stipete75

Whenever you come into contact with the road traffic police they will ask you for your details, It’s not an offence to refuse to give your name and address, except........
when you are the driver of a vehicle and an offence under the Road Traffic Act has taken place.

Felix.

Unless you are engaging in some sort of ant social behaviour - then the police reform act will give a power to obtain your personal details.

You are right to state that we need reasonable grounds for stop & search - but refusing to cooperate may be seen as another bit of evidence to suggest that the person isn't all innocent. For example, if a subject who has been done burglary before is stopped by police on a nice estate at night and refuses to provide his details - are you happy for the police to just let him walk on by? He could have bail conditions not to be there, he could be wanted for burglary offences etc etc. What would you expect of the police in that situation. If it turns out the next day he had turned several houses over and the police reveal he was stopped several times that night on the same estate and the police just let him walk off as he refused to say who he was - would you be happy? Thin line maybe, but at the end of the day the police are stopping that individual for the purposes to prevent the crime happening i.e to stop them from burgling.

Not having a go pete, just curious to know if you would be happy that the police did the right thing on letting him go on his way as he refused his details to them, hence it wasn't discovered that he was actually wanted at the time he was stopped or was breaching his bail conditions. And hence the reason why so many houses got burgled that night was 'just one of those things'





There are numerous reasons why police can enter a premises - not just serious incidents, some of these reasons are:

To arrest a person for whom a warrant of arrest has been issued during criminal proceedings

To arrest a person for an indictable offence, meaning any offences that can be tried by a jury in the Crown Court; these tend to be the more serious offences

To arrest a person for an offence under the Public Order Act 1936 section 1 which states that it is prohibited to wear a uniform in a public place or at a public meeting signifying an association with a political organisation, without permission to do so

To arrest a person for an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 section 4 which prohibits anyone placing another in fear of violence

To arrest a person for using or threatening violence for the purposes of entering premises (Criminal Law Act 1977 section 6)

To arrest a person who is a trespasser on the premises and who has failed to leave those premises after being asked to do so (Criminal Law Act 1977 section 7

To arrest a trespasser who has with him any weapon (Criminal Law Act 1977 section 8)

To arrest a person who interferes with an Officer of the Court when they are trying to enforce a judgment (Criminal Law Act 1977 section 10)

To arrest a person for driving or being in charge of a vehicle when under the influence of drink or drugs

To arrest someone for failing to stop a vehicle when required

To arrest a person for acts of animal cruelty under the Animal Welfare Act 2006

To arrest a child or young person who has been remanded or committed to local authority accommodation

Recapturing a person, including a young offender, who has escaped from custody

Recapturing a person unlawfully running who is being pursued

In an attempt to save a life or prevent injury to someone or serious damage to property

Breach of the peace powers

I believe we also have a power under the mental health act 135 as apposed to 136, if a person's mental state is such that we believe they do not have the mental capacity to look after themselves.

Then there are powers under section 32 and section 18 PACE which gives us a power to search a premises after an arrest has been made

Felix.

If you mean that "failing to produce you licence to an officer when asked to do so" - is an offence, then the above is right.

However....

If you produce your licence, then we can get your name, DOB, address from that

If you don't produce it, you will be technically reported for that offence, in which you will have to provide you name, DOB, address; for a summons.

Hence either way, you will end up providing it.

You could of course still refuse to provide them, in which case you will be arrested and remanded to court - which seems a bit silly if you are just trying to prove a point; but you will leave the police little option.

Turbohot

I saw a coppers programme the other night. It was full of some awkward people. The more awkward they got, the guiltier they were. I can't see why someone would have a problem telling coppers their name and DOB, offence or not. Police can't do anything anyway, if you've done nothing wrong.

Police are known for their power trips etc. and therefore people are on red alert with them. But even then, giving your name and address out to them doesn't really make you any smaller. They do have a job, and if they need to identify you via your name and address, so what. If a copper is acting all mighty unreasonable with you, report him/her to his Professional Conduct department. But unnecessary resistance from the interrogated one itself is unreasonable IMO.

Sometimes, offender has no clue that he/she has committed an offence. More so in the road traffic incidents e.g. speeding when one didn't keep an eye on his/her speed. In situations like that, you may not want to give your name, DOB and address, but would still get nailed. So you might as well co-operate.

Felix.

So, where do you draw the line.

People who are going 50mph and over - heavy fine. Between 30 and 50 - no further action.

People will happily drive up to 50mph in that case and complain when they get caught doing 51 in a 30 as they get a heavy fine. Someone doing 45 will be let off - yet the argument will be that they are still going over the 30 limit.

so - to make it fair to everyone, why not make 30 the limit in a 30 zone and anyone going over that limit will run the risk of a fine.

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Been tugged for

1) Looking too young to drive that car
2) Flashing my lights at an on-coming police car (in middle of road)
3) Not giving way to an oncoming police van that was in the middle of the road
4) Looking like a student

Etc

Flashing at oncoming police car got me 4 squad cars on blues & twos arriving after me at the company I was collecting from. "Why did you flash us?" "'cos you were in the middle of the road and I was coming towards you"

Not giving way, they turned round and raced after me and pulled me over - "thought we heard a bang as we passed each other". Yeah right, no damage to my car, he was just doing it to be arsey. When I told him that he was driving in the middle of the road trying to force me to give way, responded that "I was taught to drive that way"! His m8 was laughing as I had him bang to rights and was legit.

Ways & Means Act, as previously described.

FMJ

iTrader: (2)

I'm sorry mate but you are wrong in that post and your previous ones. You are simply incorrect and do not know what you are talking about.

My post was not based on opinion. It was based on the ACTUAL law of the land.

You are just randomly skipping around fictional areas of law that you think are correct. Please stop posting things you are simply guessing at. I suggest if you have any dealings with the Police in the future that you do what they say. Your incorrect knowledge if followed will almost certainly get you into trouble.

Road Traffic Act 1988 section 165

Power of constables to obtain names and addresses of drivers and others, and to require production of evidence of insurance or security and test certificates

1)Any of the following persons—

(a)a person driving a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) on a road, or

(b)a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have been the driver of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) at a time when an accident occurred owing to its presence on a road, or

(c)a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use on a road of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage),

must, on being so required by a constable, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce the following documents for examination.
(2)Those documents are—

(a)the relevant certificate of insurance or certificate of security (within the meaning of Part VI of this Act), or such other evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 of this Act as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State,

(b)in relation to a vehicle to which section 47 of this Act applies, a test certificate issued in respect of the vehicle as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, and

(c)in relation to a goods vehicle the use of which on a road without a plating certificate or goods vehicle test certificate is an offence under section 53(1) or (2) of this Act, any such certificate issued in respect of that vehicle or any trailer drawn by it.

(3)Subject to subsection (4) below, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) above is guilty of an offence.

FMJ

iTrader: (2)

Nope I am right. At no point did I say that for a stop and search or stop and account you had to provide your details. You don't have to. I never said otherwise. Please point out the part where I said this???????

Wrong. As has been summed up by Felix there are a multitude of reasons to enter a private premises without consent of the owner/resident. Section 117 of PACE 1984 allows officers to use force to do so.

The part you are talking about (to save life and limb) is covered by section 17 PACE 1984.

17 Entry for purpose of arrest etc.

(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, and without prejudice to any other enactment, a constable may enter and search any premises for the purpose—

(a)of executing—

(i)a warrant of arrest issued in connection with or arising out of criminal proceedings; or

(ii)a warrant of commitment issued under section 76 of the M1Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980;

(b)of arresting a person for an [F1indictable]F1 offence;

(c)of arresting a person for an offence under—

(i)section 1 (prohibition of uniforms in connection with political objects), . . . F2 of the M2Public Order Act 1936;

(ii)any enactment contained in sections 6 to 8 or 10 of the M3Criminal Law Act 1977 (offences relating to entering and remaining on property);

[F3(iii)section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (fear or provocation of violence);]

[F4(iiia)section 4 (driving etc. when under influence of drink or drugs) or 163 (failure to stop when required to do so by constable in uniform) of the Road Traffic Act 1988;

(iiib)section 27 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (which relates to offences involving drink or drugs);]

[F5F4(iv)section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (failure to comply with interim possession order);]

[F6(v)any of sections 4, 5, 6(1) and (2), 7 and 8(1) and (2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (offences relating to the prevention of harm to animals);]

[F7F6(ca)of arresting, in pursuance of section 32(1A) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, any child or young person who has been remanded or committed to local authority accommodation under section 23(1) of that Act;

[F8(caa)of arresting a person for an offence to which section 61 of the Animal Health Act 1981 applies;]

F8(cb)of recapturing any person who is, or is deemed for any purpose to be, unlawfully at large while liable to be detained—

(i)in a prison, remand centre, young offender institution or secure training centre, or

(ii)in pursuance of [F9section 92 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing ) Act 2000] (dealing with children and young persons guilty of grave crimes), in any other place;]

(d)of recapturing [F10any person whatever] who is unlawfully at large and whom he is pursuing; or

(e)of saving life or limb or preventing serious damage to property.

(2)Except for the purpose specified in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) above, the powers of entry and search conferred by this section—

(a)are only exercisable if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whom he is seeking is on the premises; and

(b)are limited, in relation to premises consisting of two or more separate dwellings, to powers to enter and search—

(i)any parts of the premises which the occupiers of any dwelling comprised in the premises use in common with the occupiers of any other such dwelling; and

(ii)any such dwelling in which the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whom he is seeking may be.

(3)The powers of entry and search conferred by this section are only exercisable for the purposes specified in subsection (1)(c)(ii) [F11or (iv)] above by a constable in uniform.

(4)The power of search conferred by this section is only a power to search to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose for which the power of entry is exercised.

(5)Subject to subsection 6 below, all the rules of common law under which a constable has power to enter premises without a warrant are hereby abolished.

(6)Nothing in subsection (5) above affects any power of entry to deal with or prevent a breach of the peace.

Also allowed to prevent a breach of the peace as above.

stipete75

I know there are a multitude of reasons public servants can enter premises without a warrant I just couldn't be arsed to google them all.

You do not have to tell the public servants your name, you do not even need to open your mouth, open your door, undo your window,nothing!!!!!
If no traffic act was broken then surely you are a free man going about you traveling business without the hassle of being harassed by thugs in fancy dress.
Jeez this is a free country, why should I give you my personal details if I'm going about my own business lawfully, that is harassment!!


I was talking to Felix about stop n search but thanks anyway.
https://www.gov.uk/stopped-by-police...ights/overview

cmr SCOOBY

interesting thread,

Felix.

I'm not a 'thug in fancy dress' and i'm not a traffic officer

But see posts 62 (the first section) and 63 - just curious as to your thoughts

cmr SCOOBY

stipete75

Refusing to co-operate ( giving my personal details)is not evidence or suspicion of guilt or something to hide, refusing to give my details is a lawful mans right in a free country if no law has been broken or there has been no breach of the peace, it is harassment if I'm going about my business.

If there had been an incident and I was witness to said incident then yes of course I would oblige.

FMJ

iTrader: (2)

Ok so you are saying that you do not have to follow the law of this land? Well you don't but you will be punished for it.

In certain circumstances by not doing it you can legally be detained, fined, held, arrested, have physical force used against you, be given a prison sentence and have your property damaged. The law allows all of this towards those who obviously do not have any regard for it.

So you would rather not have the Police?

Good luck with that one sir. Survival of the fittest it is then? Because without law unless you are physically stronger or well armed you will have all you value taken from you and I don't just mean possessions. Out of interest why do you live in this country? Maybe a lawless land might appeal more?

I'm personally glad that if somebody wrongs me the state provides a service to deal with them and to prevent their kind doing so in the first place. No the state may not be able to be wholly effective. Crime will always be present, criminals will always be one step ahead, punishments will be ineffective and mistakes will be made but far better that then barricading yourself in your home at night and having to carry a weapon at all times for your own safety.

I'm not sure there is much else that can be said to make it much clearer? Hopefully you will get by in life without need of the help of the state for which you happily live in but seem to show so much disregard for.

FMJ

iTrader: (2)

Your opinion. Try it, see what happens. People who think this defense works are often proved wrong. It's quite amusing to see.

hodgy0_2

The state versus the individual has exercised the minds of some of the words greatest thinkers

I do sympathise with both points of view, it is not an easy question to answer tbh

cmr SCOOBY

I gave trev jars a blow job

stipete75

You work for a corporation, The **** soldiers were just following orders.
It's all about power and control, do as your told or else we will damage your property and physically hurt you. Freedom of speech.......slowly being eradicated, all the false flags to scare us into giving the state/police more control over us........A police state in the making.

cmr SCOOBY

GTA cops are brutal, bump into the back of a cop car at 5mph and the will sometimes (not always), shoot you immediately.

stipete75

Lol

stipete75

I'd probably end up being manhandled and hurt by 2 or 3 armed men in intimidating black uniforms(assault ABH/GBH for minding my own business.
Because I wouldn't co-operate.
Then internal affairs would cover it up so you would all get away Scott free to keep on bullying innocent people.
About cover it??
Amusing,, maybe if you are a little crazy in the head,,,now that's a very dangerous thing!!! a crazy man with power!

stipete75

Agreed, it certainly is a tricky one.

Felix.

as stated earlier...

"failing to produce you licence to an officer when asked to do so" - is an offence

If you produce your licence, then we can get your name, DOB, address from that

If you don't produce it, you will be technically reported for that offence, in which you will have to provide you name, DOB, address; for a summons.

Hence either way, you will end up providing it.

You could of course still refuse to provide them, in which case you will be arrested and remanded to court - which seems a bit silly if you are just trying to prove a point; but you will leave the police little option.


On the subject of stop checks; if i'm given a name of a suspect for a specific crime - say you report that a male called Fred Bloggs has just put a brick through your car window and ran off stealing your favourite laptop and satnav. Then if we stop a male in the area say 5 minutes later who refused his details - we can use that as weight against him. Or would you be happy if we came back to you and said "we stopped a male but he wouldn't tell us his name so we had to let him go"

And my other example of stopping people who wander your estates at night looking for burgling opportunities. A lot of these will have bail conditions that they may have breached or may be wanted or may have intelligence against them. Do we have to wait until they commit the burglary before we act, or do you want us to try and target criminals and prevent the crime. We can't do this if people refuse their details.

I have to say, i am yet to find someone who refuses their details on stop checks. Yes, you are right as they do not have to, but it just doesn't happen.

Felix.

I think its more about putting the bad guys away and preventing crimes. Keeping the roads safe from drink drivers and penalising people who can't drive a car properly

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

The thing here is that if you give the police a reason to stop you then they can, and i am not anti police but people bring the likes of illegal numberplates/spacing/type upon themselves.

This one line says it all...
EVERY Subaru Impreza, import or not, can fit a standard plate on the standard fitments, that means ALL Subaru Impreza imports that have been imported into the country after 1999 (because the law changed), have to fit said standard plates, anything else and you are breaking the law in practice.

Certain models of cars that cannot fit the standard plate size (Evo's for instance that need a square plate with smaller lettering), can fit them.

Tony