FEBRUARY 2026 REPORT (3-5PM)
FEBRUARY 2026 REPORT (3-5PM)
DCCS Panel members along with Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham, Karen Janicka (BWV Subject Matter Expert for Devon & Cornwall) and welcomed new panel members.
This month’s cases were filtered for both Stop and Search and Use of Force as follows:
Thematic: Officers with higher disproportionality rates
BCU Area: Alliance Operations
Before observing body-worn footage selected by the panel from the previous month's cases, the Chair reminded panel members of wellness practice and the opportunity for debriefing at the end of the meeting.
The following report identifies points to action, D&C Police responses, case assessments and outstanding areas that require investigation.
Body-Worn Video Assessment .
Body-Worn Video Assessment .
ASSESSING D&C POLICE STOP AND SEARCH [S&S]
FEBRUARY 2026 REPORT (3-5PM)
Body-Worn Videos
Via Microsoft Teams, at the start of each case BWV Systems Administrator Karen Janicka, played the clip selected by the panel before members completed their anonymous assessment, discussed and submitted the below feedback.
Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham circulated this report with actions and recommendations to D&C Police Basic Command Unit, Operations Department, Learning and Development, Force Stop and Search Lead and Force Use of Force Lead.
All confirmed discussions, decisions and/or actions taken by officers and supervisors following receipt of the DCCS Panel report are identified in bold blue text.
Panel members use GOWISELY as part of their scrutiny assessment. It is an acronym that officers must use to provide information to a subject before the Stop and Search. If the GOWISELY procedure is not followed then the S&S is highly likely to have been unlawful.
GROUNDS of the search
OBJECT of the search
WARRANT card [if not in uniform]
IDENTITY [officer name & number]
STATION [where officer is based]
ENTITLEMENT to receipt
LEGAL power used
YOU are detained for S&S
S&S Case 1 - Arrest of a black man who was driving under the influence of a drug - cannabis with more cannabis within the vehicle.
Actions to be commended:
Control of the Incident: Officers ensured safety, moved the vehicle off the road and explained the process involved when a police car follows you with lights on. The situation was effectively de-escalated. Officers appeared confident and professional.
Operational Success: Drug test indicated presence of drugs and was arrested for driving under the influence.
Necessary: The majority of the Panel agreed the stop and search was necessary.
Proportionate: Most of the Panel agreed the incident was proportionate, Officer numbers and response appropriate for the situation.
Ethical: The majority of the Panel agreed the stop and search was ethical.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
GOWISELY:Explanation of GOWISELY elements was very clear; including explaining under which the search was taking place. The panel highlighted that this search is evidence of good policing.
Communication & Explanation: Legal terminology should be explained clearly to subjects for transparency.
The definition of “excess specified” with drinking is judged on units but how does it work when it comes to drugs.
It was noted that the legal limit for cannabis while driving in the UK is 2 micrograms per litre of blood.
The panel also raised a question about “ double locking” which was a term used by the officer.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“ Like a breathalyzer, roadside drug testing serves as a preliminary indicator to justify an arrest; final charges depend on a follow-up laboratory blood test to confirm precise drug levels.
Regarding the handcuffing and overall interaction, I thought the encounter was generally handled well.
I’ll go through it in sequence. The initial stop and approach felt slightly combative at first.
To clarify, the stop occurred because a member of the public had reported poor driving. Officers questioned why the driver didn’t stop when signaled with blue lights. From what I observed, once the officer realised there may have been some misunderstanding about the legal requirement, they explained that blue lights alone , even without sirens, it’s required of drivers to pull over when it is safe to do so. Under the Road Traffic Act, drivers must stop when directed by emergency service vehicles, regardless of whether they believe the signal is intended for them.
In terms of handcuffing, I would have preferred a clearer explanation to the individual at the time, as that may have answered some of the concerns raised. The decision to apply handcuffs is largely at the officer’s discretion. Handcuffs are not only used to prevent harm to officers, the individual, or the public, but also to prevent the destruction or concealment of evidence particularly relevant in suspected drug possession, where evidence could easily be discarded.
The “double-locking” of handcuffs refers to a safety feature that prevents them from tightening further. Officers are trained to double-lock cuffs immediately to minimise discomfort or injury. The remainder of the interaction felt calm, measured, and professional.
Finally, I appreciated the officer’s closing conversation, particularly the questions about responsibilities at home. That demonstrated a duty-of-care mindset, ensuring that the arrest wouldn’t unintentionally create issues for dependents or vulnerable individuals.”
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
S&S Case 2 - Black man known for drug use in a blue car stopped and searched for the possession of drugs and was arrested for driving under the influence of drugs.
Actions to be commended:
Control of the Incident: The scene was chaotic initially as the car came to a stop at a petrol station, the environment added additional challenges such as moving vehicles, public visibility, and safety consideration.
The situation became more controlled once additional officers arrived.
Necessary: The majority of the Panel agreed the stop and search was necessary, Some unsure as of the stop and search due to the intelligence being for alcohol but the suspect was tested for drugs.
Proportionate: Most of the Panel agreed the incident was proportionate, though the number of officers was out of proportion as the suspect was very calm.
Ethical: The majority of the Panel agreed the stop and search was ethical. Minor points regarding the curiosity of the officers on the body armour of the suspect.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:GOWISELY: Explanation of GOWISELY elements was very unclear in the beginning; Panel suggested communicating early explanation would provide clarity to the suspect.
Operational Considerations: It was evident that there was a large presence of offices and the panel wonders if this was proportionate or if it was an action based on the intel!. With the presence meant a communication deficit or lack of it for this circumstance.
The panel reflected on the necessity of moving the subject to a less busy space for the search however it was also reflected upon that operating in a high-risk location; a petrol station meant balancing immediate safety and public visibility against the need to move the individual for privacy.
Panel members raised a concern on the aftercare provided to the suspect in this situation based on what the officers were presented with..
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“ While the initial scene on the forecourt was chaotic due to environmental risks and a lack of early, structured communication following the GOWISELY, the situation stabilized once additional officers arrived. The discovery of body armour was an important moment of professional curiosity; while the roadside inquiry was limited, the formal custody booking process provides a safety net for addressing those underlying welfare and safeguarding concerns. Ultimately, the encounter benefited from a calm tone, but would have been improved by more purpose-driven communication and a clearer explanation of legal authority from the outset.”
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
FEBRUARY 2026 REPORT (3-5PM)
Body-Worn Videos
Panel members use PLANTER as part of their Use of Force scrutiny assessment:
PROPORTIONATE amount of force implemented
LENGTH of force used
ACTIONS of subject warranted use of force
NECESSARY to use force to protect the subject, officers or members of the public
TYPE used was minimum appropriate
ETHICAL to use force in the situation
REASONABLE for officer(s) to employ
UOF CASE 1 - A black man arrested for being drunk and disorderly.
Actions to be commended:
Communication & De-escalation: The officers tried to have a calm conversation with the suspect and asked him to leave the scene but he failed to co-operate and continued shouting which led to officers arresting him.
Wellbeing: The female officer asked the suspect why he was crying and if it was okay but perhaps the officers would have been more compassionate rather than just shouting at him.
Outcome: Officers successfully restrained the subject in a chaotic environment and arrested for being drunk and disorderly.
PLANTER: Most of the Panel assessed protocol as generally followed.
Necessary: The majority of Panel members assessed the use of force as necessary, although. Some suggest that the situation would have been handled more calmly..
Proportionate: Most of the Panel agreed the incident was proportionate given the state of the suspect which could cause harm to either him or his surroundings.
Ethical Most Panel members assessed the use of force as ethical, but there were concerns around the officer repeatedly saying “Amsterdam” despite the individual saying “Sudan.”
Investigation, responses and learning required with:Communication & Leadership: Scene was chaotic; the panel observed that the officers contributed to the escalation as they kept shouting statements such as “move” at the suspect who was under the influence:; the Panel suggested speaking in a calmer tone would have de-escalated the situation.
Operational outcome: The panel raised concerns about how intoxicated individuals are handled in custody with questioning them yet they are not fully aware of what is happening and service offered in case of language barrier with the detain.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Jim Gale
“Once someone arrives at custody, the custody sergeant takes responsibility for their care. They conduct risk assessments aimed at ensuring the person’s safety and wellbeing while they’re in the custody suite.
Where there’s a language barrier, officers can use a service like LanguageLine. The individual can indicate their primary language, and an interpreter can assist over the phone. Sometimes this works well and helps communication, but there are occasions when it’s less effective particularly if the person is under the influence of alcohol or other substances, which can make meaningful conversation very difficult. If it becomes clear that communication isn’t productive at that moment, the priority shifts to safety. The individual may be placed in a cell designed to minimise the risk of harm, with regular observations carried out throughout the night and a meaningful conversation is called out the following morning when the alcohol wears off.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
Legal Requirements
Officers are mandated to switch on their body-worn video (BWV) cameras from the beginning of any incident. During a Stop and Search, officers must provide specific information to the person being searched. While there is no strictly prescribed order, the College of Policing recommends using the mnemonic GOWISELY to ensure all statutory elements are covered.
For Use of Force, the College of Policing toolkit outlines PLANTER as a structured approach to ensure actions are justified and proportionate.
What is Procedural Justice?
Panel members score each BWV case using a consistent academic framework to inform how well the officers did in meeting legal requirements but also in the way they treated the person being stopped. Procedural Justice involves the pillars outlined below:
Voice: Was the subject allowed to give their side of the story or ask questions (within reason)?
Neutrality: Were the officer’s decisions unbiased and guided by transparent reasoning?
Dignity and Respect: Was the subject treated with courtesy and respect throughout the encounter?
Trustworthy Motives: Did the officer seek to explain and encourage understanding?
Accessible communication: Was the language used clear and easily understood by the subject?
Appropriate Tone: Was the tone of voice calm, respectful, and suitable for the situation?
Interested in making a difference?
Improve accountability, transparency and trust between D&C Police and the communities they serve.
Receive free training, work alongside inspiring individuals and help make positive changes.
Scrutinise Stop & Search and Use of Force, or join sub-committees to share your skills or learn new ones.
