APRIL 2026 REPORT (7-9PM)
APRIL 2026 REPORT (7-9PM)
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]
APRIL 2026 REPORT (7-9PM)
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 - A male suspected of drug dealing was observed attending an area known for drug-related activity. Intelligence also indicated possible involvement in drug dealing.
Actions to be commended:
Intelligence-Led Policing and Proactive Response: The panel recognised that officers appropriately acted on intelligence suggesting drug-related activity. This was viewed positively as it demonstrated proactive policing, with officers responding to information rather than acting without basis. The search was considered to be necessary with suspected criminal activity, showing appropriate operational intent.
Scene Management in a Dynamic Environment: The panel noted that the situation involved multiple moving parts and potential volatility, yet officers were still able to maintain control. This was viewed as a positive, with the panel acknowledging that managing fast-moving and complex encounters requires adaptability and composure.
Coordination and Operational Effectiveness: The panel observed that officers appeared to coordinate effectively as a team, particularly given the complexity of the situation. This was interpreted as a positive indication of teamwork, with officers working together to maintain control and support each other during the encounter.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Use of Force Proportionality and Handling of Injury: The panel raised concerns about whether the level of force used was appropriate, particularly given the subject’s visible injury and complaints of pain. There was a view that while control was necessary, officers should also consider whether alternative handling techniques could have reduced the risk of aggravating the injury. This reflects a concern about balancing operational necessity with individual welfare.
Duty of Care and Injury Management: The panel emphasised the importance of a clear and consistent approach to managing injuries during stop and search encounters. This included questions about: How officers should respond when an individual reports or displays an injury and When it is appropriate to seek medical assistance? There was also consideration of whether the subject’s expressions of pain were sufficiently acknowledged and acted upon, highlighting a focus on welfare and safeguarding.
Leadership and Scene Management: A concern for the panel was the leadership nature within a multi-officer environment. It was noted that it was not always evident who was in charge, which may have contributed to confusion and reduced coordination. The panel highlighted the need for clearer expectations around scene command and control, particularly in dynamic situations.
Communication and Coordination: It was also identified that there were issues with overlapping communication and officers speaking over one another, which created a confusing environment. This was seen as impacting clarity and effectiveness.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“ Thank you. I acknowledge the comments regarding the noise and lack of clarity in the early stages. This interaction was based on community intelligence about a male suspected of drug dealing in Truro. The officers involved were part of a neighbourhood support team operating in plain clothes. This approach helps avoid detection but means body-worn video may not be activated immediately, which can limit available footage. There was likely more than one individual involved.
A second person, believed to be connected to the suspected drug activity, was also stopped and searched. In terms of leadership, the team was led by a sergeant who was present. However, I accept that it was not clear who was in charge, and communication lacked clarity, particularly in the early stages. Regarding the injury, it is difficult to determine whether it was genuine or a distraction.
However, it should be treated seriously. Officers could have engaged earlier by asking how to proceed in a way that minimises pain. That type of communication did occur later at the hospital but should have happened sooner. All officers receive annual first aid training, but this is limited. In cases of suspected dislocation, the approach is to immobilise the injury and minimise movement until medical professionals can assess it. The response depends on the severity of the injury.
Officers may call an ambulance or take the individual directly to hospital. Current practice is to prioritise hospital treatment before custody where injuries are more serious. That is what happened in this case. At the hospital, further procedures, including a search, were necessary to ensure safety before treatment. In relation to mental health, assessing capacity in such situations is challenging. Officers must make quick judgments based on behaviour, risk, and available information.”
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 - An individual was reported by door staff as having previously been seen with a knife, raising concerns that she may be carrying a weapon on a regular basis.
Actions to be commended:
Professional Conduct and De-escalation: The panel described the interaction as calm, controlled, and professional throughout. Officers maintained composure despite the individual appearing intoxicated, which was seen as supporting effective de-escalation and preventing the situation from escalating further.
Communication and Delivery of GO WISELY: The delivery of GO WISELY as a strong example of good practice. It was clear, well-paced and easy to understand. The panel viewed this as a positive example of transparent and accessible communication.
Respect for Dignity and Privacy: The panel commended officers for moving the individual away from a public area before conducting the search as this action was seen as a clear demonstration of respect for the individual’s dignity and privacy.
Search Conduct and Approach: The search was viewed as being carried out thoroughly and respectfully. Officers remained calm and avoided unnecessary escalation, which reflected a measured and proportionate approach to the situation.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Availability of gender appropriate officers for the search: There was a concern raised about the absence of a female officer to conduct the search highlighting that it may be inappropriate for the male officers to search the female individual.
Subject Engagement & Listening: It was noted that the individual was upset and potentially was not given enough opportunity to express her perspective and this was viewed as a potential risk as the situation could have escalated further.
Intelligence Reliability & Repetition: Questions were raised on whether the individual had previously been found with a knife and the grounds on reliance on repeated reports from door staff who reported the incident inquiring where the line for review the credibility of intelligence is drawn as well as Concerns about whether grounds were based on: Verified evidence (e.g. CCTV) or Or word of mouth.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“ Thank you all. On capability, we often refer to a sliding scale. There is the Mental Capacity Act, which allows us to detain someone if they are unable to make decisions to safeguard themselves, for example, someone with a head injury who cannot recognise their need for medical attention. I don’t believe we were at that end of the scale here. We are instead considering a person’s ability to understand what is happening, including police interaction. In the previous case,
I did not see clear capacity issues, although the noise and chaos may have made understanding more difficult. In this case, alcohol was clearly a factor, based on behaviour and speech. However, not to the extent that the individual did not understand what was happening. She appeared able to engage and respond appropriately. We do have legislation available, such as drunk and disorderly, but that would have been a disproportionate response in this situation. Although there was some swearing, it did not justify arrest.
Historically, “drunk and incapable” was used to safeguard individuals, but this is less common now, as custody is not always the most appropriate environment. There is a range of options available. In this case, the individual demonstrated understanding. It was late at night, and officers did discuss her welfare, including whether she was going home. An option could have been to ensure she was safely off the streets, depending on circumstances. In terms of officer actions, there was good decision-making in moving her away from a busy area. However, we must recognise that a lone female at night may feel vulnerable, even with police officers. Reassurance is important in these situations.
I was initially concerned that more consideration had not been given to the availability of a female officer for the search. However, where this is not practicable, searching by male officers is permitted under legislation, particularly where there are safety concerns, such as the potential presence of a weapon. That said, it is essential to clearly communicate the reasons for this to the individual, which I felt was addressed, albeit later than ideal. Regarding body-worn video, positioning can be a challenge due to the equipment officers carry. However, this highlights the importance of ensuring cameras are positioned effectively, as poor angles can limit the evidential value.
On the question of the knife, there is no record of previous stop and search or weapons-related incidents involving this individual. The most recent incident was a disorder-related matter at a pub. It is possible that information provided by door staff may not always be accurate, or may be based on perception. Equally, it is possible that an item could have been discarded prior to the stop. Officers must act on the information available at the time, even if it later proves inaccurate. We cannot assume that future reports are unreliable. There is a balance between responding to information to keep people safe and recognising that not all information will be correct.”
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]
APRIL 2026 REPORT (7-9PM)
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 male individual who was previously in a relationship stacked her and is proving to be the risk to the female.
Actions to be commended:
Initial professionalism and calm approach: Panel members noted that officers began the interaction in a calm, composed, and professional manner, focusing on the task and maintaining control of the situation.
Clear explanation of legal powers (at points): Officers did attempt to reference legal grounds (e.g. Section 32) when challenged despite the suspect failing to comply with the officers as highlighted by the panel members.
Control of the situation: The detained individual was provocative and challenging, yet officers largely maintained control and continued the process which was a good way to maintain the situation by the officers which was a positive on the side of the officers.
Recovery of composure: Although tone shifted at times as noted by panel members,, officers were able to regain control and settle the interaction, preventing further escalation of the situation.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:Use of language and professionalism: The comment “you watch too much US TV” used by the male officers was unnecessary as it may be perceived as dismissive and patronising for the detained individual.
Communication and de-escalation: There were moments where officers engaged with provocation, leading to: Changes in tone and deduced effectiveness in de-escalation of the situation.
Clarity of legal explanation: While legislation was referenced (e.g. Section 25 / Section 32), explanations were: Not always clear to the detained individual and potentially confusing to the detained person
Handcuffing and restraint: A key concern highlighted by the panel was the subject escaping from handcuffs indicating possible issue with application or checking led to a second restraint and increased risk.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“ Thank you all for the comments. You’re right to highlight the issue with the handcuffs. The subject managing to escape them led to a second application of force and an escalation while officers tried to regain control. If handcuffs are applied correctly the first time, it significantly reduces this risk. This is a key part of officer safety training, as a loose cuff can pose a serious risk to both the individual and officers.
It’s something that is typically addressed in debriefs, as it’s a known and important safety issue. On the point about placing the individual in the vehicle, it’s unclear whether there were concerns about others in the property or potential evidence being disposed of. If not, it may have been more appropriate to secure, search, and place the individual in the vehicle first. This can create time and space, reducing unnecessary interaction. There were also instances of unhelpful, flippant comments, which risk escalating the situation rather than de-escalating it. Some of these were unnecessary and served no clear purpose.
This requires reflection, particularly in how communication may be perceived as asserting dominance. In terms of legal explanation, Section 32 was referenced correctly. However, clearer and fuller communication would help, for example, briefly explaining the power in a way the individual can understand. While not everyone will engage, it can reduce tension. Overall, securing the individual early and limiting unnecessary exchanges can help avoid escalation. Both parties may contribute to the interaction, but only one party is in uniform, and that responsibility is key.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
“Given that you’ve all given up your personal time to be here and help us learn, I think there is some good learning in this case, particularly around the offi cer who effectively led the interaction. ’m not aware of their wider experience, but it may be a relatively new role, so providing positive feedback is important.
They got the pace, tone, and key elements right, which is really valuable, as feedback in these panels is often focused on learning. There is also a point about being cautious with fl ippant commentary, as it can sometimes escalate situations rather than improve them.
We are all under pressure and dealing with signifi cant demands, so unnecessary aggravation is best avoided. As noted earlier, in situations like stop searches or similar encounters, the most challenging moments often create the most noise, stress, and tension. What helps is clear communication and leadership, with one person taking control of the interaction and speaking directly to the individual involved.
This ensures consistency in tone and reduces confusion or escalation. Ultimately, it is about getting the right approach for the individual, using appropriate tone, language, and style, and ensuring only one offi cer is leading communication at any given time.”
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.
