Police Vs Cyclist

antrobus

The question has been asked before, and answered.

http://stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/the-curious-incident-of-the-edgware-road-cyclist/

Norman_Castle

matttye wrote: »

Cyclist is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Cyclist is a "student of the law" who thinks he knows more than he does.

matttye

RS2000. wrote: »

Under what act and section? There is no requirement for a cyclist to have any documents.

Police can do most things with the consent of the suspect.

He cannot order or require the cyclist to produce documentation, but there's nothing preventing him from requesting sight of it.

If the cyclist had stopped and given the officer his name and address straight away instead of being an idiot, it's doubtful he would have asked to see any documentation at all. Like you say there's no requirement for the cyclist to have any documents.

Think about it... if an officer was about to arrest you because he wasn't sure that you were who you say you are, it would be bad law if you were not allowed to show him your ID to allay his fears and you had to be arrested instead!

antrobus

RS2000. wrote: »

Under what act and section? There is no requirement for a cyclist to have any documents.

I don't believe that we need a specific statute to enable a police constable to simply ask a question. As in, 'Well sir, do you have any identification in your possession that confirms that you are indeed Mr Michael Mouse and reside at number 17 Disneyland Drive'?

matttye

antrobus wrote: »

I don't believe that we need a specific statute to enable a police constable to simply ask a question. As in, 'Well sir, do you have any identification in your possession that confirms that you are indeed Mr Michael Mouse and reside at number 17 Disneyland Drive'?

Correct!

The attitude test will be applied usually. If you're helpful, police are more likely to believe you. Give them your name and address and get on your way. Job done.

That said, there is no requirement on a civilian to stop and speak to the police for any reason at all. An officer can require you to stop for the purposes of a search or to arrest you, and for both of those they need reasonable grounds to suspect certain things. In other words a police officer can't stop someone just because they feel like it.

RS2000.

matttye wrote: »

Correct!

The attitude test will be applied usually. If you're helpful, police are more likely to believe you. Give them your name and address and get on your way. Job done.

That said, there is no requirement on a civilian to stop and speak to the police for any reason at all. An officer can require you to stop for the purposes of a search or to arrest you, and for both of those they need reasonable grounds to suspect certain things. In other words a police officer can't stop someone just because they feel like it.

Not always, so be careful of the advice you give considering you claim to have legal training.

[Deleted User]

The cyclist is clearly trying to be a clever !!!!!!, but it's interesting how the cop loses his rag with him.

The Police are quick enough to gloat about how they keep their cool while the punters are getting aggressive, but this video demonstrates how any idiot can keep their cool when they have a monopoly on the power. Usually it's the police with the upper hand, but when the tables are turned they can lose it just like anyone else.

Car_54

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Bit biased. Maybe all road users who jump red lights should have their kneecaps broken.

Not quite all. Pedestrians and horse riders do not require to obey traffic lights.

gpc273

The cyclist is a right !!!!. Although the Police have a working knowledge of the law it is ridiculous to expect any officer to quote verbatim any part of the law as the wannabe lawyer wants in this case.

It does look as though the copper isn't used to being challenged though.

Cornucopia

All the Policeman really needed to do was (a) remain calm, and (b) stick with the Law as written. He was in the right, but by departing from the Law, he made it look to the Cyclist and viewers of the video as if he did not know what he was talking about at all, when in fact he had the right idea, but lacked the detail.

IIUC, and this may be the source of the Cyclist's confusion, it used to be the case that you could only be compelled to produce/verify your details if the Police were concerned about an arrestable offence. This is not now the case, and the more general rules stated above apply.

There is an interesting tangent to this which I have come across in the course of dealing with TV Licensing matters.

Although TVL Search Warrants are very rare, the odd one does crop up. Most of the time, at least 2 TVL operatives are supported by at least 2 Police officers. All of them have right of entry under the legislation. However, TVL obviously require a name for any potential summons (and a SW does not require a name).

So... the TVL people can find themselves with an alleged offence in evidence, and an alleged offender in front of them who is refusing to give their name. What should they/the Police do?

- Should the Police take the word of TVL that an offence has been committed, if the Police lack the knowledge to know for sure? And then use that alleged offence as justification for compelling the name, and potentially arresting the alleged offender?

- Should they search the premises for any documentation that might provide a name, even though there is no direct link to guarantee that any found name belongs to the alleged offender? (This action would be outside the terms of the Search Warrant).

- Should they walk away and not open up such a can of worms?