorough: There was no clear indication that a thorough bag search was undertaken, even though drugs were found and the drugs dog indicated a second time.
Warrant card issue: It was unclear if the officer not in uniform displayed their warrant card, which would have helped in maintaining public trust.
The Panel were unsure if this encounter was necessary, proportionate or ethical as there was a lack of context and no GOWISELY.
Actions to be commended:
Conversational tone: The officers were conversational and showed care when engaging with the subject.
Community resolution: An object was found, and a community resolution was likely. The officer explained what would happen next in a clear and informative manner.
Communication of next steps: The officer explained what would happen after the search, ensuring the subject understood the process.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Asprey
“I agree with many of the Panel's points - many questions remain unanswered. It would be good to observe the other officers BWV. I completely agree with the point about plain-clothes officers - while they offer advantages, they should display their warrant cards to build public trust and maintain transparency. This should be built into operational briefing with this type of tactic.
A thorough search was not conducted. Although drugs were found, the search was not as comprehensive as expected, no matter the challenges. A designated space to conduct these S&S would have helped with this.
Regarding the entitlement being collected in person, I will take this feedback forward, as well as the fact that GOWISELY sets out all legal recommendations and we need to ensure this is delivered.
I also agree that the sound quality issues with BWV equipment should be addressed, and this is something to keep in mind when we get new technology. Something I will be taking from this case, is suggesting a “one-on, all on” policy with BWV, especially when conducting planned events.”
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
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. Positive professional behaviours, such as empathy, de-escalation, and active listening, were observed. The majority of the Panel believed the subject received the best possible service from D&C Police.
S&S Case 3 - Hotel report of suspected guest drug use/dealing - white and asian male subject:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Lone working: The officer was working alone with two subjects. It was discussed whether the officer should have detained both subjects to prevent the first from leaving and to ensure that the situation could be handled more effectively. The Panel recognised the officer did so to prevent the subjects from leaving on hotel check out, however there were concerns about safety risks and the officer’s decision to search without waiting for additional officers.
Thoroughness of search: The search of the first subject seemed rushed, especially since the officer was alone. Best practice would have been to explain the search and where they are going to be touching. There was a missed opportunity to investigate further into the amount of alcohol both subjects had. When this became a point of interest, the first subject had already left.
Impact of other officers: The arrival of the female officer and her accusations about one of the subjects being a thief negatively affected the rapport the male officer had built with the subjects. This change in tone led to a less effective outcome.
Ethics of disclosure: There were concerns raised regarding the officer’s disclosure about the hotel manager reporting the subjects. Ethical questions arose about whether this disclosure impacted the integrity of the search.
Potential bias: It was noted that the subject who was Asian appeared to be searched more thoroughly than the white subject. This raises concerns about potential racial bias in the search process - Tom Cunningham to investigate.
Actions to be commended:
Professionalism: The officer handled the situation calmly and professionally, especially under pressure. Despite working alone, the officer did not escalate the situation and remained in control.
Engagement with subjects: The manager’s tone and descriptions of subjects, didn’t impact the officer’s demeanour. Despite the external pressures, the officer was calm, friendly, and professional throughout, which helped maintain rapport with the subjects. This included the use of polite language and clear explanations.
Preserving dignity: The officer moved the subjects to a quieter area away from the hotel lobby to preserve their dignity, and keep the process confidential and respectful.
GOWISELY: The officer covered GOWISELY, and gave the option of entitlement being sent to address instead of email if preferred.
The Panel assessed this encounter as necessary.
The Panel assessed this encounter as proportionate, though some noted concerns about the rushed nature of the search.
The majority of the Panel assessed the encounter as ethical though there were some concerns regarding the officer’s disclosure about the hotel manager’s report and how it affected the integrity of the search.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Scott Bradley
“It is a big ask for one officer to control two subjects in this space - I would choose to hold them and wait for additional officer support, especially with the manager's allegations. By doing this, officers could have moved forward with S&S in more controlled circumstances. It was rushed and lacked control, needing to slow down with more resources.
GOWISELY was nicely explained - it would have been good if the second search reaffirmed this to make sure both subjects understood the process.
There does need to be an element of confidentiality with reports by members of the public, but in this case, the manager’s engagement was already evident, so this was fair . Officers do protect individuals who do not wish to be identified.
I agree with the Panel that the officer was professional and didn’t buy into the manager's tone and escalate his posture or stance, instead he just dealt with the facts. It was also good to see the use of a private space for the searches out of public view.
I personally didn’t perceive different search lengths for the subjects but this is something we’ll look into. Overall, the officer did really well in the circumstance but needed to slow down in relation to the subject and officer's safety, as well as find any missing items -there was no need to rush, especially with compliant subjects.”
S&S BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
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. Positive professional behaviours, such as empathy, de-escalation, and active listening, were observed. The majority of the Panel believed the subject received the best possible service from D&C Police.
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
MARCH 2025 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 - Attending address to arrest white male subject:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Unprofessional behavior: The Panel observed the use of inappropriate and unprofessional language, particularly from the female officer. She was seen laughing when the subject was informed of their arrest, using phrases such as “open the f***ing door,” “shut up,” “calm the f*** down,” and “you’re not going to win.” Panel members noted that the officers appeared to react using police powers out of anger or to punish, which contributed to escalated tension rather than de-escalating the situation.. The female officer’s conduct, including her language and attitude, further aggravated the situation.
Lack of de-escalation: There were concerns about a complete absence of de-escalation efforts. Officers’ aggressive tone and language escalated the situation rather than calming it. Shouting multiple commands at once, talking over the reading of rights, added to the confusion and chaos.
Disproportionate force: Some Panel members questioned the necessity of using so many officers in the situation, arguing that this number was disproportionate to the threat level.
Communication and rapport: Very little effective communication was directed towards the subject, who appeared distressed and had reportedly mentioned mental health issues (ADHD and autism). The subject was largely ignored or spoken about rather than directly to, further damaging the rapport with the officers.
Failure to address mental health concerns: The subject’s self-identified mental health condition was not addressed by the officers. There was no attempt to explain the situation, which may have contributed to the subject’s distress and non-compliance.
Dignity and wellbeing: The subject’s trousers were down when being escorted through public spaces, and there was a lack of dignity in handling him. A sarcastic remark from an officer when the subject requested assistance with his trousers was seen as disrespectful.
Aftercare: Questions were raised about the care and consideration given to the subject following the use of force, particularly after the incident when his dignity appeared to be compromised.
The Panel was unsure if PLANTER was followed, questioning the disproportionality and manner in which it was applied,with significant concerns about the officers’ language, conduct, and failure to consider the subject's mental health. There is a clear need for learning and improvement in de-escalation techniques, the handling of vulnerable individuals, and ensuring that officers' conduct aligns with the core values of dignity and respect.
All Panel members stated that in this context, the subject did not receive the best service the police could have provided.
Half of the Panel requested this BWV be saved as evidential and selected for dip sampling (a case followed from start to finish to see how process works within D&C Police system).
Actions to be commended:
A second female officer was seen trying to talk to the subject but at this point the rapport was already damaged.
Careful carrying of the subject: Despite the overall negative conduct, the careful way in which the subject was carried out of the residence was noted positively.
The Panel assessed use of force as necessary given the subject's actions, but the lack of de-escalation and respect for dignity raised concerns.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Asprey
“Overall this was a very challenging and complex incident due to the severity of the alleged violent GBH offence. However, I completely agree with the Panel regarding the leading officer’s conduct. There was red mist and no dialogue between individuals. Officers involved are trained for such situations, and there was a missed opportunity to rotate officers to help manage the stress of the situation, especially when one officer becomes a subject’s focal point. Rotating and bringing someone fresh could have helped.
A more staggered use of force would have been a better option in this incident, especially given the environment. I agree with the handcuffing and the use of leg restraints was appropriate but the tight space made the application challenging.
I am happy with how officers moved the subject - textbook application with a safety officer monitoring his head.
When the subject is in custody, they will go through a risk assessment with mental health care professionals to check on welfare - this can be escalated to further support when in custody.
There needed to be more consideration for the subject’s dignity - if his trousers didn;t stay up, an officer could have kept the corridor space clear and let him know.
I agree that the language used during the incident was inappropriate and escalated the situation unnecessarily. There is a need for learning for the officer involved.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
“I really appreciate the opportunity to join this month’s DCCS Panel scrutiny - I didn’t know what to expect but appreciate this feedback and will be building on key points raised to improve our service.”
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.
