Small claims - against the police?

JustAnotherSaver

marliepanda wrote: »

Did the relative take photos as soon as he received the phone?

If not, good luck proving that it wasnt broken by the relative and was broken by the police.

I would guess not although i don't know for 100%.

This is one point i made - he should've picked up his own phone himself & not trusted the police at all.

By his own words, ever time he went to go get his phone back they were never careful when rummaging through the items box. Chucking the contents out on to the desk with no care - just tipping it upside down & letting everything drop out.

So i would've been suspicious certainly from that moment.

ThumbRemote

daytona0 wrote: »

Then what have I missed from:

“Basically they were out for a drive & had a passenger who had some marijuana on them. He wasn't smoking it in the car, he just had it on him. Not enough to be classified a dealer - just for personal use. by OP

?

You've missed the fact that the passenger had possession, not the driver. And it was the drivers phone that was damaged.

The driver was not caught with drugs. The passenger was.

JustAnotherSaver

ThumbRemote wrote: »

You've missed the fact that the passenger had possession, not the driver. And it was the drivers phone that was damaged.

The driver was not caught with drugs. The passenger was.

I know it'll vary from police force to police force....

But you watch plenty of those shows on TV & every single one of them who stops people either on the street or in a car or whatever all say ....

come on lads, own up & we'll deal with it here & send you on your way. Don't own up & we'll be down the station.

We have a situation where one owned up & they still both got done for it.

The solicitor did say though - that that police force are very fussy like that. Had it happened with the local force it would've happened like it does on those police TV shows & he'd have been on his way for his friend having such a small amount.

daytona0

ThumbRemote wrote: »

You've missed the fact that the passenger had possession, not the driver. And it was the drivers phone that was damaged.

The driver was not caught with drugs. The passenger was.

I haven't missed that fact at all...

I also haven't missed:

OP wrote:

My friends mate fessed up immediately. Said it was his, was nothing to do with my friend (the driver), he didn't have any, he doesn't even use the stuff himself & it was all his.

The friend was in a car which had weed. Even worse is that the friend appears to be the driver! Despite the fact that friend was not carrying it, and the protests of the mate, the friend still had possession "whether they're yours or not" because he was the driver IN A CAR WHICH HAD DRUGS!

Or are you saying that I can pack my friend's car with 2kg of weed and drive it down to London and, if stopped, claim that it is my friends? Sod me I think we're onto a winner here! Though, in fairness, they may only be able to find my mate's tiny bag of personal weed and he may also get off scott-free. Darn those useless police (how did they know it wasn't my personal weed though? )

Marktheshark

Phone screens make very good "chuffing" pads for Cocaine as they are flat as a mirror.

Unfortunately this fine white powder falls down the edge of the screen in sufficient quantities to be tested for and charge with class A possession.

I would think himself lucky they did not find what they were testing for, he would be on remand now.

JustAnotherSaver

daytona0 wrote: »

blah blah blah

Well at least you seem to have realised that it wasn't MY weed or MY car or MY phone etc etc etc.

Finally.

Marktheshark wrote: »

I would think himself lucky they did not find what they were testing for, he would be on remand now.

Why should he think himself lucky?

Lucky is if you get away with something when you really shouldn't have done.

He had nothing to hide. He doesn't take drugs, hadn't any on his person other than this other lad in the car.

No drug residue or whatever else would be found on him, his clothing, his possessions.

So what is lucky in that? The outcome was always going to be the outcome which it was .............. NO case.

Johnnytwostep

he was a very lucky, naughty boy indeed

daytona0

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Well at least you seem to have realised that it wasn't MY weed or MY car or MY phone etc etc etc.

You gave some silly examples about winning the lottery (referring to "I") and some unknown guy getting run over ("he"). I replied using some other 'If conditionals' and used "You" in much the same way as you used "I" in your lottery example - I didn't mean it to refer to anyone in particular, just serve as an example which could be applicable to your friend's situation.

Feel stupid having to explain that

paddyrg

On the one hand, it looks like a breach of their duty of care, on the other, good luck proving it. As the stop and search was successful in finding evidence of a crime (however dumb people consider that crime), it may weaken the case for reparations or at least make it harder to convince people. If the passenger hadn't been carrying drugs, it may have been a more compelling case.

I'd say it's worth a go on the grounds that he witnessed phones being poured from a box onto a table, presumably a regular occurrence - that means there's CCTV of this happening somewhere, so breach of duty of care. I would, however, have a think if it's worth it, asking the station for evidence that'll count against them, then still driving round in the same car as used by a known criminal, he might just become more visible for more random stops and searches.

ThumbRemote

daytona0 wrote: »

I haven't missed that fact at all...

I also haven't missed: "My friends mate fessed up immediately. Said it was his, was nothing to do with my friend (the driver), he didn't have any, he doesn't even use the stuff himself & it was all his. by OP"

The friend was in a car which had weed. Even worse is that the friend appears to be the driver! Despite the fact that friend was not carrying it, and the protests of the mate, the friend still had possession "whether they're yours or not" because he was the driver IN A CAR WHICH HAD DRUGS!

Or are you saying that I can pack my friend's car with 2kg of weed and drive it down to London and, if stopped, claim that it is my friends? Sod me I think we're onto a winner here! Though, in fairness, they may only be able to find my mate's tiny bag of personal weed and he may also get off scott-free. Darn those useless police (how did they know it wasn't my personal weed though? )

What on earth are you on about? Seriously. Have you been drinking, or do you live in a fantasy world?

The friend did not have drugs.
The car did not have drugs.
The friends mate had drugs on them. In their possession.

Even your "also haven't missed" quote is saying exactly the opposite of what you seem to think. Friends mate admitted everything.

I have no idea what you're on about with regards to packing a car full of drugs. It seems to be the worlds worst analogy, based on some made-up idea you have about the scenario. For a start, there is only one person in it.

What I'm saying is that if two people are together, and one is in the possession of drugs, that does not make the other guilty of possession too.