MAY 2026 REPORT (7-9PM)
MAY 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: Information to follow
BCU Area: Information to follow
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]
MAY 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 - 3 males stopped matched the description on 3 males trying to steal a car approximately 100 metres away from where they were stopped
Actions to be commended:
De-escalation: The officers were commended by the panel for being highly successful in "disarming" a potentially volatile situation. By maintaining a calm, approachable, and "human" tone, the officer prevented conflict with three teenagers while operating as a single unit in the initial stages.
Respectful Physical Search: The panel noted that the actual searches were conducted respectfully and that the detainees appeared settled and comfortable, which is a testament to the officer's professional conduct.
Officer Safety Management: Approaching three suspects alone who were reportedly armed with a screwdriver requires significant tactical skill. The initial use of handcuffs was deemed a proportionate and necessary step to assert control and ensure the safety of all parties.
Rapport Building: The officer's ability to turn a high-tension stop into a "pleasant" and "disarming" encounter was praised as an effective way to handle young people.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Procedural Integrity (GOWISELY): The delivery of the legal grounds and search information was criticized by the panel. By rushing through these points or dismissively labeling the legal requirements as unimportant, the officer undermined the transparency of the police's power.
Clarity of Identity: The officer did not formally identify themselves until five or six minutes into the encounter. Legal requirements dictate that identification should happen at the outset to ensure the subjects know who is detaining them.
Safeguarding Disclosures: One youth disclosed that he was not allowed contact with his mother. The panel felt this was a significant safeguarding "red flag" that required immediate follow-up or a more focused conversation to ensure the child was adequately protected.
Consistency in Delivery: While the officer may have covered all GOWISELY points across the three individuals eventually, the law requires each person being searched to understand the specific grounds and their rights individually and clearly.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
"I agree with the panel's consensus. While the officer handled the situation very well in terms of tone and working with young lads, which is a difficult task for a single officer,there are clear areas for improvement. I am particularly concerned that the officer 'sped through' GOWISELY and referred to it as 'gobbledygook.' This undermines the very purpose of the communication, which is to ensure the people in our custody understand exactly why they are being detained and what their rights are. Unless a situation is completely out of control, there is no excuse for not providing a clear explanation. Furthermore, the safeguarding element regarding the boy's mother is a serious point. When a young person makes such a disclosure, it should be investigated further to ensure they are safe. While the officer did well to keep the group at ease, we must ensure that our desire to be approachable does not lead us to skip the formalities that protect both the public and the integrity of the search. Overall, the encounter was carried out safely and with good intentions, but the communication of legal rights must be much clearer in the future."
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 vehicle pinged ANPR camera for a wanted male previously linked to drug dealing both vehicle and person and the vehicle is a long way out from the rp address with no solid reason to why with a lady driver.
Actions to be commended:
Communication: The female officer was praised for a "textbook" delivery of the search. She talked through every physical action (e.g., "I'm going to start with your waistband") before doing it, which effectively reduced anxiety.
Proactive Reassurance: Early in the encounter, the officer explicitly stated she would not be removing any of the subject's clothing. This was noted by the panel as a vital move to de-escalate the inherent stress of a first-time stop.
Rapport building: The officer maintained a friendly and professional tone throughout, successfully building rapport and keeping the subject compliant and calm.
Safe Positioning for the search: The officer intelligently moved the subject away from the flow of traffic before beginning the search, ensuring the safety of both parties.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Demographic Data Collection: The officer appeared "flippant" when asking about gender and ethnicity, using an apologetic tone ("Sorry, it's just one of those things"). The panel emphasized that officers should be trained to explain why this data is collected, to ensure an equitable, legitimate, and accountable police service, rather than treating it as another "tick-box" exercise.
Grounds of search: While the officer eventually covered the grounds, she initially faltered, saying "the grounds are whatever." In a less compliant scenario, this lack of precision could lead to legal challenges or a rapid escalation of tension.
Intelligence Context: There was initial confusion among panel members regarding whether "being a long way from home" constitutes grounds for a stop. While it was clarified that the ANPR "ping" was for a wanted male linked to the vehicle, officers must be careful not to rely on geographical distance alone as a justification for a search.
Inter-Officer Communication: The searching officer was not entirely clear on the specific reason for the stop (conducted by traffic units). This put her in a difficult position when the subject asked if she would continue to be pulled over in the future.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
"This was a well-conducted stop overall. The officer’s methodical approach to explaining the search as she conducted it is exactly what we want to see, it puts people at ease and builds trust. However, the point raised by the panel regarding demographic data is excellent.
We shouldn't be apologizing for asking these questions; we should be proud that we collect this data to ensure our service is equitable. I’ve noted the 'awkwardness' in the officer’s tone, which likely stems from a lack of confidence in explaining the 'why.' I will take this back to Learning and Development to ensure student officers are trained to articulate that this data is about legitimacy and statistical accountability, not just a formality. Regarding the grounds, it's important to clarify that the vehicle was registered to her brother, who was wanted for drug supply.
That intelligence, combined with the ANPR hit, justified the stop. We will continue to work on ensuring that when officers from different units (Traffic and Local) hand over a subject, the grounds are clearly and firmly communicated so the searching officer doesn't have to hesitate."
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]
MAY 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 - This case involves the arrest and restraint of a 17-year-old female in a care placement. The incident escalated from a report of criminal damage into a protracted use of force involving multiple mechanical restraints and a transfer to a custody cell.
Actions to be commended:
Custody Transition and Gender Awareness: The female custody officer was highly commended for her immediate impact on the dynamic. By asking, "Do you just want women in this room?", she showed a trauma-informed approach that significantly de-escalated the suspect's behavior compared to the previous hour.
Proactive Response to Threats: Officers initially returned to the address for safeguarding purposes following a 999 call regarding violent behavior and death threats toward care staff.
Removal of Triggering Presence: Once the suspect identified a specific officer as a trauma trigger (resembling her father), that officer eventually removed himself from the immediate vicinity to prevent further escalation.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:Pre-determined Escalation: The panel felt officers arrived with a "pre-determined" mindset to arrest without attempting to de-escalate or engage in a child-focused conversation first. The transition to physical force was described as "incredibly quick.
Handling of Trauma Disclosures: The suspect’s distress regarding an officer's appearance ("He looks like my dad") was met with a dismissive comment: "Well, he's not your dad, is he?" This was flagged as a failure in trauma-informed practice and a missed opportunity to calm a vulnerable child.
Minimization of Self-Harm and Overdose: Throughout the encounter, the suspect made several high-risk statements, including "I'll be dead soon anyway" and claims of taking an overdose. These appeared to be minimized or ignored by the arresting officers, representing a significant risk to the duty of care.
Proportionality of Physical Restraint: Concerns were raised about a large male officer sitting on/near the suspect during restraint. The panel highlighted the risk of positional asphyxia, especially high levels of distress.
Restraint Management: The suspect managed to slip her handcuffs twice, suggesting they were either improperly applied or the wrong size for her wrists. This led to increased use of force (leg restraints) that might have been avoided with more secure initial handling.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
"Restraining a young person is always difficult to watch, and I do not underestimate the impact this had on the 17-year-old. While the officers were dealing with a repeat call-out for violence and criminal damage, there was a clear missed opportunity to start the interaction with a child-focused conversation. I am particularly concerned about the minimization of the suspect's comments regarding her father and her statements about self-harm.
These are major 'red flags' that should have been addressed immediately as part of our safeguarding responsibility. The training is very clear: we must not lean on a subject's back due to the risk of positional asphyxia; while officers are trained to hold ankles, we must ensure this doesn't cross into dangerous pressure. The fact that she slipped her cuffs twice created a dangerous situation where she essentially had a 'metal weapon' in the back of the van, which led to the use of leg restraints.
However, the dynamic change once the female custody officer offered a female-only environment is a key learning point for all officers present. We need to ensure that 'calm tone' isn't just a mask, but is backed up by an actual consideration of the suspect's mental health and trauma history. I will be taking this back to ensure reflective practice is carried out with the team involved."
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.
