MARCH 2025 REPORT (3-5PM)
MARCH 2025 REPORT
DCCS Panel members along with Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham, Karen Janicka (BWV Subject Matter Expert for Devon & Cornwall) and welcomed new panel members and visiting Chief Inspector Dean Drury
This month’s cases were filtered for both Stop and Search and Use of Force as follows: •Age •Alliance Operations 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 - Vehicle stop, car flagged dealing class A drugs / white male and female subject with young child:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Command and communication: The Panel noted that there was no clear command at the start of the encounter. The officer spoke over the female subject who was already responding to his colleague's question.
Explanation of search: Best practice would be to explain the search process, including where the subject would be touched, to ensure transparency and reduce potential distress.
Officer conduct and language: The tone of the officer was perceived as accusatory and blunt at times, with phrases like “story not adding up” and “don’t believe you”. Pointing at the female subject repeatedly was seen as potentially escalating the situation.
Adherence to GOWISELY: The Panel was unsure if the full GOWISELY procedure was followed. Some members reported that key legal aspects were not clearly stated, while others mentioned poor audio quality made it difficult to verify.
Audio clarity and environmental factors: Background noise from a busy road hindered understanding of the dialogue. Officers should ensure that all communication is clearly audible.
Relevance of previous cases: Some Panel members questioned the necessity of referring to the subject’s past record during the search, as it was unclear how it influenced the decision-making in this specific case.
Privacy considerations: Searches were conducted at the roadside in full public view, with no attempt to preserve the dignity of those being searched.
Presence of a child: Panel members raised concerns about the welfare of a toddler present during the stop and search. The young child was passed between individuals near a busy road, prompting a question about existing protocols for safeguarding children in such scenarios. Some Panel members asked why officers prevented the female from showing the police car to the child.
The Panel was unsure if the S&S was necessary due to a lack of clear justification for the stop.
Actions to be commended:
Female officer conduct: The female officer appropriately searched the female subject, maintaining professionalism and adherence to protocol.
Child welfare considerations: Officers were observed providing advice and assistance to ensure the child’s car seat was safely secured.
Compassionate interaction: Officers made efforts to comfort the child when they became upset, demonstrating empathy and situational awareness.
The majority of Panel members assessed the S&S as proportionate and ethical.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Dean Drury
“I agree with the Panel that communication could have been improved - the drug The test could have been explained better, as officers assumed the male subject understood the process. The subject’s past record contributed to the decision to conduct an impairment test. However, the start of the BWV did not capture the context or the initial grounds for stopping the vehicle. It appears the officers acted based on an alert linked to the vehicle’s licence plate.
I agree with the Panel’s points that use of language is important - officers should be mindful of their language - high-pressure environments can lead to their focus being in control of the situation rather than thinking of this.
Officers were cautious about the possibility of drugs being disposed of covertly under the guise of another situation, which influenced their decision to prevent the mother from moving towards the police vehicle ”
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
S&S Case 2 - Vehicle stop - black male subject:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Audio quality: BWV audio was difficult to hear in multiple cases, making it unclear why the stop and search was conducted.
Communication: Several Panel members noted that there was no clear explanation provided to the subject about why the search was taking place.
Procedural clarity: Some Panel members observed that the subject themselves appeared to prompt GOWISELY by asking why they were being detained, indicating that procedural clarity was lacking.
Proportionality: The subject was noted to be calm and compliant and appeared to have experienced stop and search procedures multiple times before. The necessity of the number of officers and handcuffing was questioned by some Panel members, especially given that he was known by an officer, and the subject’s level of compliance.
Handcuffing practices: There was inconsistency in handcuffing practices, as some Panel members noted we have previously been informed during scrutiny that front handcuffing is not allowed.
Outcome transparency: Panel members queried the outcome of the stop and search and whether anything was found.
Video clarity: Most Panel members found the first 6-8 minutes of the video unclear and confusing, suggesting that additional context should be provided when selecting videos for Panel review.
Panel members were unsure if this encounter was necessary or ethical due to unclear audio and missing context.
Actions to be commended:
Compliance with GOWISELY: GOWISELY was covered,
Officer conduct: Officers demonstrated professional behaviour, with positive comments regarding tone and politeness.
Teamwork: Some Panel members observed effective teamwork among officers during the stop and search.
Communication: Where audio was clear, officers were heard explaining their reasoning and engaging in a calm and light-hearted conversation with the subject.
Professionalism: One officer was specifically commended for maintaining a professional and respectful approach during the interaction.
The majority of Panel members assessed this encounter as proportionate, though concerns were raised about handcuffing.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Dean Drury
“I agree with the Panel that there is space for improvement in communication and clarity during this stop and search.. I take the point about handcuffing a compliant subject however they were placed at the front for comfort. The proportion of officers present was due to a second subject (off-screen) also being arrested..”
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. May the former be a strong foundation for the latter.
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 - Report of multiple shoplifting, male subject EAL:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Lack of de-escalation: No clear attempts at de-escalation were observed at the start of the incident.
Language barrier issues: The subject stated numerous times, “No English,” yet officers continued issuing instructions without confirming comprehension. Some Panel members noted that an interpreter was eventually offered but questioned the delay. Others were unsure whether one was used at all and if the officer's tone was patronising. Google Translate or other immediate translation tools should be considered as a minimum requirement in such cases.
Ethics: Most Panel members were concerned about the ethical implications of not immediately addressing the language barrier. Some felt the approach was overly aggressive given the nature of the suspected offence. Ethical concerns were raised regarding whether the individual was informed of their rights at the time of arrest or only upon reaching custody.
Communication: Repeatedly saying “Do not resist” to someone who does not understand English was not seen as effective communication. Some Panel members stated that the subject did not appear to be resisting.
Proportionality concerns: Some Panel members questioned the level of force used for a non-violent offence (shoplifting). There were concerns about the immediate use of handcuffs and the level of aggression shown in approaching the vehicle. The Panel was divided, with some agreeing the response was proportionate due to potential risks, while others questioned the need for rapid escalation.
Lack of clear identification by officers: The officers were in an unmarked car and did not visibly identify themselves before opening the car door and making physical contact. Panel members discussed whether flashing blue lights upon approach could have helped with identification and de-escalation.
Tactical decisions: Questions were raised about the criteria for deploying armed response units instead of standard patrol officers.
The Panel was unsure if the encounter was necessary. Some members felt the force was justified given the circumstances, while others believed it was excessive. The majority felt that the handcuffing could have been avoided or delayed until clearer communication was established.
The Panel was unsure if PLANTER was followed - Some Panel members assess that it was, while others disagreed, particularly regarding communication and procedural fairness.
Tom Cunningham to observe the BWV in entirety and investigate.
Actions to be commended:
BWV coverage: The BWV was activated and captured the full start of the incident.
Some use of professional tone: A few Panel members noted that officers used a calm tone when interacting with the individual.
Justification for action: The officer gave a reason for the stop, citing links to multiple shoplifting incidents. Some Panel members believed the officers were clear about their reasoning.
Safety considerations: Some Panel members acknowledged that officers may have acted with heightened caution due to potential risks of failing to stop or the unknown nature of the situation.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Dean Drury
“I acknowledge that the unmarked vehicle may have caused confusion - flashing blue lights could have helped officers identify themselves, especially with the door suddenly being flung open by officers wearing black talking in an unknown language.
Regarding the deployment of armed response officers, they may have been more alert due to their specialism. They are trained to quickly gain control in unknown situations - they see hands as a threat, especially when individuals are not visibly complying. Devon and Cornwall are a wide geographical force; we have to comply with response time and there has been scrutiny to meet those - as a result, this unit will be deployed if no one else is available. It may be also because of the multiple shoplifting report and a risk of failing to stop, which is why officers blocked the car in.
Officers can and should use Google Translate in such cases. The reason it was not used might have been due to officer-to-subject ratio and managing physical control of a handcuffed subject whilst using a phone.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
UOF Case 2 - Male white subject arrested on street following report of GBH:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Wellbeing: One response highlighted that the officer did not follow up on a subject’s potential need for medical attention. The subject mentioned injuries from his partner, but the officer did not prompt further inquiries regarding his pain or if medical assistance was needed
GOWISELY: There was discussion about whether the GOWISELY procedure should be followed during a search in a use of force case.
Actions to be commended:
Officer's conduct: The officer was commended for their calm and respectful approach. They were polite, explained the situation clearly to the subject, and treated the individual with respect. The officer gave the subject space to tell his story and didn’t take a side.
Deescalation, communication and control: The officer was praised for their ability to take control immediately and deescalate the situation effectively, even while managing a potentially volatile individual on their own. The officer used the subject’s name and treated him fairly. The Panel appreciated that the officer's professionalism likely contributed to the subject’s compliance.
Welfare: The officer showed awareness of the subject's comfort by readjusting the handcuffs when the subject showed discomfort (e.g., watch digging in), the suggestion of sitting in the car and making sure the subject's belongings were cared for.
Dignity: The officer respected the subject’s dignity by taking them away from a potentially crowded area, ensuring some privacy and reducing external pressures ‘let’s get you in the car away from people poking their nose in.’
The majority of the Panel indicated that the use of force was necessary.
Most of the Panel agreed that the use of force was proportionate to the situation.
The majority of the Panel assessed that the use of force was ethical in this case.
The majority of the Panel assessed that in this context, the subject received the best service the police could have provided.
The Panel recognised that in this case, the officer demonstrated procedural justice and positive key considerations.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Dean Drury
“This is really good to hear - I am grateful for the Panel’s feedback on the officer’s control and confidence in helping to deescalate the situation, especially being on his own dealing with quite a large subject sought for a violent offence. GOWISELY is only needed when searching for a specific object. It was not necessary in this incident as it was a post arrest search and not required under section 32.”
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
The DCCS Panel recognises areas of excellent practice from this officer, particularly in their professionalism, de-escalation, and clear communication. The officer maintained control of the situation calmly, ensuring the subject's welfare while treating them with respect and dignity. Their actions were proportionate, necessary, and they demonstrated a strong commitment to best practice in policing.
“It was really interesting to hear everyone’s views and take your feedback into account - thank you all.”
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.
