Stop and Search Rights UK | Police Power Stop and Search for Prohibited Items | BlackBeltBarrister

[@cr0nin]

Go Wisely... G - Grounds for the search O - Object (what is it you are looking for) W - Warrent Card of the officer I - Identity of officer S - Station they are based at E - Entitlement to a copy of the search L - Legal Power under which the stop and search has made Y - You are being detained for the purposes of a search. You have to be told this.

[@Subcomandante73]

Was just GOWISE back in the 90's.

[@JB_inks]

This should be the pinned comment

[@denisesilvaart]

REFUSAL OF CITIZEN TO IDENTIFY SELF The Common Law does not require a citizen to identify one self or carry identification of any sort. Therefore, while it may be the mark of a good citizen to identify oneself when asked to do so, a police officer must not use force to compel someone to identify oneself if he or she refuses; otherwise, the officer will be guilty of Criminal assault and liable to civil damages Koechlin v Waugh (1957) 118 CCC 24 ( Ont C.A)

[@Stuart_George]

Worth pointing out that for 'object', the search should be confined to areas where the object is likely to be found. If the object of the search is a 12" machete, the officer (in theory) should not be looking in your wallet for it. I suspect that in real life, this particular provision of the Code of Practice is rarely adhered to.

[@shookoneldn300]

You assuming police actually obey the law and their own policies!?😂😂😂 In the streets all that GOWISELY nonsense flies out of the window.. the police will make up all kind of crimes..

[@denise4487]

Good to know il pass that on

[@thewyj]

Is it also the case that the search should stop if the object is found?

[@shookoneldn300]

@@thewyj Um.. you will be arrested and strip search at the police station.. GUARANTEED. The police routinely lie and falsely arrest innocent members of the public.. imagine, you actually commit a crime!?😂😂😂

[@techzonetzuk]

@@thewyj a section 1 stop or section 23 of the misuse if drugs act search would end powers wise but then if you are arrested then section 32 of PACE search would then begin.

[@tonystrange7224]

Go Wisely. I had never heard of this before, but what a great way to remember your rights and what should happen if stopped and searched. And congratulations on the continuing rise in subscriber numbers. Long may it last.

[@BlackBeltBarrister]

As always, thanks for watching!

[@robchissy]

@@BlackBeltBarrister G=get the f*** out of there, O=Oh my god W= whiskey drink as much as you can, I = insult the police, S=say nowt E=end it quickly, L= leg it, Y = your fault

[@kirkyorg7654]

what rights????!! as far as i can tell by what he said you have none in the UK

[@kirkyorg7654]

@@robchissy exactly lmao

[@RichardWatt]

For the Sale of Goods Act, remember SAD FART (Martin Lewis came up with that).

[@goodquestion8064]

Never answer any questions

[@lawlessgecko269]

I had an experience a number of years ago in Scotland with a stop and search. I was with my fiancé, and my 8yr old daughter, we decided to walk to the shopping centre as it was a nice day. I am not know to the police, I had minor offences as a teenager but by his time I was in my mid 30's and have no criminal record or been involved in any sort of crime. I was walking our dog (a Jack Russell, not a Pitbull) so was about 200 yards behind my fiancé and daughter as they were eager to go shopping! I was walking past a street entrance when a police van pulled up and detained me for a search. I asked why and they explanation I was given was "we suspect you have just bought drugs from a nearby property" They had me take my jacket, shoes and socks off in the middle of the street. Luckily my fiancé and daughter did not witness this. After the search was over they just told me to put my clothing back on, hopped in their van and drove away! I was left a bit stunned stood in the street barefooted with my shoes and socks in my hand and my jacket hung on a fence where the officer left it! I understand Scotland has one of the highest drug death rates in Europe plus a really bad knife crime rate but I wasn't some teenager or a pale looking skeletal figure so to say the least this left a bit of a bitter taste in my mouth.

[@mijimonmaster]

Police can stop and talk to you at anytime, but you do not have to talk to them, and can walk away. "Reasonable suspicion" is based upon a person of reasonable judgement, of which most police can never be as they usually are looking to extort revenue. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 9 "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." Article 12 "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." Article 13 (1) "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." So, police need evidence/proof of a crime they suspect you of, otherwise they cannot stop and/or search you as ACTS, STATUTES AND LEGISLATIONS CANNOT OVERRIDE YOUR RIGHTS, unless directly connected to an actual law (do not cause harm or loss, or threat of harm or loss to person or property without consent)

[@muffinsavior3004]

Man I'm a prelaw major in the US, it's amazing seeimg the similarities and influence English laws have shaped our judicial system. I can see we still have major influences from the UK to this day.

[@spacemanclips]

I thought that the first week of your course would have covered the history of your law. British law actually ties some countries closer together more than ethnicity or language.

[@thecultofjohnnydelr.soulsw7010]

.....and it is not good because it is too complicated and confusing.

[@rafezetter8003]

Well you might be pre-law but clearly not much of a history student eh? Why is it a surprise to you that the USA has a lot of law similar to the UK's - maybe it's something to do with YOU BEING OUR FUCKING COLONY FOR CLOSE TO TWO CENTURIES !!! (170 years) Why would the founding fathers throw out laws and a system that had been built and refined by the British legal fraternity over the course of 1000 years by that point. UK law in it's entirety started when the romans invaded and brought their system with them to the mainly tribal groups of pre-roman Britain who only adhered to the social constructs within their SPECIFIC TRIBE. Now I know why most USA lawyers are halfwits, and that's being generous to most of you. My brother married a USA lawyer, she's a halfwit who doesn't even think wearing seatbelts in a car is a good idea. A LAWYER, who has the power to SEND PEOPLE TO PRISON "Doesn't believe in seatbelts". You want to know the best bit? She used to be the ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTOURNEY FOR THE NYC DISTRICT OF BROOKLYN. Small wonder your country is as fucked up as it is, mostly by halfwit lawyers.

[@stevemcilroy9518]

Good information, especially in this day and age.

[@bobmirdiff2043]

Given the current climate

[@anthonyshepherd1581]

If no crime has taken place they have no grounds to search

[@Cornz38]

If only the police would abide by their own code of conduct.

[@sc3Eptic]

Great work !! Can't wait for the other video on a different ,oh lets call it tactics , instances where questioned outside a police station. This kind of explanation comes at a price usually... but not here. Another pro bono work amongst many more :) much appreciated 👏👍

[@christopherhume8896]

Was stopped and had vehicle searched many times during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, by police and soldiers with sub-machine guns and rifles. Never had a problem. Being courteous and respectful goes a long way to making the whole stop go smoothly. I'm not saying there aren't cops out there who don't know their job but I've seen far more videos of people who just seem to want to get arrested.

[@ricpitt1]

Dozens of Metropolitan Police officers and special constables have disciplined for using their black warrant cards for blagging free train travel or trying to get access to bars and clubs while drunk. In total, 58 complaints of officers misusing their warrant cards have been made between February 2013 and January 2015 according to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act. According to the disclosure log, the Metropolitan Police has investigated staff for misusing their warrant cards to get free travel on trains, gain access to pubs and nightclubs while drunk and even attend football matches, claiming to be working under cover. Of the 58 complaints during the period under question, 13 officers either retired or resigned from the force following the investigations.

[@ricardohunte3086]

Thank you for all the information pertaining to the rights of an individual and the police.

[@billyspencer7325]

Great vid would love to see another video specifically on cannabis as the laws seem to be changing ATM especially around medical use and the new legal stuff with businesses that deal with CBD products. Cheers!

[@Micro13bk]

I thought medical cannabis in the UK was like seeing an unicorn...? CBD products are really widespread though, they sell them in malls...

[@billyspencer7325]

@@Micro13bk it's been medically legal since 2018 but there's literally like 5 people on NHS. You have to go private for it which is a joke as they're making lots of money off patients

[@Micro13bk]

@@billyspencer7325 It's almost like they don't want you to get it...Which is ironic since Canada is part of the commonwealth and they fully legalized it... And they are rubbing salt in the wound with that whole private masquerade...from what I read, you must qualify under some pretty extreme ilnesses to get medical pot, and you gotta jump through all those hoops just to get something natural? Can't believe this is the world we are living in sometimes...

[@billyspencer7325]

@@Micro13bk yup I went Canada in 2013 and got a med card in a 5 min doctor's appointment lol

[@andypaddon690]

Suggestion for a video - Metal detecting - where are you allowed and not allowed to do it? Can you keep what you find?

[@riverthamescrayfishgroup7365]

Read the Treasure Act. Its all there

[@gunner678]

@ivan schafeldt not necessarily. It comes down to the decision of the coroner in the first instance. It depends on whether the 'treasure' is regarded as lost or hidden.

[@ClaymateDesigner]

The police are not interested in the law, only your compliance.

[@jamesnurgle6368]

I've known of officers stopping and searching someone based on smelling weed. At mid day, in kamden market...

[@dakrayus6519]

I notice that you mention making a complaint, but not that with breaches of your rights you can take that officer to civil court and prosecute for compensation. I think more people need to know this, as it might help keep the police in line

[@techzonetzuk]

Cannot take a individual police officer for civil court for actions and powers granted to them by PACE 1984 you can make a complaint and ask for criminal prosecutions to take place if an offence has taken place but if not then you cannot take an individual officer to court if dreamed acting in the duties of a constable.

[@dakrayus6519]

@@techzonetzuk This is true, but if the officer is acting unlawfully then they'd likely be acting outside their duties as an officer, and are then open to a variety of suits, e.g. assault (& battery) false arrest, unlawful detention, trespass (i.e. vehicle searches). The public as a majority seem to be ignorant of this, and the (dirty) police count on this fact.

[@peterthompson6651]

@@techzonetzuk your correct you can't take a police officer to court, but if you been harmed, that police officer as no indemnity against harming a Man/Woman. A police officer is a legal fiction called a person, an assumed character, it's called, calling them out by name, no public liability will cover them for harming any Man or Woman, who as trespass against a living breathing Man or Woman who was created by the father most high, the father of all creation. He gave us life to be free, and have the freedom of freewill, so if you don't know your rights like most people, as most people believe wrongfully they're written down, when there not, they have none.. So in fact your not taking a police officer to court, your taking the Man or Woman inside that uniform to court. Just remember the golden rule "we are all equal under the law," so what's the law ? Law, the word is singular and not plural, so there must be only one, so what encompasses all law ? "Do no harm," eight letters comprising of three words cause no one an injury or loss resulting in harm. It real is that simple, if someone is claiming you have done wrong, get them to prove it by making a claim. You wouldn't go around accusing people of a wrong, would you ?. Well this barrister is telling you the truth, when he says this is not "legal advice," it's just his opinion. Well he as an opinion, so why can't you or I ? If you think inside of the box, that's all your every know, I don't. Gain the knowledge, by having meaning to the words you use, if we don't have meaning to the words we use, we would all be babbling. When someone say you can't do this or that, think why ? Then you just asked yourself a question, are you going to think of an answer and do your own research to see if your correct, either way, or not ? Or, are you just going to conform to what your told, and hang on every word your told, and believe the establishment, they say "ignorance is an excuse but, ignorance of the law is no excuse ". How many times have you heard politicians evading the question, the police are just a corporation denoted by their D-U-N-S number (data universal numbering system) and are a commercial business, commercial (adj.) 1680s, "engaging in trade," from commerce + -al (1). Meaning"done for the sake of financial profit". That why they need you to consent to contract with them, most people do because they don't know their rights, if I stop you in the street, would you agree to me stopping and searching you ? Clearly not, what make you think it's any different with the police ? Any Man or Woman as the ability to think for themselves, so why be reactive, when you have the ability to be proactive. The police are a corporate entity called a person who acting as a police constable, who are there to keep the peace, are they not ? So being proactive, proactive creating or controlling a situation rather than just responding to it after it has happened. In other words the one who asking the questions by creating them, is always in control. Why do you think the police, won't answer questions ? They're not allowed to argue, if they argue then clearly they are in conflict and not at peace. If they will not answer your questions, then why should you answer there's ? I always give them a remedy to cure the situation, staying in honour. If they are accusing me of a wrong, then we can go directly to court and they can file a complaint and I will make a claim. They never go down that route, because they would lose and they know it, as a complaint can be null and voided (void ab initio), rescinding it to the status quo ante. Whereas a claim made by a Man/Woman must be heard in open court and if you do the whole process yourself you can't lose, and a claim once in open court when both parties are present, is closed and sealed forever. So, the next remedy I offer them is, they can arrest me, and I will comply under protest and duress, then anything obtained or gathered is inadmissible in court as it was obtained unlawfully against my will and wishes. Then once released open up court and seek redress against all involved " ignorance is an excuse, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. The third offer is, they can leave me alone, until they have facts that can be proven to be true, when someone makes claim against me, I want to know who's claiming I have trespass against them, and immediately make a claim against them myself. Well we all know these people don't make claims, they only make complaints which can be rescinded, as they're only offer to contract. If you don't challenge them at the time by giving them remedies to cure the situation, then on your head, so be it. We can all be held accountable for our actions, as in accordance with the golden rule, we are all equal under the law. People do this every day, up and down the country, but it's rarely appears in the media and reported on, they want to keep the masses as ignorant as they can, with their indoctrination. You see masses of people on the street protesting about lock downs, why ? They believe the authorities have powers over them, and rightfully send out the troops, using the police to quell that descent. By protesting that they have authority, is arguing, falling in to dishonour. By arguing they have authority, they as Men/Women have given them life to exist. When all they at to do is carry on, living as the father of creation intended, if stop by people who think they have authority over the Man/Woman, just give them remedies to cure the situation, as I written before, 1, Go directly to court. 2, Comply "Under protest and duress". 3, They can go in peace. If a judge finds out, the police have cut them out, of judging the situation, after a Man or Woman as given them at least three remedies to cure the situation, they won't be best pleased and want to know who as done this, as that exactly what they are employed for, to resolve disputes. They don't like their authority being questioned. Life is all about honour and dishonour, always think for yourself, and speak for yourself and most importantly question everything. If you employ a solicitor/barrister to speak for you, you're saying your incompetent, to settle your own affairs. Recognise legalese words, they use, like "person, evidence, etc, Person (n.) Directly from Latin persona "human being, person, personage, a part in a drama assumed character," originally "a mask, a false face," those made of wood or clay worn by actors in later Roman theatre. Evidence (n.) c. 1300, " appearance from which inferences may be drawn". Person is man-made, and artificial. Man/Woman is natural, created by the father of creation, who created us in his imagine. Evidence is not truth That's why they always want you to give them your details, if you asked for their, would they give them freely, clearly not, without a court order If you fail to protest, by giving them a remedy to cure the situation, they got you in to a tacit agreement. Tacit agreement, Implied, inferred, understood without being expressly stated. Tacit refers to something done or made in silence, as in a tacit agreement. A tacit understanding is manifested by the fact that no contradiction or objection is made and is thus inferred from the situation and the circumstances. This clowns who pass themselves of as peace officers, are looking for someone, and that someone could just be you.Remaining silent means, don't answer their questions, but that doesn't mean you can't be proactive. Look at this document, retired-judge-spills-the-beans, www.scribd.com/doc/106226872/retired-judge-spills-the-beans

[@hopeallis1522]

Do you have any links to legalese in the UK? This article is about america

[@steveakam]

A few months ago the IOPC in upholding a complaint against an officer stated that being able to smell drugs is not sufficient grounds for a search. The problem is that officers can make this unprovable claim to justify a search where they have no valid grounds.

[@techzonetzuk]

Smell alone cannot be grounds but if their are other grounds then It can still be used.

[@steveakam]

@@techzonetzuk yes but "I can smell drugs" is all you usually get out of the police and they seem to think that's enough. On a YT video I watched earlier today a driver when asked why he was stopped was told it was just a routine stop to check his documents. When he queried why him a second officer said he'd seen the driver fidgeting with something when he pulled up and based on that believed he was hiding drugs so was going to search the car. When asked to get out of the car he couldn't because the officer was in the way, when he ask the officer to move so he could get out he was accused of been obstructive, twisted him up and handcuffed. This officer had no reasonable grounds for the search and in my opinion created a situation where by he could justify assaulting and handcuffing the driver. He had no other grounds than he saw the driver fidgeting which was probably the driver setting his phone to record. And this wasn't mentioned until he questioned why he'd been stopped and the officer obviously got the hump. They make it up as they go along and they get away with it because for the most part police investigate themselves and even with video evidence nothing gets done unless a lot of weight is put behind it from an outside source. I work with an ex police officer and he hates todays young cops because they believe they're above the law and untouchable.

[@unclekevin5094]

@@steveakam The police are taught to escalate situations so that the target finally reacts and then they have grounds to make an arrest, The most important thing is to try to stay calm and quiet. You can not win against them out on the road but you can win later on in court.

[@steveakam]

@@unclekevin5094 in the video I saw earlier the lad was perfectly respectful and polite, the police officer went from zero to 60 in one second without any provocation at all, he didn't give the poor lad time to get wound up and react just created a situation then bam. I work with an ex police officer and he says they base everything on the attitude test. If they don't like your attitude your going to get a hard time. He said with most officers it depends on your general demeanor, if your friendly ok, if your gobby then how gobby dictates how much shit your going to get. With some officers you fail the test just by asking a question, they don't like having their authority questioned.

[@davidjacobs828]

RULE NUMBER ONE. NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE EVER.

[@goodquestion8064]

The suspicion MUST in court be proved, SAY NOTHING, then sue

[@asmrsingandgamingencantoga8816]

And if possible, take your phone out and record your interaction with police, they can't stop you recording them

[@solomonwalker9303]

I actively encourage it, I'm filming you so you can film me, if it makes you feel more comfortable it means we're less likely to use force, just bear in mind if you suddenly lurch for your pocket it can send the wrong signal

[@bodge6886]

I find it strange that any bladed “tool” is automatically classed as a weapon when it has not been used as a weapon. Surely even a house brick is just a brick until it has been weaponised by using to attack or defend oneself.

[@rudolfsbelozerovs7816]

Blackbeltbarrister has a few videos on bladed articles and what circumstances make it okay for you to be in possession of such objects in a public place . For example if you have the bricks in your car because your intending to build something with them or use them as a brick it's totally okay whilst if you are just walking about the street with a brick in hand the public can feel threatend by it or if your using the brick to threaten someone it becomes an offensive weapon .

[@jamesdean3907]

Your hands are weapons but you can't leave home without them,but why have a knife on you ?

[@danielfinch362]

Any item can be classed as an offensive weapon. Example you have a baseball bat and ball gloves and a ball in your car you could argue it was to play baseball. But you'd have hard job proving it's not intended as a weapon if you just have the baseball bat. It's all about imtention of the item.

[@caerleon9176]

Example 1) your a carpet layer and you have just finished work and carrying a stanley knife on your tool belt - unlikely you will be arrested, 2) going out on the town and drunk in your best Saturday night gear carrying a stanley knife in you jeans pocket - no brainer! Carrying a brick into a pub or walking down the street with one (unless you're Father Jack (kzbin.info/www/bejne/iGK9hmmLgqmZnbs)) could be classed as carrying an item to cause criminal damage, how often do you take a brick drinking?

[@concernedindividual7056]

Even a rolled up magazine could be classed as a weapon (if you get stopped by an egotistical cop it will always be classed as a weapon ) even if you just bought it.

[@bubblebus1]

There is a particular issue regarding a warrant card to identify an officer. I have many year's experience in the world of identity and documentation. So, the issue is, "How can I authenticate the document?" There have been examples of people offering fake ID [a supposed social worker gaining access to a child]. A clear case of valid suspicion. Thus, if I have no means to verify a [supposedly] valid document, might I decline any search? Anyone can get a "uniform" from the local costume shop, so that is no proof. I have worked for a number of secure document producers and had this argument with various police and other officials. "I do not know what a warrant card looks like, so showing me something is of no worth." If I might have a valid suspicion to believe a person perhaps is not be a true officer, can I decline [with physical intervention] any search. Otherwise, is my remedy later in the process and with what redress?

[@edh5043]

Very informative as always, BBB, thanks.

[@Arcticnick]

Thanks, indeed!

[@bigfarmerUK]

Good advice, never heard of GO WISELY... Suggest we add extra letter: “R” - Record the interaction with police, e.g. mobile phone camera... GROW ISELY?

[@rayzalaf8988]

What are your thoughts on the abuse of section 43 for public photography?

[@DJ-vh2uh]

2nd that

[@thomascrabtree]

Even if police are abusing Section 43, allowing them to view the contents of your phone or camera on the spot (in the name of "terrorism"), it's a small price to pay for the legal right of Freedom of Panorama (the right to take photos anywhere and everywhere in public), which most European countries don't have and infact actively ban, including France and Spain.

[@rayzalaf8988]

@@thomascrabtree Viewing the phone is secondary, the intention is to find out who you are, if they really thought you were a terrorist they wouldn't walk up slowly and ask what are you doing, you'd be on the floor with a knee on your neck and the questions would be asked later. I'ts a camera not a gun.

[@techzonetzuk]

@@rayzalaf8988 aggressive intrusive surveillance is a very real thing. Unfortunately auditors exploit police policy's and social standing to challenge anyone who may be involved in. Use of section 43 is not a right thing to do unless grounds exist but it does raise a very good question on the dangers of auditors and what they can achieve for terrorist organisations without the auditor even knowing.

[@rayzalaf8988]

@@techzonetzuk kzbin.info/www/bejne/aWLUfJmgrbloeck

[@metalmyron]

I was walking home from work one night, I'm a train driver and finished at 01:30 and a police van pulled up next to me and the police officer said "why did you climb over that wall" I didn't I was just walking home, but that then gave him the excuse to stop and search me they found nothing as I was just walking home from work, I felt intimidated and villanised if that is a word. I'll know next time to use the acronym. Police abuse their power hoping that we the people aren't educated, its people like yourself who are making changes to the world. P.S. I cooperated and did everything they said but now just like then I felt like rights where violated

[@urbantuckerman]

very informative. thanks

[@arseburgers4208]

I believe there is case law that says resisting an anlawful arrest or search with reasonable force is acceptable. Battery, kidnap and deprivation of rights under colour of law are criminal offenses last time I checked, a search based on suspicion with no evidence is unlawful. Also whilst a policeman MAY WISH to stop and speak to anyone for any reason, unless you are under arrest YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED to reply in any form.

[@SilentReports]

Bedankt

[@Sandhoeflyerhome]

Rather than having compulsory religious education in school, I for one would prefer these kinds of useful videos being shown. When children become adults they should be more aware of public rules (laws) this gives confidence and I feel would be more beneficial then being told a whole load of bollocks about a virgin giving birth ...

[@shanecherry5403]

Thank you for this good advice.

[@polarbear2335]

I think when you say be 'co-operative' that could be pretty misleading advice. Don't resist, sure. Should I give my details under a Stop and Search? I wouldn't. Should I say as little as possible? Yes. There is little to be gained by talking to the police.

[@TheMirrorGuy]

Be helpful, give your details, the Police then can rule you out as a suspect. Being defensive just makes you look suspicious.

[@polarbear2335]

@@TheMirrorGuy Yeah... I won't be giving my details. Am not required to and if I choose to exercise my right not to that is not being defensive. Why does it look suspicious? Sadly, many police mislead the public when asking for details in stop and searches. Rather than making it clear that it is optional they give the impression it is mandatory. Even worse, some police actually think it is.

[@TheMirrorGuy]

@@polarbear2335 if you don't want to cooperate with the Police, then that's your choice. Personally I want to help the People we employ as a nation to keep our streets safe. You ask why it would seem suspicious, well its because it is what a criminal would do to try and hide their identity. Honest and decent people cooperate.

[@polarbear2335]

@@TheMirrorGuy 'Personally I want to help the People we employ as a nation to keep our streets safe.' - Many of whom abuse the law on a daily basis. 'You ask why it would seem suspicious, well its because it is what a criminal would do to try and hide their identity.' - Or someone who has done nothing wrong and wants to exercise their rights to privacy. Sad that you conflate that with being a criminal. 'Honest and decent people cooperate.' - See above.

[@TheMirrorGuy]

@@polarbear2335 I have never been involved with a Police Office who has abused their power. This is the chap criminals pedal to try and stop the Police from doing their jobs. People want to stay anonymous, I find that strange in a world of Social Media and Internet shopping. People are constantly giving out personal data.

[@rareoldschoolbreakbeathard7583]

how many times can you be stopped when the police find nothing before it becomes police harassment

[@thecultofjohnnydelr.soulsw7010]

Practicable 👩🏻‍⚖️🤷🏻‍♀️ Guilty

[@MrDazturismo]

And remember, always film the cops.

[@stephanierogers3219]

Not that I necessarily think it is likely, but what is to stop a police officer from planting evidence on a person during a search? Or even just claiming that they found an object during the search? I have a personal rule never to trust anyone whose word is/would be believed over mine.

[@jos_meid]

Great video, but it kind of makes me glad that I live in America with our Fourth Amendment to our Constitution and all the case law surrounding it. It does seem to parallel a 'Terry search' in the US in some ways but not in others.

[@jos_meid]

@Mark Reynolds this is an entertaining story, nothing more.

[@incorrigibledelinquent7232]

And they may not use the fact of any person attempting to maintain his or her rights as reasonable suspicion .

[@bravestarr2001]

Really interesting and educational video. I saw a video of a police officer saying to a man that they would have to handcuff him before they carried out a search. Is this normal practice for someone who is showing no violent resistance? They tased him shortly after he tried to return to his property. Seemed extremely excessive. Many thanks for the video.

[@poco9964]

"Not good practice based on smell alone"... Err someone should inform the Police and the Council that!

[@loc4725]

There was a video posted online of a lycra-wearing bike rider being stopped by police. As you might expect he was pretty livid and when asked was told he was being detained because the officers "could smell cannabis"! I'm guessing he's either a fire eater or was smoking using his _other_ bodily oriface.

[@goodquestion8064]

REMEMBER THIS. Police must be able to prove in court their reasoning for suspicion and or arrest or detainment, always record the police and always have a good 👍 no win no fee solicitors claims against the state and the police, You are under no obligation to cooperate

[@mercedesblack7828]

Police can use excuses they choose to stop someone if they have a grudge against a family for reasons they may have lost in court over misconduct or something? They also like to escalate the situation because they hold the power to do so and when reported to PSD they give their side of the story in private. Transparency?

[@regalblades]

Fantastic as always!

[@dasdasdsdasdasdasd363]

I told a cop there have be reports of someone in this area dressed in a clown costume planting drugs on people. The policeman fitted the description.

[@bigrobsydney]

I'm curious to know, under what circumstances ARE you able to resist arrest?

[@ecoomber]

I'm no legal expert, but I work with challenging individuals for a living... I think one thing you're forgetting to mention is that the "reasonableness" of all these variables will be determined by a judge later, so being calm and generally cooperative at the time is the best thing anyone can do. Shouting at the officers or causing a scene isn't going to magically make the police decide to stop and let you leave.

[@susanmurray5118]

It’s also more likely to get you cuffed

[@freedomsounds7422]

And you always have the right to remain silence !

[@alexanderevanska4274]

But, and it's a fact, most searches are not for any offensive weapons or controlled drugs. The police may tell you they are searching you for such items but they are not. They are really searching for anything which may have your ID on it.

[@WelshBMWandAudiDriver]

Always, always always film any police interaction from the beginning. They are not allowed to prevent you from filming.

[@malcolmfunnell4501]

Police abuse section 43 all the time to grab your details , and often handcuff you during a search , I would be grateful if you could outline the laws on this

[@mijimonmaster]

"Reasonable grounds" can only come from a person of reasonable judgement, of which police hardly ever are. And a lot of "acts" (which are not laws) violate human rights, such as swearing in public, which is the human right of "freedom of opinion and expression". And police saying they can pull any car over for no reason is a blatant violation of "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." Pulling someone over = detention. For no reason = Arbitrary. Yet these are the same fundemental human rights police swear an oath to uphold. Just shows how corrupt this system really is.

[@ef7480]

Terrorism is defined by section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the actual definition of 'terrorism' is specifically described in the police own Code of Practice 2.2 and must satisfy section 43- In summary the term “terrorism” in the 2000 Act means the use or threat of action where: the action used or threatened: - involves serious violence against a person or serious damage to property; - endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action; - creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; or - is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation, or intimidate the public or a section of the public; and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

[@TheFurrry]

They would just say they have reasonable suspicion to carry out the search anyway. Regardless if they were suspicious or not.

[@mrf4138]

Please do a video on the following with examples like shopping centres or railway stations as a context Section 33 Criminal Justice Act 1972 For the definition of “public place” in section 9(1) of the M1 Public Order Act 1936 there shall be substituted- “Public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise ”.

[@biddledebong7817]

I was stopped because I matched the description of someone who had just broke into a premises and they wanted to see if I had screwdrivers etc. The copper even pulled my cigs out of the pack to check inside for (screwdrivers).

[@philflip1963]

Don't be intimidated into thinking you need to cooperate with th police, just beware of forcibly resisting them. You don't need to assist them in any way!

[@ellzIno]

Is there anything you can do if a police officer wants to stop search you to prevent them from searching you. For example You are going about your day, a police officer has decided that they “smell weed” Even though you don’t have anything illegal on you. You are just completely powerless to stop them rummaging around your pockets? Or going through your personal belongings. Do they not need your consent, or do they have complete control over you in that moment as a law abiding citizen?

[@Jonesykins]

To answer your first question, in theory no... If they have reasonable suspicion to search you, they can search you. The scale of 'suspicion' can be numbered from 0-10, 0 being an absolute guess, 10 is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. 'Reasonable suspicion' is about a 2. ''You are just completely powerless to stop them rummaging around your pockets?'' Yes ''Do they not need your consent'' No. ''do they have complete control over you in that moment as a law abiding citizen?'' It's all well and good you describe yourself as that, but at the end of the day cops are not psychic. The whole point of stop searching to is to gather evidence, and that can either end up as evidence a crime has been committed, or a crime has not been committed. We don't go around and 'decide' someone smells like weed. Say I'm walking down the street and you walk past me and suddenly there is a smell of weed. Would it not be reasonable of me to form the opinion you could be in possession of weed? We all know it is a strong and very unique smell, and it only appeared as soon as you walked past me.

[@seanfitzgerald3692]

Find this topic very interesting.

[@davidmckendry5551]

So what happens if you say, no I don’t want to be searched, it’s like you’re guilty before any thing has been done. Irrespective if I’ve done nothing wrong it seems we have very few civil rights left at all.

[@cannonball9478]

Most Police have a family at home and just want to serve their communities. Some are bad yes but most I know want to and do help the public.

[@Songstarify]

Most do not live in/near the communities they police...

[@johnbelcher7164]

ALWAYS FILM THE POLICE BEST FOR YOUR PROTECTION AND OTHERS

[@jasonruben]

@blackbeltbarrister Could you clarify if the reason and object of the search was a knife but the police found drugs, or the reason and object were drugs and the police found a stolen bank card, for example does that make those other items null and void, would they re arrest you for those instead? Or is that pot luck fishing that is inadmissible? Many thanks for your videos, I love learning these things

[@jack_3.5mm]

When I've been asked to search my car I confidently said yes while wiping off the bits of cocaine from the passenger seat, and they didn't xD

[@WoodlandAsh]

Apologies if previously covered on your channel, but this topic seems pertinent: legality & police involvement with online communication (particularly where expressing negative opinions of public figures etc). I’ve seen quite a few reports of police visiting addresses to question people for unfriendly (but not illegal) comments on social media platforms. It would be interesting to hear where the law actually stands on this matter.

[@WoodlandAsh]

Grateful for the feedback, but I’m specifically interested the channel owners perspective.

[@ef7480]

@@WoodlandAsh - You dont need it. Thats your answer. Police need a suspicion of crime otherwise say nothing. Freedom of speech isn't a crime. Words aren't violence . Only violence is violence. See Section 5 Public order Act 1986.

[@WoodlandAsh]

A fair point & I shall follow your recommendation and read up. Thank you 🙂

[@hombreguapo3928]

How does this fit with the advice, " don't talk to the police with-out your lawyer present?" Also , Nottingham Police broke down "Alex Belfield" 's front door WITHOUT a SEARCH WARRANT, The Police men and women had removed their name and number from their uniforms. What happens then. Please look him up if you haven't heard yet. What happens when the Police break the law?

[@juststewman7455]

Info is good but cops do what they want and back each other up . Books don't have a ego but cops do

[@sprinkz6187]

🧑‍⚖‍ 👩‍⚖‍ 👨‍⚖‍ 👩‍⚖‍ 👍👍👍

[@Rabmac1UK]

I would raise one issue, and I would like a reply, although after a year if may be unlikely If a person is suffering from a mental health problem, for example PTSD or at the other extreme somewhere on the Autism Spectrum, does this in any way alter a Police approach, given that in neither case is it likely that the individual will be able to Articulate their difficulty sufficiently clearly while in the middle of what we might generalise as a 'Panic Attack ?

[@desertofthereal4062]

Please do a video on common law ✌️❤️

[@predator2483]

Amazing video, definitely subscribing to your channel. I have one question: What if the officer finds something that they never said they was looking for? Do they have to leave the search there or can they take it further? If they can take it further wouldn't that just be looking for something to incriminate you?

[@MummaBear]

Children are stopped and searched without a guardian present. What advice would you have for children?

[@nefariouspurplebadger]

I’ve been stopped and searched at least 4 times every year since I was old enough to be out on my own.

[@grilnam9945]

Does this also cover searching a vehicle please and if not could you cover that as well?

[@davidtanslow3584]

All stop by police should be given a proper receipt when requested which should include the date and time and the names and identification of the police and others who are conducting the stop as well as the reasons.

[@testpilotian3188]

....and what’s the procedure for if a person refuses to identify themselves to you and has removed their collar numbers? Can you just walk off or refuse to co-operate until they do?

[@billyspencer7325]

In the field you can't do shit really. Best bet is film the whole thing and complain afterwards hopefully go viral that'll be your only shot at seeing him/her face repercussions

[@rayzalaf8988]

@@billyspencer7325 No point in complaining, just go straight to a private prosecution, there's one going on very shortly, he's having to do it all himself so I'm looking forward to the outcome also he was searched by a female officer on another occasion.

[@Feverstockphoto]

If I personally asked someone claiming to be a police officer who stopped and wanted to search me to identify and they do not in some clear way, they may be impersonating a police officer and if I have reasonable grounds to suspect this is the case I would walk away. I would contact the nearest police station asap and report it. After all they could be some random lunatic from the asylum. Police should identify asap. There are a lot of lunatics out there that claim to be gods, police, and leprechauns, doesn't mean they are, true leprechauns will always identify themselves beyond all reasonable doubt :).

[@Feverstockphoto]

@@billyspencer7325 What if they said they were a police officer yet no visible sign of such, plain clothed etc... Would you let them search you? Could be a thief trying to steal your wallet or some sexual fiend or worse. Good luck!

[@billyspencer7325]

@@Feverstockphoto if they're in plain clothes and won't show me a badge I'll probably feel harassed and distressed and end up defending myself with a solid headbutt

[@freedomsounds7422]

Need your consent !

[@wolvoman1]

Suspicion is an opinion without evidence of any wrong doing

[@oasdfe1691]

what about the recent Neale v DPP (2021) case, how does that change things?

[@meaningoflife3886]

Everyone need to watch this video

[@BlackBeltBarrister]

Please do share!

[@serenityinside1]

Can’t see the link for “ self defence “ you said you were going to post? Excellent vid as always though thanks

[@Triggered1964]

Why didn't you mention that the member of the public getting searched does not have to give details, unless police use Sec 50? (contempt of police legislation)

[@BlackBeltBarrister]

Coming up in Part 2! Unless you would prefer these videos are 30 minutes long? (Genuine question)

[@jamesc140292]

@@BlackBeltBarrister to be fair I would watch a 30 min video from you your content is great 👍

[@Triggered1964]

@@BlackBeltBarrister 👌

[@BlackBeltBarrister]

@@UnCoolDad Thanks, will do!

[@billboe7834]

I was stopped and searched whilst being put in handcuffs. They searched for drugs but found nothing. I was then released to go on my way! Am I in the clear now? I’m worried because they took a photo of my id

[@brianwithers162]

Just watched a KZbin Video of a coloured lad being stopped for no reason and then asked by the police to hand over his phone to check it wasn't stolen. He was told that he had to hand it over. He did and his video stopped. It started when they handed it back and he was told he could go on his way. Is this legal and what would happen if he refused. Not heard this one before.

[@AdvancedjapautoimportsAu]

It requires reasonable suspicion. Any person can arrest any person, if the person knows the persom has committed a crime, the part where it says, knows is about to commit a crime is just nonsense, that is not reasonable. For someone to know that someone has commited a crime, they would have had to observe the person commit the crime, in which case the person would need to make a statement under oath; or They were a victim of the crime, and they are required to make a statement under oath. Despite the lies that we are being told by court staff, judges and police, it is impossible to commence a court proceeding without some sort of sworn testimony from either and observer or victim, so what you have, are commercial civil proceedings, without lawful authoirty, using tacit procuration, to obtain authority from each individual, they obtain consent by use of deception. It can only be resisting if there were grounds for the search in the first place, otherwise police would use it as ruse to subject people to unlawful searches. Just becuase knives have been used to kill people, it doesnt mean that everyone carrying a pocketknife is a murderer, if police had powers to search anyone at any random time, they would surely find pockets knives on many people. I'm sure many people have carried pockets knives their entire lives and never murdered anyone with it, just because a few people have used a pocketknife to murderer someone, the police cannot go out and encroach upon the people's rights based on vague concerns and conduct fishing expiditions, that never catch murderers, and only catch with people with pocketknives.

[@Gibby27]

Do you see drug laws changing anytime? Our old war on drugs stance is doing a lot of harm. I feel like we punish the ‘victim’ with the governments current laws. Any thoughts on the matter?

[@lrdisco2005]

They can smell weed. That is always a good one.

[@alphaomega1089]

A boxer wears knuckledusters under his gloves to get an unfair advantage. Not in the rules. Same with public order offences. Stay indoors! Or, play by their rules with any game! Can't do and don't like: don't attend!

[@bollywoodsreckoning3768]

What about being stopped driving around airport if you are lost? I got stopped randomly and was told airport bylaws allow them to stop and ask but didn't explain anything more to why they stopped me even though I asked..any truth in that?

[@philflip1963]

It would be useful to know what a warrent card looks like, as far as I know the term covers a multitude of designs, all of which it's practically impossible for a layperson to establish the authenticity of.

[@Jonesykins]

Each force has their own design. If you doubt the legitimacy call 101... Not that hard.

[@mattkirk2482]

The gov.uk website says the police officer needs permission from a senior officer to do a stop and search. Is that right? Presumably superintendent

[@BlackBeltBarrister]

Only in cases where there were no reasonable grounds that you possessed something illegal and other conditions apply

[@johnkidd797]

So basically the police can do whatever they want whenever they want. Most people know that anyway so the best thing to do is stay on the right side of the law.

[@mastersweeps6958]

In the real world.... 'what's you name cop and what station are you from?'. Pig: shut up or I'll stitch you up for something. What are you looking for pig? Shut up or I'll plant some drugs on you. Am I being detained pig? No, you are being head butted for asking too many questions.

[@dazwalkingman]

So basically they can just make something up just to search you I believe I sore you hide a knife even though they know it was your phone

[@wrongmark]

I was randomly stopped and searched at a train station supposedly under the Terrorism Act. Was this lawful?

[@theghostwatcherkeepitreal4618]

So police have to tell you they are working under oath ? I am seeing a lot of members of the public ask but very rarely the police will answer the Question

[@theghostwatcherkeepitreal4618]

@Robert Stallard police we have the constable and officer. Police are corporations. Old school police would have no issue telling you they worked under oath and would speak passionately about their oath no different to our incredible military most continue to protect and serve their country long after they come out of the military. For example a group of military are outside BBC Manchester day 76 fighting for human trafficking/ save the children they speak daily how they serve and protect their country. Some of our police react very fast for corporations, Covid sites or Covid jabbing places , public photography abusing section 43 when Met police have said you can take pictures/ record anything your eye can see from a public footpath or anywhere accessible to the public. Are you in the police ?

[@Stuart_George]

What are your thoughts of the legality of police searching through phones as part of a search (especially if it's a section 1 PACE search).

[@BlackBeltBarrister]

Food for Part 2!

[@denise4487]

Do you have to be told why you are being strip searched it might be an obvious question but what if you are not told . Great videos by the way my son has covered police powers stop and search this year the pace act of 1984 and all other acts related to stop and search

[@dakrayus6519]

The best thing I've heard is that a phone that is unlocked by a fingerprint or eye/ face scan then these are classed as "in the public domain" and you can be made to open it, but if it's locked behind a password then you can't be obligated to unlock it (unless, I assume with some sort of court order). Be nice to know how true that is.

[@shookoneldn300]

@@BlackBeltBarrister I recommend you lock your phone forcing the police to get a Section 49 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) notice issued by a judge.😉 Yes.. the police cannot delete footage or pictures from your phone.. but the police routinely do so if you record them.. their BWV always goes missing, corrupt or accidentally deleted when they assault you.. 🙄 All that GOWISELY doesn’t apply in the real world in the streets..

[@Stuart_George]

@irigouis88 It seems to be a tactic used sometimes, to 'suspect' that the phone is stolen, and demand the phone be unlocked, so the IMEI number can be checked against a database of stolen phones. Once the phone is unlocked, officers then also searches through text messages to search for evidence of dealing. All highly questionable, legally speaking IMO. However without any clear case law (as far as I am aware), or clear guidance from the NPCC or College of Policing it seems to be up to individual constabularies or even individual officers, as to what they can legally do.

[@JohnSmith-ow1gn]

Hi great video. I’m sure you’ve seen those videos on KZbin about auditing police stations etc which often results in Section 43 searches. I’d like to hear your opinion on this kind of public photography (I know you’ve done a similar video) - like walking through an auditing scenario: can you take pictures on publicly accessible private land, who can ask you to leave, is taking pictures grounds for a search, etc? Thanks

[@gordon861]

Generally, if you can see it from the street you can photograph it, but I except there are some very specific exceptions to this. I have had businesses claim that their logo etc is copyrighted/trademarked and that I do not have a right to photograph it without permission. The police may ask to see your pictures but you are not obliged to show them. They are also not allowed to delete images (obvious really as if it's evidence of an offence it should be kept) and are told that if they suspect there is something illegal on the camera to take it into evidence and let someone qualified recover the evidence.

[@JB_inks]

@@gordon861 accept not except. Also, I can photograph copyrighted logos, the legal issues may arise if I publish and how

[@gordon861]

@@JB_inks Actually should have been 'expect', and my typing is getting worse. Added this because you often end up with some idiot who will come on and say "Actually I think you will find that they can stop you photographing XXXXX", no worries though. Anyways that was the second attempt at the post, browser crashed, in the original I did go on to say that the businesses were talking bollox.

[@JB_inks]

@@gordon861 no worries, I type most comments on my phone and the autocorrect is ducking terrible

[@markkieran1004]

Interesting stuff. What about abuse of section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002(?). It appears that there is no statutory defence of reasonableness against this nasty piece of legislation.

[@matthewleitch1]

Stop and search is a surprisingly effective tactic (compared to investigating crimes, which is very hard) and I would be in favour of a proportion of such searches being random. If I was stopped and searched I would cooperate promptly to allow the police to do their job efficiently. I would not consider it an insult. If they forget some small item of information when carrying out this procedure I would not be bothered let alone try to make an issue of it. It would be nice if they ended with 'Thank you for your cooperation, Sir, and sorry to have inconvenienced you.' I would then respond with 'No problem. Have a good day.' Having said that, I never carry anything illegal so there is nothing I am trying to get away with.

[@rogersmith8339]

That almost sounds like you are using common sense, no one is entitled to do that these days.