JULY 2025 REPORT (7-9PM)
JULY 2025 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 and visiting Chief Constable Matt Longman - BCU Commander for Plymouth
This month’s cases were filtered for both Stop and Search and Use of Force as follows:
Review of officers previously RAG rated red.
Area: Plymouth
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]
JULY 2025 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 - Incident involving a street fight between three individuals and a report of a female abusing a dog. One Black male subject was searched and later EIP (expose intimate parts) search
Actions to be commended:
Necessary: Most Panel members agreed the initial stop and search was necessary due to reports of a fight, disorder, and potential passing of an object.
GOWISELY: This was covered.
Complaint Procedure: Officers explained how to complain when the subject stated he wanted to submit a complaint.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
GOWISELY and Communication: Panel members assessed the delivery of GOWISELY as rushed. Communication overall was fast-paced and potentially difficult for the subject to understand.
Grounds for Search: Concerns were raised about the strength of the intelligence used to justify the stop/search - use of the phrase “this is a drug area” is concerning and insufficient as standalone grounds.
Use of Force: The only individual handcuffed was the black male, although other subjects appeared more aggravated.
Search Procedure: A female officer conducted the initial search of the male, despite male officers being present. This led to a repeat search by a male officer to get closer to the groin area.
3 officers were involved in the search while the individual was handcuffed – potentially disproportionate.
No prohibited items were found.
EIP Search: One officer was adamant about the need for a ‘strip search (should be called - EIP expose intimate parts) due to a bank card allegedly falling from the subject's clothing. Officers justified it as part of checking for a "passed item” but both the S&S and strip search found nothing.
Language and Professionalism: Informal/slang terms such as “strippy”, “d***”, “cock”, “balls” were used. The Panel appreciates the officer may have been trying to make the situation more comfortable for the subject but unprofessional language undermined the seriousness of the EIP (expose intimate parts) search. Panel members asked if there is a script / set text to help officers avoid this.
Vulnerability and Consent: There was concern about how officers adapt their approach when dealing with individuals under the influence or unable to give informed consent.
Proportionality: The initial street search was generally seen as proportionate by many. However, serious concerns were raised about: only the black male being handcuffed., three officers surrounding and physically holding him during the search, and the repetition of searches (female then male) and the escalation to a strip search, despite limited findings.
A few participants explicitly rated the strip search as not proportionate, particularly given the low-level nature of the suspected offence and lack of resistance.
Ethical: The Panel were unsure if this incident was ethical - many members felt officers acted ethically in principle, including explaining rights and conducting the search with care. However, concerns were raised around unprofessional language during the EIP search seen as undermining the dignity of the subject and potential unconscious bias, especially in the treatment of the Black male subject compared to others.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Matt Longman
"Clearly, there is some information received prior to arrival, as officers begin by describing a disorder and someone running off. It is unclear whether any additional intelligence was provided, but they did mention the passing of an item - potentially relating to stolen property or drugs. However, the justification based solely on the area being known for drug use is weak, especially in a city centre.
There are valid points raised about the GOWISELY delivery, specifically around the pace and ensuring clear understanding. Police officers should have enough experience to differentiate between substance abuse and a mental health disorder, although I acknowledge there are grey areas. If mental health issues are suspected, partner agencies are accessible via the LeftLink app.
Regarding the number of officers involved, it appears a more experienced officer was supporting a student officer. It was correct that the female officer was not getting any further during the search under guidance. The follow-up search by the second male officer was to prevent the need for a strip search.
EIP searches are a serious matter- traumatic, and not something taken lightly. In this instance, it was conducted because officers were looking for a passed object, not because of the bank card being in an unusual location.
The officer conducting the EIP search handled the situation as best as possible and helped diffuse tension. However, the language used was unprofessional. There is a fine line between putting someone at ease and maintaining professionalism. While the approach may have worked in this specific situation, I agree that we should use set, standardised language to avoid over-familiarity.”
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
The DCCS Panel recognises that there are areas of good practice from this officer and areas of learning. May the former be a strong foundation for the latter.
S&S Case 2 - A group of three young males were stopped after security personnel reported overhearing them discussing possession of a knife
Actions to be commended:
Necessary: Most Panel members agreed the stop and search was necessary due to reports of a knife.
Proportionate: Most Panel members agreed the incident was proportionate
Ethical: Most Panel members agreed the S&S was ethical.
Officer Apology: The officer acknowledged a mistake regarding the identification of a substance and offered an apology - the Panel respected how he explained the error to the young people to rebuild trust.
Effort to Engage: Several Panel members noted that the officers communicated well with the young people overall, using respectful and friendly tones.
Body-Worn Video Activation: Officers had BWV recording throughout. However, some Panel members noted it was identified in a way that appeared retaliatory when a subject started recording on his phone. Panellists noted this should be raised in a more positive manner.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Limited Procedural Dialogue: Some officers discouraged the subjects from asking questions when they didn’t understand and instead instructed them to "just listen". Panellists highlighted this as a missed opportunity for clearer engagement.
Escalatory Language: Several examples of inappropriate or unprofessional language were raised: “Why do you speak like that?” - seen as unnecessary and provocative. “Don’t wriggle, you’ll smash your pretty face” and other phrases interpreted as power-assertive or patronising.
Informal Tone: Some Panel members felt the casual, jokey tone was not suitable, particularly when the subjects were very young.
GOWISELY: Many Panel members commented that GOWISELY was delivered too quickly or incompletely. Some could not hear all elements, while others noted key omissions.
Age Not Initially Ascertained: The officers only asked the subjects' ages towards the end. Panel members stated this should be asked earlier to ensure communication is age-appropriate.
Mistaken Caution: Officers mistakenly identified a substance as cannabis (which was actually tobacco), cautioned the individual, and later corrected the error. While an apology was made, Panel members raised serious concerns about trust, accuracy, and professionalism.
Initial Approach: The initial police approach was described as abrupt and contributed to the subjects becoming defensive. Some felt the officers escalated rather than de-escalated the situation.
Handcuffing and Dignity: Concerns were raised about the immediate use of handcuffs and conducting the search in a public place, which could be intimidating or humiliating, especially for young people.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Matt Longman
“I agree with the Panel that age should be asked earlier so the conversation can be better tailored. It wouldn’t change the officer’s response if there was a risk of a knife, but the communication could be more appropriate. In a situation with three people and a potential knife threat, officers do need to take control.
The officer did caution the young person, but didn’t arrest them, allowing room to clarify and apologise when it turned out there wasn’t an offence. The comment about how the subject spoke was unnecessary – that’s really helpful feedback.”
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
The DCCS Panel recognises that there are areas of good practice from this officer and areas of learning. May the former be a strong foundation for the latter.
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
JULY 2025 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 - Report of a white female ex-partner and others outside a flat threatening allegedly having a knife
Actions to be commended:
Use of Force: The officer avoided unnecessary use of force; applied it proportionately, constructively and explained the use of force and search procedure well.
Officer Communication and Transparency: The officer clearly identified herself . She used a calm and respectful tone throughout the encounter, explained that BWV (body-worn video) was recording and allowed the subject to ask questions and gave clear, accessible explanations.
De-escalation and Control: The officer moved the female subject away from the situation to reduce risk and tension.
Managed friends and bystanders effectively to avoid escalation.
Used calm language such as “We’re going to slow things down and just have a chat” to de-escalate.
Maintained a professional and controlled demeanour.
Respect for Welfare and Dignity: The officer thanked the subject for compliance, showing respect and appreciation.
She considered welfare and wellbeing of the subject throughout., and assisted subject with moving belongings to prevent further breaches of peace.
GOWISELY: Thorough coverage of GOWISELY principles for the S&S.
PLANTER: Followed this principle well.
Necessary: The Panel agreed that the force applied was constructive and appropriate to the situation, with no indication of excessive or punitive use.
Proportionate: The Panel agreed that the incident was proportionate - the officer’s actions aligned with professional and community expectations, demonstrating fairness and reasonableness.
Ethical: The Panel assessed this case’s ethical considerations were well observed, with respect shown for the subject’s dignity and welfare.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Search of Other Individuals: Panel members asked whether others present should have been searched for weapons.
Legal Explanation: Some feedback noted a lack of clear explanation of legal powers for Section 1 of PACE.
Communication Clarity: One Panel member raised where an officer said “Can you stop shouting please?” when the friend was not actually shouting - suggesting careful wording to avoid misunderstanding and escalation.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Matt Longman:
“I am so proud that we have officers behaving in such a professional and exemplary manner, as noted by the Panel. The officer involved is a newer member of the team, and I look forward to sharing this positive feedback with her. Regarding the question of whether the other individuals should have been searched, I believe that could be argued either way and ultimately comes down to the officer’s judgement in that particular situation. Since the subject was named as the one possessing the knife, it is the officer’s rationale that should guide the decision.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
“Reflecting on the stop search, I’m pleased with how it went, however if I had to do anything differently, I would go in first and command from the beginning.”
Panel response:
The DCCS Panel thanks the officer for their feedback and reflection, and commends them for demonstrating several areas of excellent practice.
UOF CASE 2 - Firearms authorised incident where female has left address - male within address had thrown her through door and has swords and handguns at his disposal
Actions to be commended:
Professionalism and Control: The officers remained professional, calm, and controlled throughout a high-adrenaline incident. Their polite demeanor was noted positively by the Panel.
Effective Tactics and Procedures:. The officers conducted a very effective and clear forced entry into the address.
PLANTER: This was followed well. The deployment of the firearms unit and the use of compliant handcuffing were appropriate
Safety and Welfare Consideration: Multiple weapons (including swords and handguns) were located inside the property, consistent with the intelligence received. Officers reacted calmly to the presence of a large dog, ensuring the animal was safely removed from the scene.
Use of Force Appropriateness: The use of force was deemed proportionate, necessary, and ethical by the Panel. Officers did not use force out of anger or to punish but as a constructive response to the situation.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Initial Communication: One Panel member raised a question regarding whether the officers could have introduced themselves at the scene to improve communication and possibly aid de-escalation, even in a high-risk situation.
Medical Checks and Welfare: It was noted that the detained subject’s welfare was generally considered, but some Panel members did not observe clear checks or offers of medical attention, particularly regarding the subject or any animals present.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Matt Longman:
“I agree with the Panel’s commendations of the officers. When dealing with firearms incidents, officers must operate at a top level and assume all possible threats, including the presence of weapons. They need to take control of the scene quickly and decisively. Introductions were made as soon as it was practical.”
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
The DCCS Panel acknowledges and commends the officer for demonstrating several areas of excellent practice.
“What this Panel does is offer such thoughtful questions. These insights are incredibly valuable, and on a personal level, I am really grateful that you volunteer your time. D&C Police take these insights seriously and act on them. Your work is truly making a difference”
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.
