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 ;YesDrug stop and search - 10-15 wraps in mouth. YesYesN/AYesYesN/AYesYesYesCompliant NoNoYes10+ wraps of class A drugsYesNoSomewhat? Instant handcuffing and quite rough handling.

Also didn't prioritise health - should've immediately taken to hospital imo.

Took until 26 mins to say "search is secondary to his health" after van arrived. Lack of urgency.		Panel not able to assessPanel not able to assessNoMile End Safer NeighbourhoodsPanel not able to assessDon't know/UnclearDon't KnowAmberDefinitely felt like an unnecessary use of force after seeing something in the mouth.

Threw to the ground quite aggressively and shouted at to "spit it out". Seemed like a risk of choking.

Seemed like the health and safety of the person being searched wasn't prioritised urgently. Took until 26 minutes until 3rd officer suggested it was probably wise to go to hospital before searching.		We would like to know what officers are taught/told in Tower Hamlets around swallowing/things in mouths.Learning and development feedback (informal);
3
Stop and Search form ;YesOfficers searching three people in a stairwell. Appears they may have been known drug usersYesYesN/AYesYesYesYesYesQuite hard to make out grounds for the first person, seemed to be that stairwell known for drug takers and there was possibly drugs/paraphenalia around but hard to hear. Could not hear for second or third person if GOWISELY was even done.YesCompliant NoNoNoYesIt seemed that all three individuals may have been known drug users Don't knowYesThe female officer was polite in her interactions. We couldn't hear the male officer as clearly Panel not able to assessThe situation wasn't heightened so the officers neither escalated nor de-escalated. When the officer said they'd be given an anti-social behaviour warning one of the men got quite agitated but his friend helped defuse things. It should be noted the officer said: "it's just a warning!", which did not really assistNoNoTower Hamlets Task Force Panel not able to assessBWV cut off prematurelyIdentified by officers proactivelyDon't KnowDidn't see the S&S forms NeutralWe didn't see an example of good practice but equally there was nothing of concern to note. Hence, neutral. No feedback for the officersBest practice feedback (informal);
4
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