Police rules?

bitemebankers

rochja wrote: »

eg means for example and is not supposed to read as an exhaustive list of instances. Most importantly here the police were trying to recover evidence

The supposed importance of the investigation is no excuse for failing to treat householders with some respect: in this case asking permission instead of just assuming and letting themselves in for a good snoop around. If nothing else, it's just plain rude.

The legality of the act was questioned and I contend no court would find against the police in this instance - quite rightly. Why would you want them to not make reasonable efforts to investigate crimes?

You may be right about the court's decision, but that's just speculation. Asking that the police request permission before trespassing does not negate wanting the police to conduct proper investigations. So why ask the question?

I was also quite concerned that people who couldn't be bothered to research the law on this were doing the usual vociferous 'this infringes my rights and those coppers need taking down...

Defensive, much?

I am not a voice for the police federation and I disapprove of the attitudes and actions of many rank and file police officers but I do like to see criticism only levelled when it is appropriate.

I think this is appropriate criticism.

ifstar

Lance wrote: »

That's a lawyers site fishing for business. Police smash your door down without legal excuse sue for damages.... don't forget your terrible 'trauma' , 'can never work again' etc. In this case the OP is entitled to sue the Police for any damage they have done ... which appears to be none.

If a member of your family was stabbed and suspect detained after knife thrown away and the fingerprints / dna on knife was only evidence...... Police believed it had been thrown into a garden but no reply at front door so they came back later and eventually got an answer. Knife recovered but recent rain destroyed dna / prints so attacker gets off! Would you like to be the officer explaining that to the victims family you thought it was 'illegal' to go over the gate without permission? It's called using your common sence to do your job and if occupier wants to complain your explanation should counteract their hurt feelings etc.

Spot on.

The part about the OP not letting the dog is surely common sense, they aren't just in the back garden having a play on the swings, they are obviously looking for something or someone. If it is something evidential then the dog could contaminate it.

Seriously, folk moan when the police are trying to do a job and others moan when they think they aren't doing enough. They would no doubt be rushing about to try and find this, rather than going round the other side of the street to chap doors and ask to go into back gardens.

neverdespairgirl

meritaten wrote: »

I don't know if this relevant but a few years back the police raided a property just up the road from me on a tip off that the guy was smuggling Ciggies and Booze from France. They searched the house and found hardly anything. A couple of days later I asked one of the cops why they hadn't searched the old Suite in the Garden (as everyone knew that the guy had stashed the contraband in there) and he told me the Warrant was specific to the house only and even if someone had gone and found it - they couldn't take it to court as it was illegal for them to search the garden without one

Sounds as if he was telling you a load of porkies.

Warrants usually include the whole of a property known as 36 Acacia Avenue (for example), and therefore include all of that.

Of all the warrants I've ever seen, they all either state that all of a particular property is covered, or they are multi-premises warrants, covering all addresses owned or controlled by John Smith.

No police / customs officer with a functioning brain cell would apply for a warrant which covered only a house, and excluded the garden.

aileth

Well I certainly had zero issue with them searching, they could've done my house if they wanted (sans knicker drawer) and I'd have made them a brew. I suppose I just expected maybe a knock and a 'by the way, we're just going to look in your back garden as I'm sure you're aware there was an incident at X and we're looking for Y', instead of me walking out of the kitchen to two men poking in my bin! I just thought it was polite really.

And re dog contaminating evidence, they were searching for a weapon 24 hours almost after the incident, plenty of time for rain and dog being out or the local tom cat to make his 'mark'!

3v3

Originally Posted by motherofstudents
.. The next thing the back garden had several police officers looking around and then a scuffle. They had caught a car thief but as my side gate was really secure they brought him through my house ! ..

bitemebankers wrote: »

I wouldn't have let them through either. They've no legal right to do so and I certainly would not want a criminal being marched through my home.

So, you would rather they stayed in your garden with a criminal?

rochja

As an ex milkman I can vouch for the number of times it possible to knock on a door only for the householder to ring the depot complaining 'I have been in all day and the milkman has not called for payment.' No evidence has been sought as to whether the police did knock before securing entry so any charge of rudeness against them is unproven. It could be true, but equally it might not be. I have already said I am no defender of the police having worked alongside them in a later incarnation but I return to my original point that criticism should only be levied where the charge can be proven

bitemebankers

aileth wrote: »

Well I certainly had zero issue with them searching, they could've done my house if they wanted (sans knicker drawer) and I'd have made them a brew. I suppose I just expected maybe a knock and a 'by the way, we're just going to look in your back garden as I'm sure you're aware there was an incident at X and we're looking for Y', instead of me walking out of the kitchen to two men poking in my bin! I just thought it was polite really.

Me too. It would have been good manners to ask first, and arrogant to just assume.

aileth

Hmm well if they did knock it would have been awfully feathery as our walls are made of paper and the kitchen is at the front with a large window right next to the front door, no doors were closed, well except the front door of course! Our doorbell is bloody stereo surround sound through the house too!

rochja

I worked for a short period as an off licence manager in Battersea. I gave it up after the knife incident and the gang attack which is how I became a milkman. One night we were in the living room upstairs when we heard someone force the front door so that it swung against the wall with a mighty crash. This was followed by heavy footsteps hammering their way up the stairs. Just avoiding a coronary arrest I peered out to see what was happening. It turned out the fire brigade had forced entry because a flat next door was on fire and they had got the wrong door! They said they had knocked and getting no answer had to force entry to save life. My wife was younger and prettier then so this may have been embellishment

Mankysteve

bitemebankers wrote: »

The OP didn't say they police were chasing a suspect, nor does it appear to be the morning after the night before, so according to that they don't have any right to go snooping around people's property without permission / a warrant.

They are allowed to enter as someone posted early the exact regs, to preserve evidence, if a crime is being committed and if someone is in danger.