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.

Your sons were doing nothing wrong. I would also be startled if I was to be aggressively searched for no reason at all.

I think a complaint is a bit far but the police are not in the right.

The police aren't allowed to bootstrap their suspicions when searching a member of the public - unless operating a blanket stop and search policy under the direction of a senior officer.

They need to have their reasonable suspicion before stopping the suspect. They can't decide to stop someone, and then claim subsequent behaviour as their "reasonable suspicion". They also can't just decide to stop someone because it's late. Or any other happnenstance.

If they were actively looking for someone, or had received a call about something suspicious, then it may be a reasonable suspicion to stop two young males. But that would all be logged and available in the officers notes and the duty log.

There's a fascinating thread - quite buzzy at the moment - about things immigrants notice about the UK. I'm tempted to comment that one peculiarity of the UK is how happy people are to have a police force with elastic notions of the law. Although given how the Home Office has made it a mission statement to ignore repeated court rulings, it's not hard to see where it comes from.

I can't believe everyone on here blaming a teenager for not taking his hands out of his pockets, but ignoring the fact that he was searched without being given a reason?

How naive are some people? It is really not hard to figure out why they searched him is it?

He didn’t know for certain he was a police officer though? Someone in plain clothes could be impersonating a police officer. Just because someone says they are a police officer doesn’t mean they are.

I’d have reacted in the same way as your son in THIS scenario. Had he been in uniform I’d have reacted differently.

If I was approached by two strangers in hoodies and trainers at night I wouldn’t co-operate either. I would be terrified and (I hope) verbally aggressive enough to make them prefer to go and harass someone else. Even if they told me they were plain clothes police I don’t think I’d believe them because anyone can mock up an ID that looks believeable in the dark. And there is no way I’d let a stranger pat me down in the dark. If patting down was required I’d want it to be in the presence of a uniformed officer and preferably in a police station.

^^ exactly OMG

On the other hand. If someone came to talk to you at night would you stand with your hand in your pocket even if they'd already told you to take it out (which indicates they felt threatened?)

@ilikethisone

Facts for example the police officers being told a crime had been committed by two teenagers matching their description, or the police officers seeing the teenagers doing something illegal.

Looking suspicious isn’t a crime and isn’t grounds enough for a stop and search.

You might not like that or agree with it but that’s how it is.

Educate yourself.

www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights

He didn’t know for certain he was a police officer though? Someone in plain clothes could be impersonating a police officer. Just because someone says they are a police officer doesn’t mean they are.

Those of use of a certain age will recall the piece of scum Kenneth Noye literally getting away with murder after killing an undercover policeman who was creeping around in his garden. It was quite a case at the time, but it did serve to highlight that undercover officers have to be very careful how they operate. (The judge in the case had some very harsh words for the police, by the way).

Your sons were doing nothing wrong.

It's probable that most people who are found to be carrying weapons or drugs are doing nothing wrong at the time that they're stopped and searched.

I agree with Hopoindown31.

I do think that the swearing etc. was unhelpful and won't have helped at all, however walking the streets at night isn't illegal.

There are situations where the Police might stop someone or escort them home for being out at night, but this sounds a bit odd. I mean, my friend and I once got escorted home at night because we'd gone out for a walk in the snow at night and sat down on a bench to carry on chatting. They took us back and watched us go in the front door. They were very clear about it all and it wasn't a stop and search situation, they just wanted to make sure no one was without accommodation in the snow and I look young so could have been under 18 at the time (was actually early 20s). Another friend of mine was escorted home a different time due to someone known to be dangerous being in the area - again not a stop and search. Both times, the police were clear and situations didn't escalate.

Could your boys have been mistaken for someone else? Perhaps if they had reports of other boys causing trouble in the area and Police were stopping and searching due to that? I'd be inclined to at least talk to them further and find out what was going on. There might be a reasonable explanation, or they might have crossed the line a bit. I have encountered situations where they were out of line, but equally where they seemed out of line but did have reasonable suspicion that came out later.

No I wouldn’t take my hands out of my pocket because some random (As far I was concerned) told me to. Had he been in uniform I’d have complied immediately. But neither were so I wouldn’t have complied.

Could your boys have been mistaken for someone else? Perhaps if they had reports of other boys causing trouble in the area and Police were stopping and searching due to that?

In which case (a) the officers should have said that at the time (with the understanding suspects may not recall, although it's incumbent on the officers to ensure the suspect understands before proceeding. And (b) it'll be logged and available for review.

Incidents like this matter, because UK (certainly English) courts have a very relaxed view on unlawfully obtained evidence so the police have little reason not to get it that way.

@ProfessorSlocombe interesting point, my parents are immigrants as are most of my friends parents so some of the posts on this thread are eye opening. Walking around at 11pm is not criminal behaviour.

"It's probable that most people who are found to be carrying weapons or drugs are doing nothing wrong at the time that they're stopped and searched."

That doesn't make the search retrospectively lawful or justified.

If the police break down my door without lawful authority and find a cache of guns and mountain of cocaine that won't magically make it a lawful search and the evidence will still be inadmissible.

Policing has to work the other way around. They have to have reasonable suspicion and follow the rules because any evidence obtained illegally is almost certainly going to be deemed fruits of the poisoned tree.
We wouldn't accept the police having unfettered rights to search any house they want or accept our own homes being subject to random searches on the basis of "well they'll catch some people they wouldn't have otherwise suspected so it's worth the hassle" or some concept of the greater good.
They act within their powers, they don't get to randomly decide that they will make demands of a citizen or restrict their liberty off their own criteria and then threaten arrest if people do not bow down to their abuse of power and unauthorised demands.

Your son's actions made it look like he had something to hide. Why on earth did he act like that?

I expect the Police were on the lookout for someone. If your house had just been burgled by 2 teenagers or either of your sons had been threatened by 2 teenagers, I'm sure you'd want the Police going around the area stopping and searching possible suspects.
You need to have a word with your son about how his actions escalated this situation. If he had been sensible and cooperative and explained what he was doing there would not have been an issue.

Very odd comments on here. These were undercover officer based on how they were dressed , likely from serious crime unit . They were there for a reason. Undercover officers don't routinely patrol our streets. So they were there for a reason. Likely drugs, knife crime, or violence they are trying to infiltrate.

The issue here is the kids didn't co operate. Undercover detectives aren't fucking with random kids for no reason. If the kids had co operated it would have been fine. Backing off, shouting, swearing, what did your kids think would happen? That the officers would know by looking at them, that they weren't guilty? And that the swearing and refusal to be searched was a sign of innocence?

No I wouldn’t take my hands out of my pocket because some random (As far I was concerned) told me to. Had he been in uniform I’d have complied immediately. But neither were so I wouldn’t have complied

What - even if they identify themselves as plain clothed police officers and show ID?

Yes, the ID ultimately could be fake but at the very least I’d have removed my hands from my pockets.

Obviously some folks on this board are not afraid of being tasered a bit of rough and tumble.

I think theres some justification for your sons reacting defensively if they did not immediately know whether this was a legit police officer or not... I imagine idve been quite scared if some random man had walked up to me saying he was a policeman and tried to search me.

I was thinking this. If seemingly random man in a hoodie came up to me in the middle of the night, my first (and surely sensible) instinct would be to back away as quickly as possible. According to the OP, the police officer seems not to have given his badge number until they were already in the car- so presumably not shown his badge at all before he expected the lads to stand still to be searched. How were they to know these were bona fide police officers? There are enough criminals out there posing as police. Is it really bad manners to be wary?

The issue here is the kids didn't co operate

One of the boys DID cooperate.

Why on earth do posters keep insisting that both boys resisted???

"refusal to be searched was a sign of innocence?"

But the lawful demand for a search has to come first.
Refusal to be searched were there is no lawful grounds for a search can't then be used to ground a reasonable suspicion.
So the refusal should have no relevance to their suspicions, that suspicion had to be fully formed when the demand for a search was base

*made

@Butchyrestingface
I imagine a swift tasering can brighten your day 😉
Also, can nobody read? The female officer identified herself right away!! The arsey son knew it was the police!! Probably trying to chuck his joint 🙄

Op, are you going to take any credit for your son being so entitled and acting in such a dickish way, or is there somebody else you'd like to blame for that too?
The female policewoman identified herself, your son was told to take his hands out if his pockets and refused. No wonder the male cop shouted, your son could have had anything in his hands, and now you can't just assume they're 'taking in the night air' (Of course they are ) And then your son gets all gobby and defensive and starts backing away...even from high up in your ivory tower, op, can you not see how suspicious that looks?

Your son kept backing away - like he was hiding something. So police officer grabbed his hands (incase your son had a knife he was hiding) then your son swore alot. Son was in the wrong and came off looking like a thug