NOVEMBER 2025 REPORT (3-5PM)
NOVEMBER 2025 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 and visiting Chief Inspector for firearms Denise Alexander standing in for BCU Commander Jim Gale and Temp inspector Jay Hawkes (Internal South Devon Scrutiny Panel) - interested in learning more from the DCCS Panel
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]
NOVEMBER 2025 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 - Dog unit. Vehicle seen driving quickly, picked up male and sped up again - intelligence involved in supply of drugs.
Subject: White female driver and white male passenger
Actions to be commended:
Control of the Incident: Officers ensured safety, moved the vehicle off the road and explained the process. The situation was effectively de-escalated.
Officers appeared confident and professional.Operational Success: Drug dog indicated presence of drugs. Both subjects were arrested - intelligence was accurate.
Conduct: In general, officers treated subjects with respect and courtesy once explanations were given. Tone was calm after initial defensive posture in some clips.
Necessary: The majority of the Panel agreed the stop and search was necessary, Some unsure as BWV started late..
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. Minor points regarding tone and initial defensiveness.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:GOWISELY: Explanation of GOWISELY elements was very fast; panel suggested slowing down explanations, particularly if drugs are suspected.
Entitlement was not clearly stated to male subject.Communication & Explanation: Legal terminology should be explained clearly to subjects for transparency.
Use of casual language, e.g., the term ‘love’, was noted as inappropriate.
Some officers appeared confident of guilt, which may affect perceived neutrality.
The panel suggested more casual communication to keep subjects informed during the search.
Body-Worn Video: Footage started late, making it hard to see the full context.
Camera angles did not always capture the search adequately.
Pre-recording and ensuring full capture of stop would improve transparency.
Operational Considerations: Unmarked vehicles may cause subjects to attempt evasion; awareness of this could be useful in planning stops.
Initial defensive posture in some interactions should be moderated.
One panel member raised a concern about the smell of cannabis being potential grounds for the search, but they highlighted that its timing (after officer entry to remove keys) should be considered carefully.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“Dog handlers take their vehicles home as dogs stay at their houses, so vehicles are often unmarked., I agree with the Panel that the use of the word ‘love’ should be avoided. The smell of cannabis was detected after the officer had been inside the vehicle when removing the keys, along with other grounds for the search.”
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 - Firearm attendance – report of a male with a machete.
Actions to be commended:
Safety & Control: Officer ensured colleagues’ safety before the search. Both subjects were handcuffed prior to search, reducing risk from potential weapons.
Communication & Engagement: Officer asked if any questions had been raised by the subjects, and collected information as a result.
Body-Worn Video: Pre-record activated, capturing all of the incident.
Operational Outcome: No further action was taken where items found were misperceived as weapons, showing proportionate response.
GOWISELY was generally followed but elements were delivered very quickly.
Necessary: Majority of panel members agreed with S&S was required.
Proportionate: Most of the Panel agreed it was, though some were concerned about the number of officers deployed.
Ethical: Most of the panel assessed the search as ethical, with some unsure due to speed of communication.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:GOWISELY: Explanation of GOWISELY was run through very quickly. As a result, some panel members assessed elements (grounds, legal powers, “you are detained”) as missed or difficult to hear, particularly for a subject whose first language is not English.
Communication & Explanation: No clear explanation of what body areas were being searched.
Limited communication with the subject; much discussion was between officers rather than directly with the person being searched.
Language use, such as repeated use of ‘mate’ was noted by some panel members as excessive and potentially reducing reassurance.
Operational Considerations: Disproportionate officer presence questioned by some panel members.
Some panel members were concerned that officers on scene hadn’t already handcuffed subjects with the report of a weapon.
Concern of there being a weapon was not communicated clearly to the subjects at the outset.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“When a violent crime or weapon is reported, the Force Incident Manager risk assesses which units are required. Officers may engage if already in the area, which could explain multiple officers present before firearms arrived. By that time, subjects would usually have been handcuffed. Knives can be hidden, and it is good the officer used handcuffs for safety. Conversations among officers rather than directly with subjects were intended to clarify the situation, but I agree it would be polite to speak directly to those involved. GOWISELY was delivered very quickly - agree with the Panel point that a subject in an adrenaline-filled situation would find that hard to follow, especially if English is not their first language. This is likely due to the officer’s muscle memory but panel points on this are appreciated.”
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]
NOVEMBER 2025 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 - Multiple officer footage. Report of a hammer being used to smash a local shop window, family members aided police in finding subject
Actions to be commended:
Communication & De-escalation: Officer apologised for upset caused and explained why they pushed a bystander, which helped de-escalate the situation and improve compliance.
Use of a member of the public to calm the subject was effective in maintaining control - had the best rapport with the subject.
Wellbeing: Officers covered the subject’s head when on the floor to prevent injury.
Outcome: Officers successfully restrained the subject in a chaotic environment and arrested for criminal damage.
PLANTER: Most of the Panel assessed protocol as generally followed.
Necessary: Most panel members assessed the use of force as necessary, although. some unsure due to the chaotic scene.
Proportionate: Most of the panel agreed the incident was proportionate given the threat of a weapon.
Ethical: Most panel members assessed the use of force as ethical, but there were concerns noted about pushing bystanders (including an elderly woman) and incident escalation.
Communication & Leadership: Scene was chaotic; clearer leadership could have helped reduce confusion.Two female family members contributed to the escalation; the panel suggested considering whether they could have been removed without physical contact to prevent aggravation and subsequent use of force.
Officers’ communication with bystanders and family was limited; reassurance largely provided by a member of the public.Use of Force: Drawing of taser escalated the situation; panel questioned whether holstering earlier could have reduced tension. Pushing bystanders occurred; need to balance safety with minimising escalation. The incident highlighted the challenge of managing a busy scene with multiple officers and members of the public. Officer actions were generally proportionate and constructive, though family member reactions and some escalation points could be managed more effectively.
Body-Worn Video: Faulty pre-record camera footage limited full assessment. Other officers’ BWV captured the full sequence (viewed below: Use of Force Case 2).
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Jim Gale
“It was a very chaotic scene. We can hear the officer say the subject was threatening and coming towards him, which justified the taser draw. Family members helped officers locate the subject but were verbally aggressive. Not knowing where the hammer was, drawing the taser was necessary due to the threat of violence and to get the subject prone for handcuffing. Using a member of the public to calm the subject and apologising were effective de-escalation techniques. The number of officers present may have been influenced by call-out information from the radio. Regarding the panel’s concerns about use of force after the subject was restrained, the taser was not drawn after - only before as this creates better space for risk assessment, particularly for lone officers.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
UOF CASE 2 - The incident occurred during police interaction following an arrest of relative. Two white females
Actions to be commended:
Body-Worn Video: This officer’s pre-record was activated, allowing clear review of events.
Communication and Professionalism: Some officers used a calm tone and attempted de-escalation during the initial stage, particularly one officer who was described as speaking reasonably and with empathy (bald officer towards the end).
The officer who used force apologised to the female subjects later, which helped settle tensions with the young male subject (although some panel members highlighted this occurred only once a senior officer “ma’am” arrived).Constructive Force (in early phase): Some panel members felt that initial efforts to calm the situation and apply force proportionately were reasonable before escalation occurre
Communication & Leadership: Scene was chaotic; clearer leadership could have helped reduce confusion.Two female family members contributed to the escalation; the panel suggested considering whether they could have been removed without physical contact to prevent aggravation and subsequent use of force.
Officers’ communication with bystanders and family was limited; reassurance largely provided by a member of the public.Use of Force: Drawing of taser escalated the situation; panel questioned whether holstering earlier could have reduced tension. Pushing bystanders occurred; need to balance safety with minimising escalation. The incident highlighted the challenge of managing a busy scene with multiple officers and members of the public. Officer actions were generally proportionate and constructive, though family member reactions and some escalation points could be managed more effectively.
Body-Worn Video: Faulty pre-record camera footage limited full assessment. Other officers’ BWV captured the full sequence (viewed below: Use of Force Case 2).
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Use of Force Decision-Making and Proportionality:
A significant majority of the panel expressed concern that one officer used pushing force repeatedly out of anger, not for safety or necessity. The officer was of substantially larger build than the two older women; this was viewed as not proportionate or professionally justified.After pushing, the officer did not pause to check their welfare, including one being knocked against concrete.
Multiple panel members noted: the officer knew who he pushed and it did not appear to be a reflexive action.
Escalation Caused by Officer Behaviour: The officer returned to the women after the situation had calmed, which re-escalated the encounter.
His tone was described as antagonising and taunting, including “do you want to get arrested?”
This behaviour led directly to one woman spitting at the officer, after which she was arrested.
Several panel members believed the situation did not have to escalate and could have been resolved without arrest or physical force if disengagement had occurred.
Wellbeing and Emotional Awareness: The Panel noted there was no visible welfare consideration after the women were pushed.
Impact on trust was highlighted, especially as these subjects had helped the police to locate their initial subject. Several members stated this interaction likely destroyed trust in policing for the subjects and their community.
Scene Management: Too many officers present and standing by contributed to tension and confusion.
The panel felt supervision or peer intervention should have stopped the officer from re-engaging while emotionally heightened.
PLANTER: Most of the panel assessed this use of force as not following PLANTER once the officer re-engaged and escalated.
Necessary: Most panel members felt the force used by the officer in question was not necessary.
Proportionate: The majority of the panel reported it was not proportionate..
Ethical: The panel raised significant concerns about emotional response and punitive tone.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Jim Gale
“I agree with the panel that there were more officers present than necessary, which increased tension. Never like to see lots of officers not doing anything. There was no requirement for the extra vehicles and colleagues arriving.
The officer should not have gone back to the subjects, I agree with the panel that walking away would have de-escalated the situation. Someone should have intervened to prevent the escalation and told him to remove himself. Although the arrest for spitting was legally justified, the officer did not show the best version of himself in this incident. The way the situation ended overshadowed the good work done by other officers. Everyone present has a duty to step in to prevent escalation.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
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.
