MARCH 2026 REPORT (7-9PM)
MARCH 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]
MARCH 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 young male in company with others who also matched a description of someone who stole at a local shop and they tried to walk away from the police station. Two male were arrested after the search.
Actions to be commended:
Communication: The third officer demonstrated calm, controlled and transparent communication, which helped manage the situation effectively. Panel members noted that the officer maintained a respectful tone and clearly explained actions, including responding appropriately when one of the youths asked why he was the only one placed in the police vehicle.
Language: One of the officers was heard asking the others to watch their language because children were present, showing awareness of the surrounding environment.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Use of language: Concerns were raised by the panel about inappropriate language used by one officer in the first part which panel members considered unnecessary and unprofessional.
GOWISELY: Panel members noted that GOWISELY was not clearly communicated at the start of the interaction, and in the last of the video the object of the search was not clearly stated, with officers referring only to a robbery.
Team communication and coordination: In the first part of the incident, one officer arrested a youth and when asked the reason, another officer responded that he did not know, which created a sense of lack of coordination and team imbalance.
language: Panel members highlighted that communication between officers and with the individuals involved could have been clearer, particularly in the earlier part of the interaction.
Officer welfare and support: The panel noted that the female officers were being spoken to disrespectfully by the youths, raising a question about whether there should be additional support for officers in such situations to ensure both safety and professional engagement are maintained.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Roy Linden
“When we go through these things, unfortunately I am seeing them for the first time as you are as well, so I don’t have an idea of what happened beforehand. When it comes to knowing the background, I genuinely can’t answer that question. If colleagues need that detail, we can absolutely find it. For GOWISELY, I heard it with the exception of the object in both accounts. It could have been clearer that the object being searched for was missing. In law, the same threshold is needed to conduct a search as it is for an arrest, reasonable grounds to suspect. The officers could have gone straight to arrest. In this case, I think they were justifiable in choosing to search first as they were dealing with young people.
I have no idea what additional information was available in this circumstance, but based on description alone the officers may have had enough reasonable grounds to suspect the arrest. There are situations where officers are justified in using stronger language to communicate in a dynamic, normally high-risk scenario, and we would communicate based on the individual involved. That is age dependent and vulnerability dependent, and it is part of our training. Sometimes challenging language may be used to gain control where there is a significant physical threat to others or officers. This was not that scenario, for the reasons the panel have said, and I think there is probably a broader learning point here.”
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 - A young male in a vehicle was stopped on intel for drugs
Actions to be commended:
De-escalation: The officer demonstrated appropriate judgement regarding the use of handcuffs, recognising that cuffs are not always required and managing the situation without escalating unnecessarily.
Communication: The officer maintained professional and engaging communication, using levelling language without resorting to swearing, which was positively noted by the panel.
GOWISELY: GOWISELY was followed during the encounter, and the officer conducted the search in a thorough and controlled manner.
Teamwork between the officers:The interaction showed good engagement with the individuals present, with one officer communicating with the driver while the other conducted the search.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Some panel members noted that the officer could potentially have explained the search process in more detail, particularly outlining what would happen during the search and where the search would take place, although it was also acknowledged that the officer may have judged that keeping communication brief helped maintain a calm situation.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Roy Linden
“So, language-wise, I don’t like the word mate and it’s definitely less offensive than a swear word, but there are other forms of levelling language. I like the idea of levelling down so we are not condescending or overly officious, but mate is not one of my favourite words. From a technical police perspective, the searches we’ve seen tonight were not particularly good practice in terms of a proper quadrant search, which is what is taught, overlapping quadrants, really thorough, hands to skin. That is what is trained within APP.
In terms of the technical side of the search, I am less content. That said, if there is intelligence linking to a specific item or location, officers should go straight to that, rule it in or out, and then you may not need to complete the rest of the search. In terms of explaining the process, I think that is a judgement call for each officer. I wouldn’t want to get to such an officious level that we are describing a full quadrant search to every individual. Officers deal with people differently.
If individuals are being searched more than once, then they may need a fuller explanation, but that remains a judgement call and we do train that in officer safety training. Sometimes giving too much explanation could actually inflate the situation. It didn’t stand out to me that this was a situation where a lot of time explaining the process was necessary. When the officer began explaining the form, it seemed to irritate the individual, who actually wanted to leave, so judgement had to change quickly, and we did see that here.
A question was raised about the officer standing away from the car while another officer spoke to the driver, particularly as there was also a passenger in the vehicle. It was explained that this is normal practice. One officer takes the lead while the other acts as a cover officer, standing back to maintain safety and observe the wider environment. The position the officer took actually provided a good visual wrap around for the body-worn video and gave full coverage of the vehicle and surrounding context.”
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]
MARCH 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 - Report that there was damage caused to a shop, the same suspect damaged it earlier and has stolen stuff from the same shop before and the same individual calls the police to come get him as he damaged a shop door and provides his address.
Actions to be commended:
Professional and calm handling of the incident: The panel considered this a positive example of policing, noting that officers handled the situation calmly and professionally throughout.
Safeguarding and duty of care: Officers demonstrated appropriate care and safeguarding, particularly in how they responded to the individual’s injury and arranged for him to be taken to hospital.
Cooperation and controlled engagement: It was noted that the individual was compliant and cooperative, and officers managed the interaction in a measured and controlled manner.
Use of information to inform decision-making: The presence of warning markers on the police system (including drugs, ailment, self-harm and violent markers) likely informed the officers’ decisions, including the use of handcuffs.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:Communication when applying handcuffs: Some panel members questioned whether the reason for applying handcuffs was clearly explained
Response to medical concerns: The panel noted that the individual raised concerns about his injured hand early in the interaction. While officers eventually responded appropriately and arranged medical assistance, there was a question as to whether this response could have been quicker.
Necessity and proportionality of handcuffs: Questions were raised about whether handcuffs were necessary given the individual appeared compliant, although it was recognised that officers may have been acting based on prior intelligence and warning markers.
Accuracy of records and data: A discrepancy was observed between the recorded date of the incident on the video and the documentation, highlighting the need for clarity and accuracy in records.
Managing repeat or low-level offenders: The panel raised a broader question about how officers manage repeat or low-level offenders during encounters and how this may influence operational decision-making during stop and search situations.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Roy Linden
“Thank you. Really helpful comments as always. The lawful justification for applying handcuffs, just to remind everyone, is to prevent escape and prevent injury to the individual or others. That is the definition, but it is interpreted by the officer. With the warning markers and the violent offence, albeit related to property beforehand, the use of handcuffs was entirely justified in my view.
I actually picked up something different. We don’t have the full context of what other officers may have already told the male, but the officer who applied the handcuffs appeared to go straight in to arrest without much communication. Given that the individual appeared broadly compliant, albeit with some instability and unpredictability, I would have preferred a bit more communication, such as saying, “I am approaching you, I am going to arrest you, and I am going to apply handcuffs.”
That said, I do agree with panel members that once the handcuffs were applied there was a good level of communication. There is also a realism among officers that we do not want to appear uncertain in front of members of the public, particularly when making an arrest, which may explain why it took a moment to work through what they were doing.
I was pleased to see that the officers eventually adjusted the handcuffs. In approved practice there are only two main justifications for handcuffing someone to the front: long-distance transport, such as moving someone to a different custody centre, or where there is an injury.
In this case the injury justification applied. It is normally a riskier position for officers when dealing with someone potentially violent, so it needs to be justified. Once they began speaking with the individual, I was pleased to see they readjusted and took time to care for him. From my perspective, and probably for yourselves as well, it is difficult when we do not have all the background information that the officers had. Could they have avoided using handcuffs? The male told officers his hand was broken, but officers also have to apply a degree of professional scepticism. He may not have broken his hand, and there were warning markers indicating previous violence. Based on the information available, I would have applied the handcuffs first and then worked through the situation with calm communication and reassessed what the individual was saying, making adjustments if necessary. If officers start without handcuffs and the situation escalates, they may lose control and be unable to safely manage the situation.
So, on reflection, applying handcuffs first and then adjusting the position once they had more information may have been the right approach. A question was raised about dealing with the same individuals repeatedly and how officers manage that fatigue. That is a really important point.
Officers are trained to treat every encounter as a fresh encounter and not make assumptions based solely on previous interactions. Warning markers provide information to help guide an approach, but they should not determine how officers treat someone at the moment. Each situation must be assessed based on what is happening at that time. Compassion fatigue is something seen across many public services, not just policing. It is challenging, and officers are expected to remain professional even when encountering the same individuals repeatedly. Another point raised from experience was that it is unusual for someone to call the police and say they have committed an offence and ask officers to attend.
That can raise suspicions for officers, as it may appear they are being drawn into a situation where something else could happen. Officers therefore have to approach with caution and be prepared for worst-case scenarios. In this case it later became clear that the individual’s alcohol dependency had taken over his life and he was committing low-level offences as a way of returning to prison, which is ultimately where he ended up. Being called by someone confessing to an offence would therefore naturally raise caution for officers attending the scene. It is very helpful to hear perspectives from those with operational experience, as it is easy to analyse these situations from a more detached position while watching the footage.
Officers also apply professional scepticism in similar situations, such as when dealing with drug-dependent individuals who may be seeking to return to custody or transport drugs internally into prison. Overall, while the intervention highlighted some important nuances, I still would have preferred to see slightly clearer communication at the start of the interaction.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
UOF CASE 2 - A 9 year old male child in a foster home with a traumatic background got a hold of knives, located himself in a room and threatened to harm himself, his sister and foster mother who were in the house.
Actions to be commended:
Professional and calm handling of the incident: The panel considered the incident very well handled, with officers demonstrating professionalism and calm communication that helped bring the situation to a safe conclusion.
Rapport and age-appropriate engagement: The male officer was particularly commended for building strong rapport with the young person and communicating in a calm, respectful and age-appropriate way, which helped the child feel comfortable enough to speak openly.
De-escalation and psychological safety: Officers created a safe and supportive environment that allowed the young person to engage in conversation, showing how positive dialogue can support de-escalation and trust.
Teamwork: The interaction demonstrated good teamwork, and the officer’s judgement during a difficult moment was recognised, with panel members noting that the officer should be commended for the decision he made.
Example of good policing practice: Overall, the panel viewed the incident as a strong example of effective policing, particularly when dealing with a vulnerable young person.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Communication: Some panel members suggested that having several officers speaking at the same time may have been overwhelming, particularly for a young person, and that having one officer lead communication could help maintain clarity and calmness.
Managing sensory and emotional impact: It was noted that multiple officers physically touching the young person while attempting to calm him may have been overwhelming, particularly where there may be neurodiversity considerations.
Training for managing children in crisis: A question was raised about whether officers receive specific training for dealing with children in crisis situations, particularly where there are threats of self-harm or weapons involved.
Boundaries of questioning: Some panel members questioned whether probing questions about previous behaviour or experiences were appropriate, as officers may not be trained to explore such issues in depth and may instead need to focus on neutral conversation and safeguarding.
Appropriateness of follow-up conversation: The panel reflected on the appropriateness of the conversation towards the end of the interaction, although it was recognised that the intent was to build rapport and support the young person.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Roy Linden
“I was just going to say, in terms of the question about the appropriateness of the final part, in the past when we have seen colleagues who have done a really good job, we have sometimes recommended that the colleague is spoken to and recognised. The male officer was absolutely superb in how he dealt with the situation. He kept the young person talking throughout and then clearly communicated when he needed to go in. It was incredibly impressive to watch, and I feel strongly that the officer should be congratulated for that.
I think there are lots of nods around the room agreeing with that. Officers do receive feedback once we have reviewed their videos, and I provide that feedback directly. It will be a personal conversation with me, usually within a week of this meeting, and wherever possible face to face. I know the officers involved and work frequently at their stations, so I will make sure that happens.
This example shows the complexity of policing. In terms of a formal role, a nine-year-old cannot commit a crime, but in reality the police officer is stepping into a health and social care space. There is always a judgement call about when the tipping point is reached and officers need to intervene. I think the officers struck that balance well. There was also good awareness of the environment, with officers unlocking doors, allowing clear escape routes, and ensuring colleagues had access if needed. That implicit safety awareness was very effective. On the question about conversation at the end, I am relatively neutral.
Officers are not trained social workers, and moving the conversation entirely into neutral topics might have felt unnatural when they were there dealing with a serious situation. At the same time, officers are now trained to communicate more conversationally rather than using a rigid checklist. That approach can sometimes overlap with social care questioning, but normally the expectation is that the matter is then handed over to social care. There should be an immediate referral and a transition into social care-led support, although in practice that is not always seamless.
Overall, I was really content watching that incident. It showed exemplary behaviour and the officers will be recognised for their actions. It is good that the young person was able to return home safely. I will also flag this example to our learning and development team so it can be used in training for new and existing officers, as an example of what works well. Every interaction can be an intervention, particularly with young people. An officer who communicates well and builds trust may remain someone that a young person remembers and feels able to approach in the future. That interaction can make a difference.
This example also showed how language can be levelled appropriately without slipping into unprofessional language. It demonstrated that officers can communicate clearly, remain respectful, and adapt their language to the situation and the age of the person involved. The panel’s feedback has been very rich and helpful. It shows different perspectives and highlights important points about communication, trauma-informed policing, and age-appropriate engagement.
This example could be used as a positive case study within training. Although it was upsetting to see a child in that situation, there were many positive aspects in how it was handled and it highlights the difficult and complex role officers play in supporting vulnerable individuals.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
“Thank you everyone for attending and giving us two hours of your time. Really appreciate the attention and diligence you have given tonight, as usual. Thank you all, and let’s keep our fi ngers crossed that the weather continues as it has today and that the rain doesn’t return too quickly. I’ll stay on a bit longer if anyone would like to have a chat; if not, thank you again for your time and see you again next month.”
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.
