ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJAKALAMANAOAPAQARAS
1
Category of material Was an associated body worn video clip viewed?Please describe and identifying features of this caseG – Did the officer(s) provide clear explanation grounds for suspicion – for example, information, intelligence or specific behaviour of a person.O – Did the officer(s) provider a clear explanation of the object and purpose of the search in terms of the article being searched for.W- Did the officer(s) present a warrant card, if not in uniform or if requested.I- Did the officer(s) state their identity: name and number or, in cases involving terrorism or where there is a specific risk to the officer, just warrant or collar number. S – Did the officer(s) state the station they work at.E – Did the officer(s) inform of the entitlement to a copy of the search record within three months.L – Did the officer(s) inform on which legal power used.Y – Did the officer(s) state ‘you are being detained for the purposes of a search’ this is a requirement.If GOWISELY was not or partially followed please provide detailsWere handcuffs used?Please select the nature of the handcuffing Was a taser used?Was the individual detained for a strip search? Which station did the strip search take place?Was an item (object) found in the search?Details of object found **Did the item found match the item (object) officer(s) were looking for? Did the panel observe any identifiable vulnerabilities in the person stopped?If yes, please provide more details Based on the perception of panel members, did the officer(s) recognise and appropriately respond to the identified vulnerabilities during the interaction?Please note any evidence of good/best practice.Please provide further detailsDid the officer(s) effectively and respectfully communicate with the individuals they encountered?Please note any evidence of good/best practice.2Please provide further details2From what the panel have observed, would you say the officer(s) behaved in a way that escalated or de-escalated the situation?Comments?Does the panel have any concerns about possible officer bias relating to this interaction?Please provide details Did the officer(s) provide the individual of details of how to make a complaint?If clear, please select which MPS team conducted the viewed stop and search.Please specify.Please rate how the officer closed the interaction.CommentsPlease select the origin of the encounter with the police officer(s)?If other, please provide details Were the stop and search/use of forms completed correctly/accurately/appropriately?Comments2Overall Panel Scrutiny AssessmentAssessment Feedback Best Practice Recommendations Please specify the category of recommendations 
2
Stop and Search form ;YesOfficers had identified individuals from a linked vehicle to Class A drugs. when approached, some individuals made off - and 3 individuals were stopped and searched on basis of suspicion of possession of Class A - s23 MoDA cited. 4 individuals in the video were young people of colour - younger than 21 YesYesNoYesYesNot clearYesNot clearWhen the officer's badge number was requested - recording officer refused to provide YesCompliant NoNoNoNoSomewhat? DeescalatedOfficer conducting stop and search on the recording officer's left used Section 50 grounds to obtain name and address off the back of smell of cannabis (?) - would this constitute sufficient grounds to request someone's personal details? Panel not able to assessNoPanel not able to identify GoodAlerted to the the person through another officer or dispatchN/ADon't KnowNeutralOverall, compliant stop and search assisted by compliant young people being detained and searched. Officers seemed to pester on obtaining name and address, despite them refusing and knowing they're within rights not to. Officers on the left using section 50 to demand name and address - unclear whether basis of smelling like cannabis is sufficient to exercise those powers Best practice feedback (informal);
3
Stop and Search form ;YesOfficer had initially stopped person under Section 1 PACE - grounds being 'moped theft is a huge problem within TH borough and used predominantly to carry out theft snatches or violent crime in gang territorial areas'. Individual refused to pull over. YesNoYesNot clearNoNoYesNot clearOfficers did not state name of station, nor inform of entitlement to copy of search record. Unclear whether identity was provided - object also unclear because across search record, and this stop and search - 2 different grounds were provided/alternated between: S1 PACE (search form), and then S23 MODA. YesNon-compliant (use of force implemented)NoNoNoNoNoPerson detained struggled with English - officers immediately aggressive, dismissive and rude towards him. Various comments made 'you're very distrusting etc' . Also, caution at the end was given very quickly - too fast for anyone to understand EscalatedImmediate use of force and aggression by 3 officers from the outset - escalated the situation rather than calm the situation down and allow for dialogue to set out explanation. Extent of force felt disproportionate Panel not able to assessNoPanel not able to identify Arrest made N/AIdentified by officers proactivelyNoSection 1 PACE used and in broad way in search form - but then during stop and search, s23 was cited. Inconsistent record/use of powers AmberMain concerns:
- Level of force used from the outset felt excessive and disproportionate - particularly resulting in moped toppling over.
- Dismissive/aggressive attitude by all 3 officers - one could have de-escalated. Led to confusion, waste of time
- Grounds cited/used - section 1 PACE and section 23 MODA - both used on vague and general grounds, and inconsistently e.g. s1 used simply because they were driving a moped, and associations with that, despite the moped clearly being a delivery vehicle. And unclear on what grounds s23 was identified and set out
Clarity in the use of grounds used for the stop and search and making sure correct powers, if applicable, are used, de-escalation techniques and respect/treating individuals with dignity and respect Performance Improvement Plan (formal);Learning and development feedback (informal);Internal complaint referral (formal) ;Best practice feedback (informal);
4
Stop and Search form ;YesOfficers attended to report re group of class A users outside communial stairwell. upon arriving - group of class A drug users - led to stop and search - subject matched description of gaunt appearance. skinny build, dirty clothes and matted hairYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesUnclear if receipt was offeredYesCompliant NoNoNoYesIndividual was clearly someone experiencing homelessness NoYesDeescalatedNoNoPanel not able to identify GoodGenerated by alert from member of the publicYesGreen Only point of feedback - whether measures could be implemented to follow up on knowledge of vulnerability Best practice feedback (informal);Learning and development feedback (informal);
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100