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.

If you search for “photography audit” on YouTube you will find a lot of coppers still go nuts about someone filming/taking photos in a public place.

So when those two officers come on shift tonight they will have to spend 2 hours preparing paperwork for you, when they could be out doing their actual job.
This is why the police don't have time to attend all crimes because they are doing paperwork and dealing with jobs that aren't needed.

With all the knife crimes happening atm I'm glad searching is being done

JingsMahBucket with the greatest of respect, the precise fact that you are American makes your post irrelevant. The UK/US police are completely, utterly different to the point where you are comparing apples and oranges. Everything from the training they receive to the weapons they are issued with and the level of scrutiny they come under is so, so much higher in the UK, meaning you can't extrapolate the (many) police issues in the US in any meaningful way to this country.

OP - You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about what the police should have done, and then your unhappiness stems from the fact that they haven't met this criteria, whereas actually they didn't do a lot of the things because they are not expected/obliged to, so your dissatisfaction is, to a large extent, unfounded.

for example - you hint that it was only when DS1 said that DS2 was under 18 and asked if he should have an adult that they decided not to take him to the station and charge him - there is no obligation for an under 18 to have an appropriate adult with them until interview stage - even if your older ds1 wasn't with him it's perfectly fine for him to be taken to the station and charged alone.

also - you refer to not having been given any paperwork - as pp's have explained officers now do everything in their electronic PNBs so have no capacity to give you paperwork as they physically don't have it. They told you how to access the relevant info instead, exactly as per procedure.

also - you said you were suspicious of the collar number given. believe me officers know that giving the wrong collar number is a really big issue, and much more likely to lead to misconduct/even gross misconduct under the CoP standards (or the Scottish equivalent) than a common place and hard to prove accusation of not being nice during a search. The female officer would have known her colleague's number, there are multiple logs, radio transmissions etc. showing which officers were assigned to which car and exactly where they went that night - believe me he would be very very unlikely to give you the wrong number for something as inconsequential as this.

Honestly OP I don't know what more you would like - you acknowledge that your DS2 knew they were police officers but was still non-compliant. No, being out at night isn't illegal, but it is comparatively unusual - in the same way, for example, going to Notting Hill Carnival isn't illegal but due to the nature of it it's much more likely that you will be stopped and searched there. They were out late at night, alone, in an area known to police (and acknowledged by your son!) as having a significant recent crime, refused to take hands out of pockets when asked, etc. What more 'proof' would you like officers to have before doing routine searches? Or would you prefer them to never do them at all?

I'm not an officer, just to clarify, in fact the opposite!

The police were in the right. It's perfectly reasonable to stop and search two 17/18 year olds wandering the streets of a high crime area at 11/12 at night

Your son was being obstructive and verbally abusive. The police officers will be checking for weapons and trying to ensure everyone's safety.

Yes it's inconvenient to be stopped, but blame the many teenage boys who go out at night carrying knives, not the police.

You should be glad they stop and search. Would you want your boys to be out in an area with high crime rate if there were no police to stop and search? How would you feel if your son was stabbed? Teach your son some respect.

The police were in the right. It's perfectly reasonable to stop and search two 17/18 year olds wandering the streets of a high crime area at 11/12 at night

Assertion does not make this true! They need reasonable grounds to suspect. See s.1 PACE and the Code of Practice.

From the Code:

2.2B Reasonable suspicion can never be supported on the basis of personal factors. This means that unless the police have information or intelligence which provides a description of a person suspected of carrying an article for which there is a power to stop and search, the following cannot be used, alone or in combination with each other, or in combination with any other factor, as the reason for stopping and searching any individual, including any vehicle which they are driving or are being carried in:

(a) A person’s physical appearance with regard, for example, to any of the ‘relevant protected characteristics’ set out in the Equality Act 2010, section 149, which are age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation (see paragraph 1.1 and Note 1A), or the fact that the person is known to have a previous conviction; and

(b) Generalisations or stereotypical images that certain groups or categories of people are more likely to be involved in criminal activity

See (b) in particular.

@onceandneveragain

DS1 told me that the police told them they were being taken to the station. He questioned whether he could be there as an appropriate adult, or if they would need a parent. Apparently they then decided to bring them home. The police officer implied that they were doing him/me a kindness by bringing him home to be charged rather than having to have me come into the station....which squares what DS1 told me.

They did not tell me how to access the relevant info, afaik Police Scotland still issue paper receipts and the desk sergeant I spoke to this morning seemed to suggest that I should have been given it at the time, but there were sometimes oversights.

It was my sons who told me his badge number after they had left, which they say he told them in the car in response to being asked him name. I did ask for his badge number, but it all got interrupted by a long explaination of why he didnt have to give his name, and he never did give it to me in the end. The reason I am suspicious of the collar number is that it is a "significant" number which has an alternative meaning - like 1488 (it wasnt 1488). , I immediately recognised it as "significant", the boys didn't appear to grok the significance which suggests to me that it was what they were told....but it may just be coincidence.

I dont think that police officers should be doing routine searches of civilians at all, civilians should only be searched where there are reasonable grounds. Even where there are reasonable grounds I would expect police officers to be sensitive in searching U18s, and de-escalate fairly minor infractions (such as backing away while being searched in a dark street late at night)

What do you mean “significant”. He will not have lied about his number, there is nothing to gain my doing so and he would be disciplined if he did that.

Op, you still don’t seem to get it. If a person backs away from me I have a split second to decide what to do and that split second can be when they pull a knife or swallow drugs. I’m taking ahold of them in that case, for mine and their safety.

Fair enough @Nicknacky. I guess it would just be an unfortunate number for a police officer to have (like 1488), but odd coincidences happen.

What, like 1984?

That’s just coincidence. Mines the same as a tv police officer!

So officer 1066 needs to watch himself.

Yeah, I'm probably overthinking the badge number....

This thread! Mumsnet, where the police can do no wrong

Thank goodness for @ProfessorSlocombe and the few other reasonable posters.

OP, YANBU.

And I find it extremely disconcerting that so many people think it’s not ok for people to walk around late at night. We do, theoretically, still have a right to move around in public spaces whenever we like.

Ah, so it’s only the posters who think the police were in the wrong that can be considered reasonable?

Gotcha.

Anywhere the officers were wrong in confiscating the search initially or not- at no time do you seem to acknowledge that your sons actions were unacceptable. He failed to comply, got verbal. And got brought home instead of charged- are you're still defending him when they would have been able by your sons own admission to take him down the station for interview instead. And even with this, you want to further try and make things difficult for the officers who let your son off from his admitted sullen behaviour when asked to comply with a search. Seriously- maybe instead of defending his actions and trying to find fault with the police- acknowledge and own your sons contempt and your continued support of it.

Good police have nothing to fear from complaints or being accountable for their actions.
They should welcome it. Better that than other police who aren't as good as them go unpunished. Haven't they read stories about police misconduct. they may have to put up with a few minor inconveniences and erroneous complaints but once they comply with their legal obligation to do so then there'll be no consequences.
In fact they should be happy to go beyond what they're legally obliged to do and actually comply with any request from the public as they don't want to come across as entitled by refusing to do something someone else has arbitrarily decided they have to without any grounds.

Or does the nothing to fear nothing to hide rhetoric only apply to those without power

Complaints are part and parcel of the job, they obviously aren’t nice to get but sometimes occur.

I did have a complaint of racism once although that one didn’t get very far......

" I dont think that police officers should be doing routine searches of civilians at all". Should they never search anybody? Even the most hardened criminal is a 'civilian', as is everyone who carries a knife.

You don't, other people do. Specially if there is a fair bit of crime in the area. We all pay taxes for the Police, we all get a vote, we can all write to our MPs and ask for more/less Police vigilance.

I would suggest that being respectful to, and desisting from swearing at, anyone who is doing a job that the public requires them to do, is basic decent behaviour. And if you feel that you are being treated unreasonably, you are far more likely to get an apology if you are polite and courteous.

Oh for goodness sake. As the daughter of a police officer, they were suspicious of two young adults out at night, stopped them and searched them.

It doesn't matter WHY they stopped them, your son is a kid who has now repeatedly sworn at a police officer. It's not a good look. They weren't cooperative.

Society's safety relies on law abiders to accept they may occasionally have to explain themselves in order to keep society safe.

If your boys had been polite and complied with the simple request they would have just been able to trundle off and not give it a second thought. Instead they escalated it by swearing at the officers and saying no to an action that would have very easily cleared them.

My boyfriend is stopped and searched because of his skin colour regularly. Assumptions are made about his behaviour if he's walking about late at night. In actual fact he's a softie with a PhD. It feels pretty shit for him - what happened to your son last night happens probably a week to him. He still doesn't kick off at the police because it would do him absolutely no good. It sucks but life is unfair sometimes.

Your boys have behaved in an entitled manner, surely they know that if the police ask you to stop and show hands etc you do it if you have nothing to hide?

Those policemen didn't want to have to go to your house and fill in paperwork about all this, your boys behaviour meant they had to because they escalated it!

With all due respect, welcome to the real world!

@ThatCurlyGirl

"My boyfriend is stopped and searched because of his skin colour regularly."

Do you think that is acceptable?

civilians should only be searched where there are reasonable grounds.

But you don't know they didn't have reasonable grounds. For all you know they could have had descriptions matching / similar to your sons and were entirely justified.

I was stopped by the Police a few years back and they had a bit of a go, I was pissed off as I had done nothing wrong but on refection I can see why they did stop me. I might not like it, but I understood it.

@Cailleachian have you spoken to your son about his behaviour?

Oh and if I had a son who swore at a copper who asked to check he didn't have drugs or weapons on him I would be having a pretty fucking serious chat with my son. For being ridiculous and needlessly difficult.

And for wasting valuable police time by complicating a matter that could have been resolved immediately by complying with no damage to any parties involved.