Small claims - against the police?

ThumbRemote

daytona0 wrote: »

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

There was another post, post 2, to which the OP replied. This has now been deleted, making the OPs reply look somewhat random.

mad_dr

I'm confused... OP, can you confirm or correct any of the below for us:

1. There's a car that belongs to a friend of yours. It has two people in it.

2. Person 1 is the driver and owner. Person 1 is your friend. He has no drugs on him.

3. Person 2 is an acquaintance of your friend and is a passenger in Person 1's car. Person 2 has some weed on him.

4. Person 1 doesn't know that person 2 is in possession of the weed.

5. Person 2 owns up to being in possession. Person 2 tells the officer that Person 1 doesn't know that Person 2 is in possession.

Is all of this right? If so, then although IANAL, I would imagine the following:
1. Person 2 shouldn't have had the weed, etc etc.

2. Person 1 might be expected to know that Person 2 might be carrying weed and that, if so, it could put Person 1 in a difficult position if the police take an interest.

3. The Police could/should have handled the situation by the roadside following a search.

4. If the police arrested both people they should have stated the reason for arrest at the roadside and when booking them in with the custody sergeant - what was the reason stated on the arrest form for Person 1?

5. Once found to not be in possession of drugs or in contravention of any other laws, Person 1 should have been released immediately (and, arguably de-arrested, given that they appear to have been found to have been arrested for a reason that turned out to be false).

6. Person 1's property should have been catalogued when taken from Person 1 and again when returned, including the condition. If the contents or condition of personal items changes whilst in the care of the police, restitution should be made - particularly when no charges are brought that would justify the change in condition.

So, all in all, if I were Person 1 as above, I would lodge a complaint. I might be tempted to acknowledge that I understand why suspicion was raised against me (although I might question why it took so long to determine that I had no link to the weed (which is very easy for them to determine if they were so inclined)) but that I would like some explanation around the condition of the phone when it was returned to me.

Of course, if Person 1 is known to police before the incident, that might explain the zealousness of the officers at the time. I'm curious as to what charge the police pursued for months before dropping them.

As the phone was signed for by a nearby relative, it's unlikely that this will result in an apology or any compensation to repair/replace the phone. If I was Person 1, I'd probably ask Person 2 to pay for it; it sounds like I had to put up with a good deal of crap because of him (Person 2)...

JustAnotherSaver

daytona0 wrote: »

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

Why should i respond to your question when

a) it has nothing to do with anything worthwhile?

b) you (& your sidekick) seem only interested in being as unhelpful as possible?

And i should answer your question?!

JustAnotherSaver

paddyrg wrote: »

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.

Thanks for your post.

As for the last note - he has become more visible. He's been stopped numerous times since.

For the benefit of other individuals here .......... each time NOTHING was found to be wrong, be it drugs or whatever else.

He's considering selling the car on anyway because he can't be bothered with the grief.

And again for the benefit of other individuals here - no friend is allowed in his car with anything the police would consider that they shouldn't have.

And finally for the benefit of other individuals here - yes, we all know it shouldn't have happened in the first place too, so you can save that one as well.

daytona0

ThumbRemote wrote: »

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.

The drugs were IN THE CAR! Prove that they weren't the friend's drugs, but being held by the mate? No third party can do that!

Your argument here is boiling down to the fact that the stop and search was unlawful towards friend because they didn't have drugs and the car didn't have drugs, so why the hell did the police stop and search?

If that's what you're saying then please give advice on that!

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

Yea true, but can a third party rule out the possibility that mate could by lying for the friend?

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.

2 people in a car get stopped. One has small bag of weed but confesses. 2nd person gets off unpunished

Now assume the small bag of weed is a 2kg stash of weed. Would you be happy in letting 2nd person go free? Is that how the law works? Because if so let's go on a road trip!

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.

Then OP's friend was unlawfully searched and they should be taking that route. The phone shouldn't have been opened and friend should be reimbursed.

If you believe that then please please give OP some advice instead of arguing with me.

daytona0

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Why should i respond to your question when

a) it has nothing to do with anything worthwhile?

b) you (& your sidekick) seem only interested in being as unhelpful as possible?

And i should answer your question?!

I didn't ask a question in the post you quoted.....

daytona0

ThumbRemote wrote: »

There was another post, post 2, to which the OP replied. This has now been deleted, making the OPs reply look somewhat random.

That was a different user.

JustAnotherSaver

mad_dr wrote: »

I'm confused... OP, can you confirm or correct any of the below for us:

1. There's a car that belongs to a friend of yours. It has two people in it.

2. Person 1 is the driver and owner. Person 1 is your friend. He has no drugs on him.

3. Person 2 is an acquaintance of your friend and is a passenger in Person 1's car. Person 2 has some weed on him.

4. Person 1 doesn't know that person 2 is in possession of the weed.

All good so far.

He knew he smoked weed, but didn't know he had it on him there & then AFAIK.

5. Person 2 owns up to being in possession. Person 2 tells the officer that Person 1 doesn't know that Person 2 is in possession.

Person 2 told the officer it was all his (person 2) & it was nothing to do with person 1

4. If the police arrested both people they should have stated the reason for arrest at the roadside and when booking them in with the custody sergeant - what was the reason stated on the arrest form for Person 1?

They did state.
They said they were going to have him for dealing.
I've only my friends word to go on, which is enough for me, but he said it was a very small amount. Most certainly not enough to consider supplying/dealing. It's not like he had stashes of cash in his wallet from some mega-deal

So, all in all, if I were Person 1 as above, I would lodge a complaint. I might be tempted to acknowledge that I understand why suspicion was raised against me (although I might question why it took so long to determine that I had no link to the weed (which is very easy for them to determine if they were so inclined)) but that I would like some explanation around the condition of the phone when it was returned to me.

Thanks

Of course, if Person 1 is known to police before the incident, that might explain the zealousness of the officers at the time. I'm curious as to what charge the police pursued for months before dropping them.

They weren't.
And just dealing AFAIK.

As the phone was signed for by a nearby relative, it's unlikely that this will result in an apology or any compensation to repair/replace the phone. If I was Person 1, I'd probably ask Person 2 to pay for it; it sounds like I had to put up with a good deal of crap because of him (Person 2)...

Exactly what i said.
I also said person 2 should've paid the £180 for the release of the car & to have the powder or whatever it is that the police use cleaned up & all the dog print marks all over the interior.

But my friend is a soft sod & because his mate is essentially jobless & homeless (believe it or not), he wont take any money from him whatsoever.

ThumbRemote

daytona0 wrote: »

The drugs were IN THE CAR! Prove that they weren't the friend's drugs, but being held by the mate? No third party can do that!

In post #3 you said: "You may be charged with possessing an illegal substance if you’re caught with drugs, whether they’re yours or not." So that boxes off the 'the driver is innocent' line of reasoning....

You have completely fabricated (that means 'made up') some rubbish about the driver being in possession, just because the two people were in the same car. And based on that you've decided the driver is guilty - something the police didn't even do.

daytona0 wrote: »

Your argument here is boiling down to the fact that the stop and search was unlawful towards friend because they didn't have drugs and the car didn't have drugs, so why the hell did the police stop and search?

If that's what you're saying then please give advice on that!

Nowhere have I said that. You're in fantasy world again. The stop and search was perfectly lawful (well, as far as I know anyway).

daytona0 wrote: »

Yea true, but can a third party rule out the possibility that mate could by lying for the friend?

Yes, they could be lying. That's why the police investigated.

daytona0 wrote: »

2 people in a car get stopped. One has small bag of weed but confesses. 2nd person gets off unpunished

Yes, that's what happened.

daytona0 wrote: »

Now assume the small bag of weed is a 2kg stash of weed. Would you be happy in letting 2nd person go free? Is that how the law works? Because if so let's go on a road trip!

!!!!!! has this got to do with anything? It wasn't a 2kg stash.

Now assume passenger 2 is a giraffe. Shouldn't they have taken them to the zoo? That's got just as much relevance as your random assumption.

daytona0 wrote: »

Then OP's friend was unlawfully searched and they should be taking that route. The phone shouldn't have been opened and friend should be reimbursed.

If you believe that then please please give OP some advice instead of arguing with me.

I have already given my advice in post #4.

What I am taking issue with is your unfounded claim that the driver was guilty of possession.

JustAnotherSaver

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Now assume passenger 2 is a giraffe. Shouldn't they have taken them to the zoo?

Literal :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: at this. All the more for the fact that i did actually imagine a giraffe in the passenger seat :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:.

But anyway, like you said, it certainly wasn't a 2kg bag.

I don't get it, one minute we seem to want to talk about facts, the next minute we seem to want to stretch it out, twist a little here & there so it suits our argument better.

I prefer to deal with the facts.

I also prefer to get helpful responses but it looks like we've had some here who aren't interested in that. Oh well.