SEPTEMBER 2026 REPORT (7-9PM)
SEPTEMBER 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.
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]
SEPTEMBER 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 group identified by a member of the public as having just stolen steaks from Iceland ran on police arrival, and four packets of steak were found concealed behind a nearby bus stop.
Actions to be commended:
Control of the situation. The panel commended the officer's determination to follow through the challenging situation with the young people's changing accounts, pursuing the bank card question, and continuing to investigate the unknown vial rather than letting it go. This was recognised as exactly the kind of active, inquisitive policing the panel wanted to see. Also, managing four young people alone, locating concealed stolen goods quickly, and maintaining authority throughout a lengthy encounter before backup arrived was noted as a good policing example.
Leadership style of the female officer. The panel described the officer as firm but fair, willing to assert control ("you're not going anywhere") while remaining aware of the need to call for support and keep the situation from escalating.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Tone of voice: Panel members felt the offi cer's tone was occasionally challenging in a way that, while understandable, could have been moderated without losing authority particularly given that some of those present were under 16.
Narration of the search: The male offi cer who attended as backup conducted his search without explaining what he was doing. The panel felt this was a missed opportunity, particularly given the age of those being searched.
Officer safety, handling unknown substances: The officer was observed picking up and sniffi ng an unidentifi ed item. The panel's view was that unknown substances should be bagged and sent for testing rather than handled or smelled at the scene.
Wait for backup and lone working pressures: The panel noted how long the officer managed a complex, multi-person situation alone, and asked what the realistic wait time for support looks like in a large geographical area. There was however commendation for the way in which the officer managed the circumstance and what they were presented with while waiting without losing control or focus on the task.
Wellbeing of young people: Given the vulnerability indicators; young people away from home, one on a tag, another using a parent's bank card, the panel felt a brief wellbeing check would have been good practice and hoped this was conducted.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“I made the same observation; It's our largest geographical sector in the force, so we are healthily staffed on paper in terms of a threshold that we maintain safety on an ongoing basis. The reality of how that feels and how long it would take for backup to arrive can be very different based on where you are and what time of day it is. In an urban environment, perhaps much less of a wait, but this officer could be travelling from a distant location, they could be coming across the border. On that basis I made a similar observation about one person managing four young people on their own, acting practically on information and intelligence, which is no mean feat whilst awaiting backup. We are well staffed in terms of we don't currently have a staffing issue, but depending on where you are and when, it could be one.”
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 - Knife threat report, volatile adults with dog, group of young people
Actions to be commended:
Situational control: The officer arrived to a report of knife threats, faced two intoxicated adults with an aggressive dog on one side and a group of young people on the other, all in a live road environment. The panel recognised that his use of direct, commanding language was a deliberate and trained response to a genuinely dangerous scene, and noted that no force was used despite the level of chaos.
Appropriate handling of the young people: Despite the volatility surrounding the encounter, the offi cer remained considerate and relatively informal with the young people, who cooperated throughout. Panel members noted that none of them were handcuffed, which was felt to be the right call.
Self-regulation: The offiCer caught himself swearing, acknowledged it, and corrected his behaviour in the moment. The panel recognised this as a sign of self-awareness under pressure.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Selective searching - rationale not made visible: The young women in the group and one male who returned to the scene were not searched. The panel accepted that proportionate decisions were made, but felt the reasoning could have been more transparent in the moment.
Management of the dog and intoxicated handlers: The panel asked whether there is a protocol for separating an aggressive dog from a volatile encounter, and what the position would be if the dog had bitten someone after offi cers left the scene given the handlers' apparent intoxication.
GOWISELY: The officer told the young people their copy entitlement would expire after three months. The correct period is twelve months. The panel also raised whether, for young people who may not have email addresses or understand the system, responsible adults should be notifi ed of a stop and search by default.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
There is a real element around the risk at the beginning which I think is important. A briefing around a knife, four people to his right, two drunk people and an aggressive dog to his left, a live road behind him, that is a really, potentially very dangerous scene. The officer used escalation of verbal commands to control what is to his left, and is trained to do so. Did that come across directly? Yes. Did it control a dangerous situation? Yes. Was force used? No. I think if it had gone to the extreme of everybody being searched, I think we equally would have the question of whether that was proportionate. The officer found their own balance. I wouldn't say there's a glaring gap, and if anything I'm reassured it wasn't everybody.
If the young person says I don't want anything, actually, how does the police engage the family? My understanding is that a PPN should be completed for these stops and searches. I think that does happen, and policy has fairly recently changed following feedback that each stop and search with a child must have the PPN completed, and that will have the knock-on consequence of parents being informed and other partners as well.
If it was an XL Bully and muzzled it would be quite obvious legislation to follow, and of course if the dog is inadvertently violent it might hit other Dangerous Dogs Act offences. There are other avenues open which also include working with the local council around how dogs are managed. In terms of if the lady was arrested, what we then do with the dog has its own planning too. I think there's quite a high threshold. There's a real logistics issue in terms of managing a dog and an individual, which may play into how they deal with things. And of course you have the support of our dog units and specialist units if the dog is violent and needs to be managed.”
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
S&S Case 3 - Seen on town CCTV sharing a small packet around a group of friends at the reported offence location; drugs surrendered to officers.
Actions to be commended:
GOWISELY: The officer kept the situation calm, delivered GOWISELY, and resolved the matter appropriately with a community resolution. The panel noted that nothing was technically wrong and that this was a good example of a straightforward encounter managed without incident.
Appropriate outcome: The decision to use a community resolution, seizing the drugs and taking no further action, was felt to be proportionate and sensible given the circumstances
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Missed opportunity for meaningful engagement: This was the panel's strongest theme. The group were young, from out of the area, visibly frightened, and fully cooperative, exactly the conditions in which a brief, honest conversation about why drugs matter, what the consequences could be, and what choices they are making could have had real impact. The panel felt the offi cer processed the encounter correctly but too quickly.
Framing of consequences: The emphasis was almost entirely on reassurance ("this won't go on your record") rather than genuine challenge. The panel's view was that the weight should be on why this matters , not just on the outcome. It is noted that it is a student offi cer who was giving the feedback.
Narration of the search: The offi cer did not talk through the search as he conducted it. This was noted as a recurring gap across the evening's footage.
Communication pace and confi dence: The officer's speech was fast, and given the group were visitors to the region, key information; including the station name, may not have been clearly received. Panel members also noted the offi cer came across as uncertain rather than assured.
Wellbeing check: Panel members noted it was late, the group was mixed, and no one checked whether everyone present wanted to be there. Given the presence of substances and young people in a social setting, a brief informal check was felt to be good practice as to whether some of those young people wanted to be in that place.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“I think the feedback around an opportunity missed is what I observed to engage with young people who are listening and are compliant.
I do get the sense, and I may be wrong, that the officer may be a student officer, not sure. I just mention it as a thought, perhaps some of what we observed, I don't mean to sell it short or undermine student officers who may be very confident, but I got the sense he was orientating around the process more than thinking about his environment. Hopefully that will come with time.
Overall transactionally, was the process followed? Yes. But I agree, and certainly from a neighbourhood policing perspective, if that was a local neighbourhood beat manager I would expect a level of experience that would have that more in-depth conversation with young people, not least around what the issues are locally and why, and taking that opportunity.
S&S BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
“I really welcome the opportunity to look at some of the video footage and to hear others’ views, and I hope that comes across. It’s about reflection, and I’ll be the first one to say, from my time with Professional Standards and Counter Corruption, we reviewed a lot of examples of really poor practice. And if it’s any reassurance, a lot of those notifications came from colleagues who were reviewing the footage of colleagues a day after.
And with this, it’s good really, because we like to get to the point where every interaction is really very good. But it can be difficult. So I’m really happy to take any feedback forward, and have further discussions on it at a different time if that would help.”
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.
