Police Powers of Search

[aerosol]

I am a regular contributor to this forum but decided to post this under a pseudonym because am not seeking any glory and I think anonymity may be expedient. I hope anybody who thinks they know who I am will respect that, thanks. I reserve the right to remove or edit this thread, or request that the forum administrator do so, if I think that it may compromise my (or my friend's) liberty

A friend and I were recently arrested shortly after painting 9/11 and NWO related messages. We were caught in possession of all relevant evidence and had little choice but to confess. We were arrested and kept over night in cells. Apart from the 'tools of the trade' I had no possessions with me - no phone, no keys etc. During the arrest I was asked if I needed any medication and mentioned that I did take something but it wasn't essential that I had it.

The next morning, a civillian custody officer came into my cell and asked if I wanted my medication as the police were in my flat and they could bring it back with them if I wanted.

At this point I demanded to read a copy of the Police Codes of Practice as I had assumed that a search warrant would be required and that I should be informed and/or be present (if practical) and that searches are only permitted to for further evidence to assist in an investigation.

I was quite shocked to find that although these assumptions are true there are catch all clauses which preclude their requirement. As we had confessed and had all the evidence in our possession there did not seem to be any point in searching our premises. Permission to search was granted by the Inspector (as laid out in the Codes of Practice).

But whilst in my cell, and without giving too much incriminating detail, this development was quite disturbing and the outcome started to look extremely bleak for both of us and my attitude of fairly relaxed (but uncomfortable) incarceration changed to one of fear.

However, a couple of hours later we were released with a caution. On comparing notes it later became apparent that a blind eye had be turned to certain things which would have given the police the opportunity to press much more serious charges. In fact, without being specific, it very much looks like some incriminating evidence may have been destroyed.

From the outset, our relationship with the police we came in contact with was very amicable. There was strong evidence to suggest that they were aware of the issues which we brought up - one officer had recently watched Loose Change! And all joking aside the irony of their situation did not escape some of them.

The whole thing now looks very peculiar. The top brass go over the top with their powers of search when it was completely unnecessary - yet those who were actually prosecuting the investigation seem to have gone out of their way to minimise the charges.

A caution lasts for five years and will be reconsidered should any other offence be committed - so, even though we were VERY unlucky to have been caught, I will have to consider very carefully before I do any more freelance decorating.

But it is worth knowing that the police do have the power to search without a warrant signed by a magistrate, without reasonable cause and without your knowledge even for such a relatively trivial offence.

[Woodee]

scarey!

[aerosol]

I didn't mention above that I live alone and that as I did not have my keys with me I was concerned at how they had managed to gain access.

I have just learned from a witness that even though they had contacted my landlord who was on his way with his keys they still threatened to force entry through two doors - the main building and my flat door - because they were unwilling to wait.

I am very fortunate that my landlord was there because he knew the law and read the order which they had been granted which (was unsigned) and made sure that they took nothing - at least nothing I have noticed so far.

Without giving away details, they did remove stuff from my mate's house where there was nobody able to stop them.

[Dogsmilk]

Can you say what these "catch all clauses" are? Cause like you I thought they had to believe there was further evidence or something.

Is this sneaky new terror legislation stuff or something older?

Hey - does this mean you're a 'terrorist'?!

[Dogsmilk]

[aerosol]

[Rabbie McM]

Definately O.T.T. police reaction. Can't see the justification for a search of your home. If I were you, and you can afford it - I'd speak further with a sympathetic solicitor versed in "criminal" law - the Duty Solicitors often want an easy life. Interesting though that rank and file Police seemed to be sympathetic.

As we know, we all need to think very carefully about strategy. There are plenty of things we can still do that we can't be nailed for. Graffiti and postering is higher risk, what with Britain being CCTV land.

Respect though to you - you have courage. Hope you get rested up.

[aerosol]

Funny you should say that, I had a good chat with the solicitor too. He said that as much as he may or may not agree with what I was doing it was his job to give me objective advice. He made it quite clear that he was onside and he was pretty well versed with the issues - at least in a more mainstream sense.

I found the search document and it all seems to be legal and above board - just totally excessive.

Not all the police were interested but those that were fell more on my side of the fence.

Had a stinking stress induced hangover after my first night in my own bed and the horrible feeling that strangers had been going through my stuff. It reminds me of what people say who seem to support the CCTV society, 'What's the problem if you have got nothing to hide?'. I say, 'Well actually, I have got something to hide. My privacy'. That loss of privacy is taking some getting over!

[Rabbie McM]

Well hope you're feeling better aerosol....! I guess put the episode down to experience - you're now battle hardened.

Spoke to a colleague at work about it today who agreed O.T.T. from police.

But then they've got to fight Al Qaeda!!

[aerosol]

Thanks for your concern, Rabbie.

I hadn't really intended this thread to be about me, I just wanted to highlight the rather scarey powers that the police now find at their disposal. But just to let you know that I keep finding evidence of where the police have been rummaging in my home. I have to say it is extremely unsettling to the point that I keep thinking that I will have to move in order to shake off the presence that they seem to have left.

I have had other personal experiences of police powers including having anti-terror legislation used against me and excessive force used on me but nothing has left me feeling like this.

Incidentally, earlier on the day we did our painting, I was walking home and I saw a blue police van spill out about a dozen police in full riot gear and battering rams about 100 yards from where I live. As I got closer I got my camera out and before it was fully powered up they were getting back in the van. Later on that evening, there was a running battle in the street outside my window. Between 50 and 60 kids were scrapping and eventually eight police vehicles had the road blocked off. Although I have been involved in non-violent direct action where the police have been in huge numbers and dressed like gladiators I have never seen such a heavy police presence where I live before.

As far as I am concerned, the police state is here. Having had my fingerprints taken for a second time and my DNA for the first time I had the slight feeling of being a tagged animal when they unlocked the door and let me go.

Anyway, as I said, I only wanted to draw attention to what they can now legally do so that people will be forewarned.

[aerosol]

I just had a phone call from the police to say that they wanted to return a book which was taken from me whilst I was in custody. I told them that I didn't know what they were talking about as I had nothing with me and asked what the book was called. The woman said she would phone back.

A few minutes later another police woman called to say that the book was removed during the search of my flat. I asked what book it was and she replied that it was The New World Order (by A. Ralph Epperson - see below). I said that I hoped somebody had taken time to read it. She replied that they didn't have time for things like that to which I asked why they had taken it then!

I hadn't noticed the book missing because I have a lot of books and as they didn't tell me about this book how am I to know what else they might have taken?

I expressed my concern that the book was taken without my knowledge and that the search order specifically states that a copy of the authorisation should, if practicable, be give to the occupier of the premises before the search begins. As I was in one of their cells, I think it might have been practicable!


http://www.amazon.com/New-World-Order-Ralph-Epperson/dp/0961413514

[xmasdale]

[Rabbie McM]

Yes plenty to think about aerosol with your recent experience.
I'm intrigued that they took Epperson's book, can see several motives for it based on your story. Watched some of his lectures online - valuable insight into the perps' mindset.

On the whole, I'm appalled at the Police's action to you and your mate. But at least you've been able to highlight their powers of search of our homes for minor "arrestable" misdemeanours. Valuable to those of us (like myself) not fully versed in the criminal law. I appreciate your warning. More power to you and kudos.

Rab

[flamesong]

From my experience, the police are trained, like their horses, not to pay attention to distractions. It is usually very difficult to get them to engage on issues.

[aerosol]

[marky 54]

intresting incident although i just want to put it to you before you think they took the book because of its content. that, if you wrote nwo on the wall that the book may of been removed at the time of gathering evidence soley because it would of linked your message on the wall to a personnal item, going some way to prove that you actually wrote the message. its fine that they caught you with the things needed to do it but maybe they were just trying to prove that the message linked to you in some way. but charges were dropped and they forgot to return it.

[aerosol]

Three things, Marky 54.

Firstly, we both admitted what we had done so there was no need to prove anything. Also, stuff was removed from my friend's home which was completely unrelated.

Secondly, the charges were not dropped, we received a caution which will remain on our records until October 2011 and will be considered should other charges be made against either of us.

Thirdly, they 'forgot' to even mention that they had even taken the book. And, as you can see from my account, they 'forgot' to even mention that they were going to search my home - in direct contravention of their own Code of Practice, Section 18(1) Para 5.8 of Code B:

A copy of the warrant should, if practicable, be given to the occupier before the search begins.

As I said, I was in the same building in which the search was authorised - in a cell - so how was it impracticable?

[hampton]

if you hadn't taken the caution you could have had your day in court and explained that you had to take action as the police refuse to act on 911/77

[aerosol]

[hampton]

thanks for the prompt reply.

i know what you mean about the stress of custody.
although they rarely keep you for more than 4 hours, whatever you do.
take a good book, try to sleep or ask to read the police conduct handbook (that'll definitely send you to sleep).

i don't know if you can appeal against a caution. you could complain that they tricked or coerced you into a confession.
i would definitely complain about them searching your home.

alternatively you could engage in awareness campaigns which are less likely to end in police action.

[aerosol]

On this occasion it was 12 hours. Last time it was 37 hours.

I have to weigh up the option of making a complaint against other factors - it looks unlikely. My experience is equitable with sleeping dogs. I had an extremely sympathetic lawyer who had just been studying the subject of political criminal damage. His advice was very comprehensive. If we had smashed up aircraft on their way to Iraq three years ago we would have had a case. If we had smashed up aircraft on their way to Iraq this year (or any year since) we would not as the goalposts have been moved. But expressing oneself using the medium of paint would never have been mitigating as it would not have had any direct affect on the issue.

We were extremely unlucky to have been caught. In retrospect it is very easy to see where one goes wrong but even taking a small mistake into consideration the involvement of the (previously unmentioned) police dog might have made our mistake quite academic.

It would be difficult to claim coercion as we were caught, quite literally, red handed and in posession of our tools, apart from which, I did not take any posessions - as a matter of policy.

By activities which do not end in police action, I assume you mean permitted protests etc. Well, there are two answers to that. Firstly, I suffer from depression and this works far better than any selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Secondly, might I suggest you read some work of Marcuse on repressive desublimination and apply it to the permitting of lawful protest.

I hope nobody will think I am being rude if I abandon this thread now. If its purpose was to highlight Police Powers of Search which the title I gave it suggests, I think it has been fulfilled.

[Rowan Berkeley]

I should think that someone spent a minute or two riffling through the book to see if it contained any quotable references to 'the Jews'.

[Cruise4]

"On comparing notes it later became apparent that a blind eye had be turned to certain things which would have given the police the opportunity to press much more serious charges. In fact, without being specific, it very much looks like some incriminating evidence may have been destroyed.

From the outset, our relationship with the police we came in contact with was very amicable. There was strong evidence to suggest that they were aware of the issues which we brought up - one officer had recently watched Loose Change! And all joking aside the irony of their situation did not escape some of them."

By reading between the lines here, you appear to be saying the Police were sympathetic to our cause, knew far more than might be generally suspected and aided you in not falling foul of repressive laws further?

IS that what you are saying?

Would you advise us to clean up all material we have relating to the NWO issues including books, videos, computers etc.?

In general the police can do what they want. If you think you can stand on rights etc. you haven't had much experience. The real world is not quite how most people think it is.

[aerosol]

Whilst this matter is closed as far as the police are concerned, my friend and I are still under caution and other matters are ongoing so I don't want to say anything incriminating but suffice to say that a box was removed from my friend's home which was presented to him in custody and some of its contents were missing. Those contents could have put him in prison. There were other contents in the box for which he received an additional caution.

Far be it for me to speculate about what the officers knew about what we were trying to 'express using the medium of paint' but it could be that we simply did not pose the same kind of problems that a bunch of vomiting píss heads might have done and provided a little light relief. But there were definitely two distinct brands of copper at work - those who repeatedly threatening my landlord that they were going to break the doors down and those at the station with whom I shared a few jokes and who seemed to acknowledge that we live in a police state.

This was the second time I have spent time in custody and by far the less uncomfortable. The previous time was for 36 hours during which time I was fed twice and though I had access to a toilet was provided with no toilet paper. My arrest on that occasion was by some West Yorkshire Constabulary thug on the A9 at Gleneagles - he lifted me of the road by applying (a not inconsiderable) pressure under my ears. He let out a Steffi Graf like grunt as he forced his middle fingers into the pressure points. My jaw was swollen for over a week and my saliva glands were very painful.

But to return to your questions, I can hardly advise people to clear up their bookshelves - it would be hypocritical as I have no intention of doing so. Also, would not that represent a victory for 'them'. Before we know it we would be living Fahrenheit 451.

I think the recent evidence of Quebec Police agents provocateurs and the following account of arrests at Tent City, Santa Cruz are adequate proof of what measures the police in western civilisation will take. Anybody who thinks that (by some cosmic coincidence) only isolated incidents are caught on video is naive beyond my comprehension. We watch the horrors which unfold around the world and unless we stand up to authoritarianism now - that is what we will be facing in years to come. Alternatively, of course, we could take the chip and turn up to work at the factory and worship the propaganda box.

http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/17436/index.php