JUNE 2025 REPORT (7-9PM)
JUNE 2025 REPORT
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 Superintendent Roy Linden BCU Commander of South Devon
This month’s cases were filtered for both Stop and Search and Use of Force as follows: Repeat subjects of Stop & Search and Types of 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]
JUNE 2025 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 - Three male subjects following the arrest of an individual at a shared residential premises where cannabis was smelled.
Actions to be commended:
GOWISELY followed for the second S&S: The second male subject had GOWISELY covered clearly and slowly.
Officer identification: The officer showed his identification twice while in plain clothes, establishing transparency.
Clear explanation of search process: The officer clearly explained where he would be touching during the search.
Friendly and professional conduct: The officer engaged the subject in friendly and professional conversation, maintaining a positive demeanour and thanking at the end of search.. Throughout the encounter, calmness, clear communication, and respectful engagement were evident.
Empathy displayed: With the third subject, the officer asked, “What am I doing that is making you feel that way?” recognising the subject’s stated discomfort and offered to move to another room.
Offer of search record: The officer offered to send copies of the search record via email or post, supporting transparency and alternatives for subjects who don’t wish to disclose their email address.
De-escalation: Several panel members highlighted that the officer successfully de-escalated the situation, even when one individual was agitated.
Necessary: The majority of the panel agreed the stop and search was necessary, citing the prior arrest and smell of cannabis.
Proportionality Most panel members considered the search proportionate to the situation.
Ethics: The encounter was generally considered ethical by the panel.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Lack of prerecord: There was no prerecording or contextual recording of the stop and search encounter.
Incomplete GOWISELY with first subject: Panel members did not hear this fully covered with the first subject.
Overfamiliar language: The officer’s language was occasionally overfamiliar and borderline unprofessional, with phrases such as “tell me to piss off” being noted by multiple panel members.
Missed opportunity to explain Importance of ethnicity data: While the officer gave the subject the opportunity to provide ethnicity information for the report, there was a missed opportunity to explain how this isn’t about putting people in boxes but helps communities and scrutiny of police conduct (especially as the subject appeared interested in this topic). Better explanations on why providing personal information benefits community policing could improve trust and transparency.
Search process: Panel members suggested that searches could have been more systematic, slow, and thorough to ensure clarity and fairness.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Roy Linden
“Legally, the requirements for GOWISELY were met here, balancing time management with pragmatism. The management of the environment was good, with the second officer providing a clearer caution. However, there should have been a prerecord to capture the first subject’s stop and search. I liked the clear explanation the officer gave, and how he offered to move the subject to another room to reduce discomfort. I agree with the Panel that the search should be more systematic - much slower, thorough, and methodical. The language towards the end was not appropriate; the overfamiliar tone bordered on unprofessional.”
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 - Drug dog detection of a pregnant white female subject
Actions to be commended:
Use of ID: The officer showed ID even though they were in uniform.
Grounds: The officer re-explained the grounds clearly to the subject.
GOWISELY: was followed.
Dignity: A female officer was involved in the search, which was especially important given the subject was pregnant. The officer indicated that a more thorough search would only be conducted by a female officer at the station if necessary.
Subject welfare: Welfare checks were carried out, including acknowledgment of the subject’s pregnancy. The officer made clear that the subject had the right to make a complaint, which contributed positively to transparency and fairness.
Professional Demeanour: The tone was calm and respectful.
Communication: Panel members commented on the officer’s appropriate and empathetic communication, including explaining the situation clearly and maintaining a professional tone throughout.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Obstructed BWV and quality of communication: The BWV footage was significantly compromised due to the officer’s coat obstructing both the visual and audio feed. This hindered the panel's ability to conduct effective scrutiny and would fail to protect either the officer or the individual in the event of a formal complaint or investigation. Multiple responses cited this as a major issue, with audio muffled and visuals obscured throughout most of the encounter. The panel asked if the second officer’s BWV was on.
Use of handcuffs: There was widespread concern about the necessity of handcuffing a compliant pregnant woman, especially when two officers were present and no aggression was observed. The justification for this use of force was unclear from both the footage and the officer’s verbal explanation.
Ambiguity around strip search: The search was described as “definitely a strip search” by one panellist, which raised concern. This terminology is unusual for panel reviews and prompted questions about whether this was communicated clearly and whether it was necessary. Clarification was also sought on what intelligence justified this level of search and the fact that no drugs were found added to concerns over proportionality.
GOWISELY: several panellists stated they could not hear the officer identify themselves or clearly state the station or the legislation under which the search was conducted.
No object found: The panel asked if the intelligence was sound. A strip search while pregnant can be very invasive and traumatic.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Roy Linden
“Scrutiny was clearly inhibited by the lack of visibility on the footage, and this significantly limited the panel’s ability to assess the interaction. In terms of the intelligence, if there was a relevant connection to this individual, then it could justify both the use of handcuffs and a more intimate search. However, I didn’t hear any clear articulation of the grounds that would justify the use of force, such as the decision to apply handcuffs. This is a learning point - officers must be aware of the intelligence they are acting on and must communicate it clearly.
I believe I caught the officer’s shoulder number, but I did not hear the name of the station being provided, which is a key element of GOWISELY. The officer maintained a good tone throughout and explained the process well, which was positive.
It’s important to note that a search is not unlawful simply because nothing is found, but officers must be able to demonstrate sound justification for their actions to ensure accountability and public trust.”
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]
JUNE 2025 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 - Asian male subject involved in reported criminal damage and threats at ex-partner's business
Actions to be commended:
Communication: Multiple panel members praised the female officer’s attempt to communicate with the subject throughout the incident. She was described as calm and professional, using a controlled tone and avoiding any unprofessional or retaliatory language.
Wellbeing: Officers were noted to respond appropriately when the subject complained of pain from handcuffs; they loosened them once he was safely in the van.
Repeated explanations offered: Officers offered to re-explain the situation to the subject despite the resistance, which was seen as a positive sign of professional patience.
Constructive use of restraint: Several panel members acknowledged that despite the duration and difficulty, the force used was not angry or punitive and was in line with professional conduct in a high-stress situation.
Necessary: Most panel members agreed the arrest and restraint were necessary given the grounds and subject’s resistance.
Proportionate: The force was largely seen as proportionate, though a few panel members had concerns about duration and technique.
Ethical: All but one panel member agreed the officers acted ethically.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Lack of initial de-escalation: There was consensus among the panel that the officers moved immediately to forced entry, arrest, and handcuffing, without clear verbal de-escalation. This was seen as a missed opportunity, especially since the subject was not verbally resisting at the door.
Communication and language barriers: Several panel members questioned whether simpler language or clearer explanations would have helped, especially as the subject appeared confused and distressed, potentially due to English as an additional language or a trauma-related reaction. Perhaps some more information on the process or why they were permitted inside his home may have helped - appeared quite a fearful response.
Overlapping dialogue and confusion: The officers and subject were frequently talking over each other, contributing to the confusion. Clearer leadership or a single point of communication may have been more effective.
Perceived threatening language: One officer’s remark “I don’t want to break his arm” was flagged as potentially threatening or alarming to the subject, despite the likely intention being reassurance to colleagues.
Proportionality of physical force: Multiple panel members raised concern that it took three trained officers to restrain one small man, questioning whether better techniques or positioning could have been used in a confined space.
Welfare: Some feedback questioned whether officers adequately checked on the subject’s mental or physical state, especially given his crying and screaming during the arrest.
Debrief and support: The panel asked whether officers involved in difficult arrests are given adequate post-incident support, even if the case does not formally trigger a review.
PLANTER: The panel were unsure if this was followed - some noted that early planning and communication could have been improved.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Roy Linden
"I would like officers to clarify how they sought the subject’s attention and whether they provided any explanation prior to forcing entry. While the incident was drawn out, it’s important to remember that a subject’s physical size does not necessarily correlate with the level of resistance encountered. In this case, the officers were using recognised techniques with minimal force. There are other tactics that could have resolved the situation more quickly, but these would have caused greater discomfort and required additional justification.
The female officer's calming approach stood out positively - having one clear voice is significantly more effective than multiple officers speaking at once. That said, she did place herself at some risk by positioning herself so close to the subject’s head while he was shouting. I also wonder whether there was an opportunity to enter the room and explain the situation, especially as there was no initial verbal resistance at the doorway. That moment might have provided a valuable opportunity for communication.
Given the nature of the incident - involving damage to property and reported threats - an arrest was necessary. However, I do share the panel’s concern regarding whether sufficient consideration was given to the subject’s potential language barriers and cultural context. Communication at the earliest stage, including assessing for non-native English speakers, is critical. Officers should take the time to identify these factors to ensure understanding and reduce the risk of escalation.
This incident likely wouldn’t trigger a formal debrief process, but I would emphasise that officers have access to peer support and wellbeing services, and they are encouraged to make use of these following challenging incidents.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
UOF CASE 2 - Black male subject reported by ex partner for assault and threats
Actions to be commended:
Accessible communication: The officer initially used simple and clear language, particularly when explaining what an “allegation” meant.
Initial de-escalation: Several panel members observed that officers made attempts to explain the situation, especially regarding the arrest.
Patient approach: Despite the tense environment, a number of panel members felt that the officers remained relatively calm and composed under pressure, especially in managing the disruptive influence of the subject’s mother.
Necessity: Majority of the panel agreed that the use of force was necessary in the context of the subject’s non-compliance and the reported offence.
Proportionality: Most of the panel found the force used to be proportionate to the situation.
Ethics: Some panel members raised ethical concerns, particularly around the language used, dismissing the subject's allegations, and threats of force. Nonetheless, the majority still found the conduct largely ethical.
PLANTER: Most of the Panel members assessed PLANTER as followed, but concerns remained about communication, clarity of arrest rationale, and welfare engagement.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Threatening language: Concerns were raised over the officer's use of the phrase “Move back or you’ll be kicked.” Panel members questioned whether the kick was a real threat by the officer or a warning about the son’s behaviour - either way, the wording was deemed inappropriate.
PAVA spray threats: The threat to use PAVA spray when the subject was handcuffed was noted as disproportionate when officers are already in control.
Communication issues: The situation escalated rapidly, with several panel members stating that the officers could have slowed down the encounter and provided clearer instructions and reassurances to the subject.
Subject’s counter allegation ignored: Some panel members were concerned that the male subject’s claim that he was the victim of assault by his ex-partner may have been disregarded. Several suggested that acknowledging or committing to follow this up might have helped calm the situation.
Environment management: The mother’s persistent intervention was identified as a significant factor in escalation. Multiple reviewers felt the officers could have attempted to separate her from the subject to improve communication and de-escalate the situation.
Tactical choices: Questions were raised about whether officers should have asked the subject to come out of the property rather than entering directly, which might have offered better control and less confrontation.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Roy Linden
“The initial explanation of the allegation was handled well. However, the subject’s mother’s involvement and the subject trying to exit through the back left no real opportunity for proper communication. A better approach would have been to clearly direct both individuals at that point to gain control. I strongly object to the officer’s threat to use PAVA spray - we’re trained not to threaten. PAVA should only be used if officers disengage and re-engage with force. Spraying for compliance once in control is not acceptable. The ‘kicking’ comment was aimed at the female and was clumsy - officers couldn’t remove her at that point without risk. Officers must remain calm and professional, especially when individuals are aggressive. It may have been better to ask the subject to come out of the house instead of going in – that could have helped prevent escalation.”
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
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.
