Stop and search: The facts

by Emma Bower

Stop and search powers, which allow the police to combat street crime and other forms of anti-social behaviour, have always been a preferred, albeit contested, method used by the Metropolitan Police as well as other forces to prevent future crimes taking place.

Recently, the controversial power has fallen under the spotlight yet again, as Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 – which allowed officers to stop and search anyone in a specific area for any reason – has been deemed illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

Last month, High Court judges said the Act went against privacy laws after a lengthy legal battle was brought forward against the UK by two photographers who believed police officers abused their powers when they stopped and searched them on their way to an anti-arms protest.

Many people, including photographers, feel that the random stop and search is a breach of their human rights and can simply be a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Up to 2,000 members of the photographers’ campaign group I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist felt so strongly that they organised a protest in Trafalgar Square last month, urging the police to show leniancy as many of them have been questioned for simply taking a picture of the Houses of Parliament while others have had their equipment confiscated.

Stopped

Speaking to CNN, freelance photographer Johnathan Warren said he has been stopped by the police on many occasions:

“I was stopped and searched, even though I had my press card and was an accredited photographer. I showed it to the police, but they didn’t believe me. They went through my bag and my pockets.”

He added: “We won’t be intimidated.”

A Home Office spokesman said: “Stop and search under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is an important tool in a package of measures in the ongoing fight against terrorism.

“We are disappointed with the European Court of Human Rights ruling in this case as we won on these challenges in the UK courts, including the House of Lords."

"We are considering the judgement and will seek to appeal."

"Pending the outcome of this appeal, the police will continue to have these powers available to them.”

Some fear that the right to stop and search under Section 44 echoes the notorious ‘Sus’ (Suspect) laws of the early ’80s, which allowed police to stop, search and arrest anyone they chose as a crime prevention tactic.

But it was widely believed that officers abused the law by targeting young black males.

This resulted in a series of riots, beginning in April 1980 when police raided the notorious Black and White Cafe in St Pauls, Bristol, triggering the most serious riots on mainland Britain since before World War II.

Riots

The following year saw the Brixton riots erupt after the police stopped and searched 943 people – the vast majority black – and yet arrested only 118.

Violent protests on the streets left police cars and properties burned out.

In the same year Toxteth, Liverpool, was the scene of further riots.

Police were forced to withdraw as 150 buildings were torched and 781 officers hurt.

The law was hastily abolished that same year.

Many perceive that specific ethnic minorities tend to be targeted.

In 2007, the Met found that the police’s use of Section 44 was doing “untold harm” to ethnic communities in London, particularly muslims.

However, there are those who insist that by randomly searching individuals even without sufficient grounds to suspect misdemeanours, weapons and drugs can be cleared from our streets.

Justified

A police officer, who wished to remain anonymous, believed the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights to be fairly justified and added:

“The stop and search power is open to abuse as you do not have to have reasonable grounds to suspect that the subject of the search is in possession of articles as you do for other stop searches.

"As the profile for terrorists in the United Kingdom is extremely diverse, those given the power to perform stop searches can easily abuse this power.

“I do not believe there will be an increase in crime if this power is revoked as police are still legally required to use this power as long as it has been authorised by a chief officer in the constable’s serving force.

"If this power is deemed illegal in the UK there will be no adverse effect in dealing with crime as there are other sections of the Act to search potential terror suspects for articles once you have established reasonable grounds to suspect."

Fear

Annapaola Melis, a third-year PR student at London College of Communication, told Arts London News:

“I don’t want to be stopped and searched without any proof. Random stops and searches aren’t assuring me any safety.”

Vilvin Sabu, a womens wear student at London College of Fashion, said:

“With all of the crime, terrorism, drugs and everything that is happening I think that if that’s what it takes to help reduce it, it’s fine.

"How else are the police supposed to know? As citizens we should be as cooperative as possible.

“It is actually nice to know that someone is keeping an eye out from time to time and that there is an awareness there,” added Natasha Mason, a student at Central Saint Martins.

“It has been a deterrent, for sure. They will need to have some kind of presence in some other way if and when these random searches are stopped.”

With the mixed public opinion it appears the question the European Courts must decide is whether Section 44 aids public saftey and well-being, or if in fact,it does the opposite and breaches our human rights.

A student experience

Nana Ade-Amoakah, a third-year student at the LCC, recounted her experience, which took place before the European ruling.

“I was alone, trying to get a bus from Piccadilly Circus back home.

"I engaged in a conversation with a group of guys standing at the bus stop."

Before long we were surrounded by the police.

They claimed that two of the guys had been seen by a plain-clothed officer, selling unknown items suspected of being drugs.

And on this basis we were all to be searched.

“My interpretation of stop and search was that you needed reasonable evidence to search a person.

"I therefore explained that, if the plain-clothed police officer had genuinely been present, then they should know that there was no reason for me to be searched as I’d done nothing – but I was told to keep quiet.

“Eventually, a female police officer came over and began questioning me."

"She asked me what I did, where I was coming from, where I was going to and why I was standing there with those men.

“She asked for my bag, which I handed over to her.

"She then managed to spill the contents of my tobacco pouch.

"By then I was at the end of my tether.

"I’d previously supported stop and search but suddenly realised it’s nothing but a joke.

“I was horrified by the entire event and ended up getting on the bus in floods of tears.

"The following morning, when I decided that I wanted to report the incident, I realised that I couldn’t because the officer hadn’t given me any information about herself.”

A photographers viewpoint

The police already have sufficient powers to combat terrorism under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000. A police officer ‘may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.’

A police officer under this section of the Act also has the power to ‘seize and retain’ anything ‘which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.’

Section 44 unreasonably extends these powers so that a police officer can stop and search you without any reasonable suspicion, in areas designated as ‘expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.’

Under Section 44 we have all become potential suspects of stop and search powers, no matter what we are doing, or not doing.

The police are using these powers to harass and intimidate photographers.

For example, amateur photographer Phil Smith was taking pictures of the Christmas lights being turned on in Ipswich when he was taken down a side street for a formal stop and search.

He was then told not to take any more photographs and asked to delete the pictures he had already taken.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS

Whether you are for or against random stop and search, it may one day affect you, so if that happens, be armed with the knowledge of your rights.

As a result of the Government’s decision to seek to appeal the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which allows random stop and search, it still remains legal to use Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in specified locations across London, such as airports.

If the officer asks you to remove more than your coat and gloves, or anything you wear for religious reasons, they must take you somewhere out of public view.

Only a police officer can carry out a search on you, and usually only then if they have good reason to suspect that you are carrying certain items.

They can also search your vehicle, even if you aren’t present, but they must leave a notice to say what they’ve done.

You should not be stopped or searched just because of your age, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, the way you dress or because you’ve committed a crime in the past.

You do not have to give the officer your name and address, but it is helpful should you wish to complain.

The police will keep your information on file in case they need to contact you later.

You do not have to provide DNA data during the search.

You can’t refuse to be body scanned at airports, but this is also under scrutiny by human rights organisations.