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 ;NoN/ADon't KnowThere was no BWV link attached to the stop and search connect record. This problem has occurred before Panel failed to agreeCan't assess - no BWV uploadedCan't assess - no BWV uploadedBest practice feedback (informal);
3
Stop and Search form ;YesThe officers appear to have stopped a group of four individuals, which the record states (aside from the person searched) were known class A users. All four people were searched. The written record states the area has "an issue with drug use" because the officer has stopped people at the location before. That is very flimsy. The record also states the officer considered that the group were sitting down about to take drugs. This is highly subjective. YesYesNoNoYesYesYesYesIdentity: The officer did not give his name or number. NoNoNoNoYesThe officer states the individuals the person was with were known drug users. If that is the case, it is possible the individual stopped was also a drug user. The links between drug use and other vulnerabilities are well known. NoThe officer asked the person for his name and DOB without telling him that this is optional. In a case where someone is vulnerable and unlikely to know their rights, it would be good practice to advise them that they do not need to give their details to the police. Somewhat? The officer was generally polite, but at the end, he told the person not to hang around the area. It's a public place and the person was not doing anything wrong. Panel not able to assessHe neither escalated nor de-escalatedYesOn the officer's own admission, he appears to have assumed this person is a drug user - either by appearance or his contacts. NoBethnal Green Safer NeighbourhoodsPoorDid not seek ethnicity, offer reassurance or advise on how to make a complaintDon't know/UnclearYesAmberThe grounds for this search were flimsy: Essentially, the person was sat down with "known Class A drug users" in an area where the officer had stopped people for drugs before. So the ground appears to be, who the person was with and the officer's own view of the area. The officer did not identify himself, did not ask for the person's ethnicity, did not tell him how to make a complaint, did not offer him a paper copy and did not - despite possibly identifying him as a vulnerable person - tell him he did not have to give his name and DOB to the officersN/ABest practice feedback (informal);Learning and development feedback (informal);Performance Improvement Plan (formal);
4
Stop and Search form ;YesThe person was stopped on the street in daylight. He was polite and responsive to the officers. The officers spoke very quickly and did not listen to what he was saying, especially when he made clear he has vulnerabilities (homeless, jobless and recently out of prison). The officer spoke in a manner that inflamed things, "I am just doing my job" and really gave the impression that he was just following a script. He also did an absurdly thorough search - e.g. opening a notebook and inspecting single flyers when (we assume) he was looking for drugs. There was also no awareness that the person was homeless and so the bag contained all their possessions. The officer placed them all on the ground. That does not respect someone's dignity. YesNot clearNoNoYesYesYesYesThe officer spoke too quickly for us to follow (we had to replay the footage). He did not give his badge number. It was also not clear what he was looking for. NoNoNoNoYesThe person clearly told the officers he is homeless, jobless and recently released from prison. NoThe officers did not in any way attempt to de-escalate the situation or show empathy for the person's expressed concerns and anxiety that he was late for an appointment at the job centre. The officer kept saying he was "just doing my job". He appeared to have a script he was following. He could not even remember the person's name and kept calling him by his surname.

After about 11 minutes and having emptied the entirety of the person's bag (remember, this person is homeless so the bag has all their possessions), the person asked if they could finish and the officer replied, "just chill out". The officer then concluded by saying "it's 2024, get a better excuse, don't have two phones mate". That was such a rude way to end a distressing encounter. 		NoPlease see all comments above. The officer spoke at rapid fire pace, he did not listen to anything the person said, he could not even remember his actual name. When he searched him, he put all his belongings onto the pavement. He was rude in his interactions.EscalatedPlease see all comments above. The person had expressed a range of vulnerabilities and that he was late for an appointment. When he showed slight, and I really stress slight agitation (slightly quicker speech, slightly louder), the officer did not listen and just said, "I am just doing my job". The officer was rude and patronising. NoNoTower Hamlets Safer NeighbourhoodsPoorHe told him to get a better excuse and said it's 2024. He was so disrespectful. Don't know/UnclearYesThe grounds reflected the BWV - all we see are the grounds. However, the written grounds said he looked like he was craving drugs (which absolutely was not the case) and his appearance suggested signs of prolonged drug use - how? He's been in prison. He was quite well kempt for someone who has been homeless for a monthAmberI found this search very upsetting. The person expressed several vulnerabilities that were completely disregarded. The officer was rude, dismissive and patronising. He emptied out someone's bag that likely contained all their possessions and put those items on the ground. The search was without respect for the person's dignity and without explanation and empathy. We discussed with our officers in the viewing that the officer could have explained - I need to do a thorough search and it may take some time as I recognise your bag has all your belongings in it, etcNoneBest practice feedback (informal);Learning and development feedback (informal);Performance Improvement Plan (formal);
5
Stop and Search form ;YesPerson was allegedly a known shoplifter. He was stopped holding "a crate of butter" and the suspicion was he might steal it.YesYesNoNoYesYesYesYesOfficer did not give number and did not give warrant card (both were in plainclothes)NoNoNoNoNoYesOfficer called him sir and asked if he was okay at one pointDeescalatedThe person was relaxed so the situation never escalated. The officer did not say anything to escalate things though. NoNoThey were from Stoke NewingtonPoorThe shop manager asked the police to make a banning order. The police said they couldn't but would hand over the person's name and address so the shop could apply for the order. My major concern is there was no evidence the person had stolen anything or had previously stolen anything, as alleged - so on what grounds did the police hand over his name and address. Can someone check if that's lawful? The person now has a five year banning order from all of that chain of supermarkets.

The officers we watched this with explained that the officers erred by (1) carrying out a S&S on private property, rather than an arrest and s32 stop and (2) as we thought, getting involved in a civil matter. Apparently, correct process is to let shop manager ask for details and if person refuses, can then consider arrest. 		Generated by report from member of the publicYesAll we see are grounds, but it matched the searchAmberPlease see comments made earlier - our officers have explained the issues with itLearning and development feedback (informal);Performance Improvement Plan (formal);Best practice feedback (informal);
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