When I watch the various police and cars programmes on the TV, I notice how often the driver thought to have broken the law is asked to come and sit in the police car.
Now it may be that it's something to do with the filming, but if it's not, can anyone say exactly what is going on?
Because I must say that I'm not terribly enthusiastic about it (not entirely sure why) and if I were stopped and asked to join the policeman in his car, I think I'd politely say "no, but you can sit in my car with me".
Anyone see a problem in that?
|
|
Once you are in their "office" they have access to all the databases and communication systems, video of your alleged transgression, and its two witnesses against you if there is a later dispute in court. Oh!, and the child locks will be on and rear windows disabled.
Edited by Old Navy on 14/09/2009 at 11:23
|
|
|
the driver thought to have broken the law is asked to come and sit in the police car.>>>> Now it may be that it's something to do with the filming >>
>>
My guess - speaking as a layman - is that:-
1. The car is video equipped and they can show the driver what he has done, if necessary.
2. I believe the back door of the police car can only be opened from the outside, so that once he is in the back, he can't get out unless he is released.
3. The police officer is in control of the situation.
If I were the 'offending' driver and there was a chance that I could get away with a reprimand and nothing worse, I would be very careful not to fail 'the attitude test'.
|
|
Good point, drbe, declining the invitation would not improve your chances of passing the "test".
|
They would be concerned that you might drive away with them in the car, have hidden weapons etc. It is also surprising how many drivers change their approach once in the back ofthe police car.
They would not accept and would approach you differently because you asked.
Not worth trying really.
|
|
It would be safer to leave both cars on the hard shoulder and retreat on to the verge. Then with a bit of luck all his evidence will be destroyed by the next sleeping driver.
|
It would be safer to leave both cars on the hard shoulder and retreat on to the verge. Then with a bit of luck all his evidence will be destroyed by the next sleeping driver.
I bet the video storage device is aircraft black box standard, and probably cruise missile proof! After all it is evidence. Got to tick the boxes and meet the targets. :-)
Edited by Old Navy on 14/09/2009 at 15:01
|
I wonder whether the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 applies to a police car?
Voluntary attendance at police station etc.
Where for the purpose of assisting with an investigation a person attends voluntarily at a police station or at any other place where a constable is present or accompanies a constable to a police station or any such other place without having been arrested?
(a)
he shall be entitled to leave at will unless he is placed under arrest;
(b)
he shall be informed at once that he is under arrest if a decision is taken by a constable to prevent him from leaving at will.
So the moment he activates the door lock you have to be informed that you are under arrest.
|
|
|
|
Because I must say that I'm not terribly enthusiastic about it (not entirely sure why) and if I were stopped and asked to join the policeman in his car I think I'd politely say "no but you can sit in my car with me".
Give the possible risks to the police officer of sitting in my car, how about I say to the officer something like "No thanks, I don't want to sit in your car. But I do accept that you may have some good reasons why you too might not want to sit in someone else's car, so I suggest that I now step out of my car and we both stand outside while I try to help you with your enquiries".
Isn't that a fairly reasonable approach?
|
It's an interesting point which I hadn't given much thought to before. It's obviously a question of being "in charge of the situation" whilst a PC sitting in the back of the stopped motorist's car is potentially vulnerable. And I wonder if any amateur Human Rights lawyers out there have ever tried the following line just before getting into the car:
"I am entering your car voluntarily, on the basis that if I ask to leave at any time you will not detain me and the door locking mechanism will not be activated - is that correct?"
None of this applies when being stopped by a motorcycle cop, of course. ("Please step up and sit on my pillion, Sir...")
Final thought - have any BRers any experience of being stopped and questioned by a PC on a bicycle? Just wondering....
|
None of this applies when being stopped by a motorcycle cop of course. ("Please step up and sit on my pillion Sir...")
if you did he could do you for not wearing a helmet. theyem sneeky like that sometimes.
|
|
i imagine its safer to be interrogated sat in a police car thats lit up like a christmas tree rather than sat in your tarmac coloured death trap, ideally though sat on the grass verge tuther side of the crash barrier has to be safest option , but if its raining ..yeah right
|
I wonder whether it has ever been legally tested, as to whether the inside of a police car is "police territory" just like a police station - eg like a British embassy being UK sovereign territory?
It has been pointed out in parliamentary debate that someone going voluntarily to a police station actually has fewer statutory rights than someone who has been arrested.
Certainly in the public eye it carries an unfavourable impression - it means they are on to you, but haven't quite got enough evidence yet to make a charge.
|
I seem to recall on one of the police programmes a businessman type who when stopped for speeding locked his car doors and spoke to the policeman through an small gap in the window.
He adamantly refused to leave his car and was given a ticket through the small gap.
I wonder if the same thing would have happened if he wasn't being filmed?
|
|
|
|
Final thought - have any BRers any experience of being stopped and questioned by a PC on a bicycle? Just wondering....
Yes.
When I had my first motorcycle, aged 17, I used to get stopped by the same plod every time he saw me - I suppose that would be harassment these days -
The last time he stopped me he said he was going to report me for non-functioning indicators.
I pointed out that indicators don't have to work if you don't have any but he was adamant - insisted I would soon be receiving a summons. I never did, of course.
Strange thing was, as he was 'Questioning' me, he was riding in circles around me, stopping only to get his notebook out to write down my reg. n°.
Perhaps he thought I might escape by throwing the 'bike into reverse?
|
Some interesting thoughts about this.
I wonder if Cliff Pope is right when he more or less suggests that if you find yourself in the back of a police car and the door can only be opened from the outside, you're effectively under arrest. If (perish the thought) there was some confusion about shoplifting, say, I doubt you'd be handcuffed to something while the matter was discussed.
I see the point that the officer might want to show you a bit of poor driving on a screen in his car but I still think I'd want to stay put.
The "attitude test" idea is a funny one. When I watch Car Wars, and the like, I'm fascinated by the attitude some people display.
Last week a lorry driver stopped by an officer in an unmarked car for pushing through and for failing to wear a seat-belt, got fed up with debating the point about failure to give way and told the officer to "do" him if he wanted. The officer did, but only for the seat belt failure.
The conversation was absurd, with the officer accusing the driver of "smirking" and for a while I was wondering if there was an offence of smirking without a seat belt.
As I say, I think I'd stay put.
|
|
|
|
|
>how about I say to the officer something like "No thanks, I don't want to sit in your car.
That might be a good choice considering that whatever happens in the US usually finds it's way over here.
An incident occurred close to where we lived in Austin where a female student was stopped by a bogus cop and assaulted. The local PD advised anyone unsure if a cop was genuine to keep all doors locked, wind the window down a fraction, and ask the "cop" to follow you to a place of relative safety. ie. A 24hr gas station or similar.
I wonder what the reaction of UK plod would be if you tried that here.
Kevin...
|
|
|
|
say "no, but you can sit in my car with me".
Anyone see a problem in that?
I wouldn't want a police officer to sit in my car because of the risk of whatever dirt he might have on his uniform/clothes or footwear transferring to my car.
|
|
Or his equipment belt damaging the trim or his CS gas / taser accidentally discharging!
Edited by Old Navy on 15/09/2009 at 20:08
|
Motoring topics a bit thin on the ground today then????
A Police vehicle is not classed as Police premises. However if a member of the public is spoken to and interviewed they should be cautioned and informed that they are NOT under arrest and may leave at any time they wish just in case they are under any misapprehension that they are under arrest.
The only major difference that effects your average client between being within Police premises and in a Police car is the in a Police Station they are entitled to FREE legal advice, in a car they can have a legal advice but it is not necessarily free at that point.
If your car had broken down or been involved in a collision in freezing wet weather perhaps some of you would not want a warm up inside a toasty traffic car whilst waiting for recovery then?
Edited by Fullchat on 15/09/2009 at 20:51
|
If your car had broken down or been involved in a collision in freezing wet weather perhaps some of you would not want a warm up inside a toasty traffic car whilst waiting for recovery then?
Different situation, I think.
I thought we were were talking about what happens after police ask you to stop your vehicle, rather a cop offering assistance after a collision or breakdown, and one f
|
|
|
Motoring topics a bit thin on the ground today then????
Looks that way. :-)
If your car had broken down or been involved in a collision in freezing wet weather perhaps some of you would not want a warm up inside a toasty traffic car whilst waiting for recovery then?
Thats providing assistance to the public, as opposed to law enforcement.
|
|
|
...Motoring topics a bit thin on the ground today then????....
Not as thin on the ground as coppers on the beat around here, mate.
|
|
|
|
Re the entry about the police equipment belt doing some damage to someone's car...
I once had to move someone's Bentley whilst at work....this person is exceptionally well known, even nowadays and right up there on the VIP list, can't get a great deal higher.....trouble was i got into the driving seat and my spare p.r. clip (personal radio clip, spare ones were handy to put keys on)...went right through the leather seat and wrapped itself around the seat piping....and it only became obvious when I tried to get out, couldn't because I was restrained by it...and made the hole worse
I did the usual thing that a person would when you're in your early 20's and have dropped an enormous boo-boo....manipulated the leather back into the hole as best i could and kept quiet about it....wondered if i'd get 'the summons' up to the main bosses office for some months afterwards..... never heard a thing.
Edited by Westpig on 15/09/2009 at 21:57
|
Fullchat wrote >> if a member of the public is spoken to and interviewed they should be cautioned and informed that they are NOT under arrest and may leave at any time they wish just in case they are under any misapprehension that they are under arrest. >>
I am finding it hard to follow this. Are we being told that if stopped by a policeman in connection with a prosecutable traffic offence we should be given the form of words about anything you say, etc, etc?
But we should also be told we're not under arrest and are free to go?
How does that work, because I thought the caution came after the arrest, and if what FC says is right, isn't every policeman we see on TV failing to follow the correct procedure?
|
I am finding it hard to follow this. Are we being told that if stopped by a policeman in connection with a prosecutable traffic offence we should be given >>the form of words about anything you say etc etc? But we should also be told we're not under arrest and are free to go? How does that work because I thought the caution came after the arrest and if what FC says is right isn't every policeman we see on TV failing to follow the correct procedure?
There are two types of caution. One for after an arrest, the other for when you're going to speak to someone about an offence, but are not necessarily planning on arresting them.
e.g 1. Mouthy yob in street, inebriated, alleged to have thrown brick through window, with independent witness. Arrest and caution.
e.g. 2. Great Aunt Maude is alleged to have committed a medium serious traffic offence, let's say an accident with a fail to stop element. You stop her up the road and you arrange for her to attend the police station of her own free will and you interview her. You caution her before the interview and tell her she's not under arrest and free to leave at any time. If she did get up and go, you'd summons her and her refusal to co-operate would no doubt be part of the evidence or at least the fact she had the opportunity to explain things and didn't.
|
Or put more simply:
"You are not under arrest, but unless you behave as if you are, you will be."
|
There's an excellent lecture by American lawyer Professor James Duane called "Don't Talk To The Police." You can find it on You Tube.
He points out that it's never in your interest to talk to the police voluntarily about an alleged offence. Police are trained in interview techniques, and these 'chats' are more to establish your guilt than to prove your innocence. Even a totally innocuous remark can be treated as an admission of guilt. Also if you're under arrest you have more rights than if you go for a 'voluntary' chat. There's a reason why we have a right to remain silent (even if that's been eroded in recent years in the UK).
If I'd been accused of a minor traffic offence I'd not have much of a problem getting in the police vehicle, though if I had a passenger with me I'd ask if could I have them accompany me. (As an independent witness), and I would be very careful what I said.
I'd never go into a police station for a 'voluntary' interview about an alleged offence - motoring or otherwise - unless a lawyer was present. See the video for details why.
|
I'd never go into a police station for a 'voluntary' interview about an alleged offence - motoring or otherwise - unless a lawyer was present. See the video for details why.
that's overly simplistic.....there can be times when a simple explanation up front can clear things up nicely and you can do yourself an awful lot of favours....although conversely i'd concede there are times when you can drop yourself right in it
|
You may have answered this before on here, WP, but is there a third type of caution which you accept and the matter is then not taken further to prosecution?
Or is that included in what you've already described?
|
You may have answered this before on here WP but is there a third type of caution which you accept and the matter is then not taken further to prosecution?
the two i've mentioned above are cautionary words that an officer is obliged to give to someone who may be suspected of an offence, one having been arrested and the other being interviewed
the third one is a 'disposal' option within the criminal justice system of offering someone a Formal Caution as an alternative to prosecution. It's designed as an alternative for minor matters that can free up the courts. Think of it as a kind of formal reprimand (although that in itself is a term used for juveniles, so it gets complicated).
So the first two are a sentence spoken to a potential suspect either having been arrested or simply being interviewed...and the latter is a formal process, a type of mini conviction for a criminal offence, after a suspect has admitted the offence.....(it's not a conviction as such, but you do have a record kept of it for a period of time and your DNA, fingerprints etc are kept)
|
2. I believe the back door of the police car can only be opened from the outside so that once he is in the back he can't get out unless he is released.
On the one occasion that I was stopped by a police car I was asked to sit in the front passenger seat of the police car, not the back. Was this an unusual privilege? (Incidentally, I accepted the invitation gracefully because I saw no reason to do otherwise.)
|
|
|
|
