AUGUST 2023 REPORT
AUGUST 2023 REPORT
DCCS Panel members along with Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham and Body Worn Video [BWV] Systems Administrators Karen Janicka welcomed new panel members and visiting police Chief Superintendent Jennifer Bristow, Local Policing Commander for North and East Devon BCU.
This month’s cases selected BWV are from officers previously rated with ‘red’ and ‘amber’ cases in North Devon BCU.
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 Chair also shared recent updates:
D&C Police data is now available for Stop & Search (S&S) but not Use of Force (UoF).
Retention times for body-worn video are in the pipeline to change from 31 days to 3 months.
Launch of the new DCCSP website: www.dccspanel.org.uk
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 SEARCHES [S&S]
AUGUST 2023 REPORT
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 - Male subject on bicycle being searched for drugs
BWV 1 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The panel were unsure if the use of police power was proportionate as the S&S appeared very rushed especially for a subject who may not be sober and is vulnerable. Subject was also handcuffed despite being compliant, and searched on a main road.
Panel recommends following best practice modelled by previously observed officers - asking the subject to move somewhere less busy and visible. This would also help improve audio quality for BWV.
There was a lack of direct communication with the subject. Little dialogue or explanation given of the process, and when present - appeared very quick and mumbled.
Panel members were uncomfortable with the indirect communication. Officer’s running commentary, sarcastic comments when going through the subject's phone, flippant accusation, and overfamiliarity was unprofessional.
Panel members were unsure if all of GOWISELY was fully followed as it the BWV wasn’t fully audible or the process run through clearly. GOWISELY occurred after the subject was detained in handcuffs, without an explanation of the difference between detained and arrested.
The panel requested further information on privacy and the law looking through phones during a S&S as the officer went through a number of apps / contacts on the subject’s phone.
TC - “Section 23 gives power to search and give evidence - officers can search for anything which relates to object of search, which was drug dealing. A basic triage of immediate evidence (such as an unlocked phone) is lawful as long as it’s in front of the subject. If the phone was locked, subjects don’t have to give a password.”
Actions to be commended:Overall the panel assessed this encounter as necessary based on the intelligence provided.
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received.
Link to the case law referred to ‘Misuse of Drugs Act Searches’
S&S Case 2 - Vulnerable young couple sleeping in tent, Exeter
BWV 2 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The panel did not assess this S&S as necessary - there was no clear intelligence or grounds for the officer to search the female’s bag. Only a mention of “looking for someone in a tent”.
The panel did not assess this use of police power as proportionate or ethical.
Panel recommend training for this officer as there were issues with the use of BWV (poor angle for viewing and switched on late) and he had to be asked to identify himself by the subject.
Search was conducted without any reasoning provided and only the officer’s warrant number .
GOWISELY was not fully followed.
Panel members assessed in this context, the subject did not receive the best service the police could have provided. Clearly a vulnerable community member - an unnecessary intrusion where nothing was found.
Actions to be commended:Reassured the female that he was interested in bag search, not searching her unclothed body (in a sleeping bag).
Officer used a professional tone.
Officer made sure the subjects could receive a receipt of the S&S.
S&S 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received.
S&S Case 3 - Male with van
BWV 3 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Panel members were unsure if this encounter was necessary. Lack of grounds. Officer appeared to react because the subject swore at him. No ‘white powder’ found.
Officer would benefit from BWV refresher training - incorrectly switched camera on and off with a 3 second gap so the start of the incident wasn’t clear.
The majority of panel members did not assess this S&S as proportionate or ethical. It happened very quickly.
Panel members assessed officers' actions as being rushed and escalating the situation. Officers adrenaline was clearly high. Felt like an incident - not a spontaneous S&S. Why were the officers there?
The officer gave no explanation as to why the subject was arrested. Too quick putting the handcuffs on.
Poor conduct by the officer using antagonistic comments “thought you were a big man and could take it”, “I know who you are”. Behaviour was unprofessional and puts colleagues, himself, subject and public at risk of escalation.
The panel were unsure if GOWISELY had been followed. The officer’s dialogue was too fast and poor BWV audio made it difficult for everything to be understood.
No information or warning given before and during search of subject’s body - when used effectively, GOWISELY helps to de-escalate, slow and calm the situation for all involved.
Officer provided little explanation or engage in conversation when the handcuffs were removed, no closure or result.
Panel asked if the officers searched the van where the object was suspected or just the subject?
Panel members asked if support can be provided with more experienced officers as partners to guide these critical actions?
Actions to be commended:-
S&S 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
Officer’s response not received.
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
AUGUST 2023 REPORT
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 of domestic violence, male subject
UoF: non compliant handcuffing, leg restraint
BWV 1 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
With the number of officers present, the panel was unsure if use of force was proportionate. It may have been emotive due to the nature of the case and level of adrenaline.
Communication could have prevented the escalation as the subject was quite calm prior to UoF and it appeared the other officer was going to allow the subject to go outside for ‘a smoke’. Perhaps officers could have asked him to remove the cigarette / stay indoors before such a swift escalation. Situation moved very quickly from discussing smoking to arrest.
Training would be beneficial when engaging with people with neurodiversity - has to be slower and repeated commands. Health did not seem to be taken into consideration before UoF.
Officers may have been influenced by colleagues who came in to report on the injuries the other party had suffered, as well as suggesting in the lounge “if it was me I would handcuff him”.
Panel members were unsure if PLANTER had been followed.
Concerns about one of the officer’s arms putting pressure near the subject's neck. It sounded like the subject was having a panic attack.
Actions to be commended:Calmly entered.
Deescalation after the handcuffing - officers explained what was happening, helped the subject breathe, got him seated from the floor and asked about medication.
Immediately separated the children from the incident in the house so they couldn’t see what was happening.
UOF BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received.
UOF Case 2 - Female detained by city centre security, Exeter
UoF: non compliant handcuffing
BWV 2 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Officer was softly spoken and her authority was overlooked at the start by security staff. Officer would benefit from working on asserting authority in such a situation.
Actions to be commended:All panel members assessed the officer as trying to de-escalate the situation.
Very difficult situation - dealt with well by great policing.
Officer took control of the whole situation on her own and did well delegating / managing all present.
The officer acted considerately and professionally.
All panel members assessed the officer as considering the welfare and wellbeing of the person and using police powers constructively.
Officer moved security presence away whose presence was distressing the subject.
This case is the nearest to trauma-informed practice the panel has seen in a while. Credit to officer.
All panel members assessed PLANTER as being fully followed.
Moving handcuffs if the situation allows really helped to de-escalate the subjects behaviour - good common sense policing.
Subject’s change in behaviour showed she respected the officer and trusted her.
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 2
The DCCS Panel commends this officer's actions and use of police powers in this particular case.
“I didn’t know what to expect from the DCCSP! I learnt loads, there was a huge amount of insight and I’m incredibly thankful to the panel members for giving up their time for such important work. Your feedback helps us to mitigate these actions””
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
