AIBU to think the police were out of order?

[Cailleachian]

DS1 (18) has chronic insomnia. A about 6 month back, he started taking nightwalks as a way of wearing himself out and clearing his mind. Sometimes DS2 (17) keeps him company, Tonight, they went out for a walk about 11pm and about 1/2hour later DS2 came bolting in the door, shouting "Mum, Mum, its the police". My first thought was that one of them had got in a fight or been hurt.

I answered the door and a male and female police officer are standing there with DS1. The man asks to come in, telling me that he is here to charge DS2 with breach of the peace.

It transpires that they were stopped by the woman, who was questioning them about why they were walking about and whether they were from a "unit"(?!) when the man came over and started shouting at them and demanding to search them. DS1 was searched, but when DS2 was searched apparently he kept backing away, at which point the man grabbed his hands and pinned him against a wall. DS2 then swore at him repeatedly. Thoughout being told this DS2 is very upset, keeps interrupting the man over minutiae (and at times I felt like was trying to sort out DS1 and DS2's squabbles), but ultimately both of them agree that this is what happened.

In the end he didnt charge him, but to be honest, I'm a bit outraged that he even considered it. I dont know why my sons were stopped (acting suspiciously, out late at night while under 18, area where breakins happen were all reasons I was given). I dont know why he wasnt able to de-escalate a stop and search without physical aggression. And above all I dont understand why he thought it was a child protection issue, given that the only person that assaulted him in the street at night was the policeman himself.

Go-on Mumsnet, give me your best pearl clutching.

The fact is, one son behaved reasonably, allowed himself to be searched, no big deal.
The other son, saw all of this, still decided to resist and got himself into trouble.

You can hardly use the scared/thought he might be mugged line when the other son was searched first without incident.

I dont think that backing away was helpful, but I can understand DS2 being weirded out at being searched, and I would have expected the police officer to have understood that as well and tried to chill him out rather than using physical force. Of course DS2 should not have sworn at the officer, but I would have imagined that it was a shock reaction.

I agree.

So backing away, resisting and swearing aren't reasonable grounds to suspect the detainee is hiding/trying to hide something on their person?

No, because they happened after the stop. As I said already, the police don't get to backfill their decisions. You start with the reasonable suspicion (which isn't just "let's have a nosy at what these lads are doing") and then make the stop and request the search.

Courts have repeatedly upheld that the police cannot use "they acted funny after I stopped them" as "reasonable suspicion". Otherwise we have strayed into the realm of random S&S. Which are permissible. But only in special cases, and this certainly isn't one of them.

This thread is degenerating into a bad parody of "Constable Savage". I wonder if the OPs DS were wearing loud shirts in a built up area ?

I'm so glad I was born female and could take as many walks as I wanted at night at 17 without police sticking their nose in.

Please educate your bloody sons on being out and about at night. It's not the '70s anymore. I think both sides may have been erroneous, but your little hothead son didn't help things. X

For the latest update it sounds as though they followed procedure, female officer approaches, identifies herself, speaks to them, male officer notes hands in pockets and asks for hands to be taken out of pocket, refusal, officer can now reasonably have suspicion prohibited item is being concealed. Grounds for search now warranted.

Male officer then searches first son whilst female holds younger sons wrist for the protection of her and her colleague whilst waiting for male officer to search other son.

He gets lairy and backs away refusing to remove hands therefore increasing the suspicion.

Then rather than arrest which they could have and called you to attend the station as an appropriate adult, decide to take them home as a resolution rather than potentially having a record, despite his arsey behaviour.

Once home, younger son continues to be lairy, argues with his brother and talks over everyone. Younger could do with learning how to behave.

Have to say I'd be incredibly suspicious of someone claiming to be a plain clothes police officer, especially at night.

I don't know what a real badge looks like.

I'd be very suspicious they were trying to rob me or worse. I'd probably run away from them.

I agree FAQs

I'd be very suspicious they were trying to rob me or worse. I'd probably run away from them

In which case, the deployment of a tazer would probably settle the question for you.

Nah, they'd never catch me. I'm quicker than most men over 400m.

For the latest update it sounds as though they followed procedure, female officer approaches, identifies herself, speaks to them, male officer notes hands in pockets and asks for hands to be taken out of pocket, refusal, officer can now reasonably have suspicion prohibited item is being concealed. Grounds for search now warranted.

The "procedure" starts with having reasonable suspicion. Which still hasn't been evidenced.

For the umpteenth time, just being out late is not "suspicious behaviour" so the police must have more than that. Which I am sure they will have recorded on the receipt they will provide the OP with, and which will contain the details needed, should the OP wish to pursue it further.

In which case, the deployment of a tazer would probably settle the question for you

One reason why I don't worship at the altar of police perfection.

www.chorley-guardian.co.uk/news/blind-man-tasered-in-police-blunder-1-5034507

A terrified blind stroke victim was tasered to the ground by police – who thought his thin white stick was a Samurai sword.

I don't know the legal position, so it's possible FAQs is legally correct, but IMO refusing to take your hands our of your pockets should not be reasonable grounds for a stop and search.

For starters, they police have no power to demand you take your hands out of your pockets. We're not all playing a compulsory game of 'Simon says'.
But crucially, IMO, refusing to cooperate with a request to establish what is or isn't in your pockets shouldn't be reasonable grounds to give them powers to search your pockets!

I bet OP was 'up the school getting ds2s detentions cancelled" too.

Your son is in the wrong here.

For starters, they police have no power to demand you take your hands out of your pockets.

They do. As part of a lawful stop and search. They are also allowed to take measures to ensure their own, and bystanders safety, which might include asking a person to remove hands from pockets so as no weapon is concealed.

But all of this comes after the "reasonable" bit. And thus far, that's the bit the OP hasn't (yet) been provided with details of.

Well, duh.

@ProfessorSlocombe Police Officers do NOT need reasonable suspicion to talk to someone.

They can talk to who they like, they require reasonable suspicion to search someone (unless the area is subject to Sec 60)

The younger boys reaction created the grounds for a search.

I've been stopped several times when walking around the city late at night (chronic insomnia here too). But always kindly and to check I'm ok - and on the occasion I wasn't (cornered by stray dog) I was driven home and dh got bollocked. White well-spoken woman privilege.

At first I thought you were being unreasonable and your ds being a bit of a dick but, unmarked car, no uniforms, I would have run from them tbh.
My dp has a "friend" who is a police officer, one night while out with friends, he thought it would be hilarious (because he was out his fucking nut on drugs) to stop some random young boy in the street, show him his badge and do a strip search. I mean wtf! No reason for it, obviously not on duty, just thought it would give him and his friends a good laugh. That's the sort of people that are allowed to become police.

One reason why I don't worship at the altar of police perfection.

Nor I. So hands would have been coming out of the pockets without the need to be told twice.

@Drogosnextwife that is shocking and should have been reported. It’s people like him who undermine the Police and create barriers and suspicion of those working within the boundaries.

YABU. Two teens walking about late at night in a high crime area then refusing to cooperate with Police. What did you expect? A pat on the head and a cup of cocoa while your DS2 repeatedly swore at them?

Exactly this. Your ds2 behaved foolishly. The officers had identified themselves.

There was an interesting interview about stop and search on London tv the other week. The female newscaster was black, as was the bloke she as interviewing. He was a youth worker who supports youngsters at risk of being involved in crime. She asked him what he thought about more black than white youths being stopped and how her brother had been stopped previously. He said the best thing to do is to comply, complain later if the stop was not legal.

I note that Boris Johnson has said there will be more stop and searches. Given the amount of knife crime report d currently, I believe this to be a good thing.

My dp has a "friend" who is a police officer, one night while out with friends, he thought it would be hilarious (because he was out his fucking nut on drugs) to stop some random young boy in the street, show him his badge and do a strip search. I mean wtf! No reason for it, obviously not on duty, just thought it would give him and his friends a good laugh. That's the sort of people that are allowed to become police

And exactly the type who then get sacked for bringing the job into disrepute. Asshole. Someone I know has just reported an officer for something very dodgy. I assume he will be sacked. I’ve seen it before when an officer pocketed something he discovered during a search. Doubtful he’ll find a decent job with that on his record (he served time).

FAQs, sure, anyone can talk to anyone at any time. I could ask you to take your hands out of your pockets. I could ask a police officer to take their hands out of their pockets. I could ask the Queen.

The point is that, absent a stop ans search being initiated, no one legally has to comply.

So I really hope that wouldn't considered reasonable grounds.

"He refused to empty his pockets" is not reasonable grounds.
"I couldn't already see what was in his pocket" is not reasonable grounds.
What you describe is basically the same. It is a complete con. It's subverting the intention of the law. Subverting the legal protection we all have.

that is shocking and should have been reported. It’s people like him who undermine the Police and create barriers and suspicion of those working within the boundaries.

If you follow the case I highlighted (the force lost the case the victim bought against them) you'll see the officer was not sacked. I can count on the fingers of one finger the policemen I've seen sacked for their conduct. But if the majority of posters on this thread are willing to take their side regardless, that's what you get.