police foundation stop and search · pdf filelaw on stop and search, ... the independent...

The briefing – Stop and search 1

Stop and searchThis Police Foundation Briefing looks at the changing legislation on stop andsearch and identifies some of the key issues that arise from its use.

© Janine Wiedel/Photofusion © iStockphoto.com/Chris Schmidt © iStockphoto.com/John Scott

briefingThe

Series 2, Edition 3 – March 2012

Historically, the power to stop and search,which has been a prominent policing tool sincethe Vagrancy Act of 1824, has attracted bothpraise and controversy. Modern stop andsearch powers enable the police to allay orconfirm suspicions about individuals anddetect, for example, those suspected ofcarrying weapons, stolen goods or goingequipped for stealing. However, along withincreasing rates of use, concerns remain aboutfairness and effectiveness. This Briefing willgive a short historical overview, consider thelaw on stop and search, assess its effectivenessand discuss some of the key concerns.

Prior to the introduction of the Police andCriminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, the policestopped and searched individuals under whatwere known as ‘sus’ laws, so called becausethey only required ‘suspicion’ on the part ofthe police officer. Although officers in Londonand other urban centres were given localpowers, the only national stop and searchlegislation was for the pursuit of drugs andfirearms. The ‘sus’ provisions were eventuallyrepealed following the Brixton riots in 1981,principally due to concerns about theirnegative impact on the relationship betweenthe police and the public, particularly

Introduction A brief history

2 The briefing – Stop and search

members of ethnic minorities. (1) Lord Scarman’sInquiry into the Brixton riots(2) acknowledgedthat stop and search was necessary to combatstreet crime but expressed concerns over theextent to which the ‘sus’ laws were used. Herecommended, among other things, theimprovement of community consultationthrough statutory liaison committees and thereplacing of the ‘sus’ laws with national,safeguarded stop and search legislation. (3)

In 1999, the use of stop and search againattracted controversy following the murder ofStephen Lawrence. Another Inquiry, this timeled by Lord Macpherson, revealed thedisproportionate use of stop and searchamong members of black and Asiancommunities, which led to accusations ofpolice discrimination and heightened distrustof the police within these communities. LordMacpherson went on to recommend thatstops, whether or not they resulted in asearch, (4) should be recorded, publicised andmonitored so that officers could be better heldto account for their use. (5) (The issue ofrecording practices and disproportionality arediscussed in more detail below).

In 2007 Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer ofterrorism legislation, raised concerns about theuse of stop and search under Section 44 of theTerrorism Act 2000. He suggested that Section44 should only be used sparingly (i.e. wherethere is no other alternative) and emphasisedthat it should not be invoked for non-terroristrelated investigations. (6) Three years later, theEuropean Court of Human Rights (ECHR) heldthat Section 44 breached Article 8 of theEuropean Convention on Human rights (the rightto privacy and family life). The Home Secretarysubsequently issued stricter guidelines forSection 44, the most significant of which wasthat officers were no longer authorised to useSection 44 to search individuals. (7) Within ayear, the number of searches under Section 44dropped by 91 per cent. (8)

The Home Secretary’s review of counter-terrorism powers, published in 2011, found thatthe absence of the need to show ‘reasonablesuspicion’ in blanket searches was unlawful,but noted that removing all powers of stop andsearch without demonstrable suspicion leftpolice with an ‘operational gap’. It concludedthat a tightly circumscribed stop and searchpower, still without reasonable suspicion, wasoperationally justified in exceptionalcircumstances. (9) As a consequence, theProtection of Freedoms Bill, currently beforeParliament, will introduce greater safeguards onthe use of stop and search in relation to thethreat of terrorism, including shorterauthorisation periods, tighter geographicalrestrictions and more robust statutoryguidance. A remedial order that replacesSections 44 to 47 of the Terrorism Act 2000 hasbeen put in place in the interim to ensure thatsenior officers can only authorise blanket stopsand searches where there is a reasonablesuspicion that an act of terrorism will take placeand that the authorisation is necessary toprevent such an act. (10)

Two further powers will also be subject togreater restrictions. The first is Schedule 7 ofthe Terrorism Act 2000, which allows officers tostop and search suspects at airports and portswithout reasonable suspicion, detain a suspectfor up to nine hours and take DNA andfingerprints. The second is Section 60 of theCriminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,which allows officers to authorise the blanketuse of stop and search to prevent seriousincidents of violence, such as gang fights orfootball hooliganism.(11) The latter is likely to fallfoul of the European Convention on HumanRights, as Section 44 did in 2010.(12)

Current powers

The underpinning principles of stop and searchare intended to promote its use in a fair and

3The briefing – Stop and search

effective manner. An officer may not search aperson where there is no legal basis to do so,even with an individual’s consent. Where anofficer is lawfully entitled to search a person orvehicle, it must be done in a courteous andrespectful manner(13) and the length ofdetainment must be kept to a minimum. Thesearch can include an inspection of a person’souter garments, including pockets, collars,socks and shoes.(14) Forcible searches mustonly be used if a person is unwilling to co-operate. Additionally, if during a search anofficer deems it necessary for an individual toremove an article of clothing, they must movethe person to a more discrete location, forexample a police van or station. (15)

It is important to distinguish between stop andsearch and what is often termed ‘stop andaccount’. A police officer may stop anindividual and request that they ‘account’ forthemselves. This can include questions aboutwhere they have been, why they are in an areaor what they are doing. A conversation between

an individual and an officer does notnecessarily define the interaction as a ‘stop andaccount’. (16) For example, an officer mayquestion a person if they think they havewitnessed a crime.

The police can stop and search an individualunder a range of legislation. The Police andCriminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 Code Aprovides statutory guidance on how and whenan officer may search a person or a vehicleprior to arrest. In most cases an officer musthave ‘reasonable suspicion’ based on facts,information and/or current intelligence, whichare relevant to the likelihood that a personpossesses a prohibited article, is about tocommit, or has committed a crime. Thesepowers are summarised in Table 1.

In certain circumstances, searches can beauthorised without a requirement of ‘reasonablesuspicion’. Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act1988 allows a uniformed constable to stop avehicle or bicycle without any requirement of

Table 1 – Main powers requiring ‘reasonable suspicion’

Power Extent of search Where exercisable Object of search

Firearms Act 1968, Searches of persons In a public place, or For firearms.s47 and vehicles. anywhere in the case of

reasonable suspicion ofoffences of carrying firearmswith criminal intent ortrespassing with firearms.

Misuse of Drugs Act Searches of persons Anywhere. For controlled drugs.1971, s23 and vehicles.

Police and Criminal Searches of persons In a public place. For stolen goods,Evidence Act 1984, and vehicles. offensive weapons,s1 articles intended for

destroying or damaging property.

Terrorism Act 2000, Searches of persons. Anywhere. For anything which mays43 constitute evidence that

the person is a terrorist.

Adapted from PACE 1984: Code A


suspicion and Section 4 of PACE 1984 allowsthe police to search a vehicle where there isreasonable suspicion that the vehicle iscarrying a person that has committed, or isabout to commit, an offence. Section 44 of theTerrorism Act 2000 empowers senior officers toauthorise specific areas in which persons andvehicles could be searched for articles linked toterrorism without the requirement of‘reasonable suspicion’ (subject to confirmationby the Home Secretary), although this is nowsubject to a remedial order which requires anofficer to reasonably suspect that an act ofterrorism will occur. In theory, Section 44authorisations can run for up to 28 days,although in practice areas such as London

have been subject to rolling authorisations. Asmentioned above, some of these powers,which are set out in Table 2, have been subjectto new restrictions and/or are under review.

To what extent is stopand search used andhow effective is it?Today, stop and search continues to be widelyused. Fig. 1. shows its use in England andWales in the last decade. (18) The use of stopand search varies among forces for a variety ofreasons, such as patterns of crime, forcepriorities and the individual preferences

Power Extent of search Where exercisable Object of search

Criminal Justice Persons and Anywhere within a locality For offensive weapons and Public Order vehicles. authorised by an officer of or dangerous Act 1994, s60 the rank of inspector or instruments, to prevent

above for a period of incidents of serious 24 hours. violence or to deal with

the carrying of suchitems or find such itemswhich have been usedin incidents of seriousviolence.

Terrorism Act 2000, Persons and Anywhere within a locality Evidence of terrorism.s47a (replacing s44) vehicles. authorised by an officer of

ACPO rank (and approvedby the Home Secretary) whoreasonably suspects that anact of terrorism will takeplace and considers that thepowers are necessary toprevent such an act. (17)

Paragraphs 7 and Persons, vehicles, Ports and airports. Anything relevant to 8 of Schedule 7 to vessels, etc. determining if a person the Terrorism Act being examined falls 2000 within Section 40(1)(b)

(definition of a terrorist).

Table 2 – Main powers not requiring ‘reasonable suspicion’

Adapted from PACE 1984: Code A


of Chief Constables. There were over onemillion searches conducted in 2009/10. Thisaccounts for a substantial amount of policetime and resources. With a history ofcontroversy, concerns persist about thefairness, tactical value and disproportionate useof stop and search. Given a steady increase inits use, it is important to consider itseffectiveness in detecting and preventing crime.

At the end of 2011, the Home Secretary askedthe Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)to look at best practice on stop and search.This was rapidly followed a month later by anannouncement by the Commissioner of theMetropolitan Police Service that his forcewould be substantially reducing the use of stopand search in order to improve relations with

black and ethnic minority communities. TheCommissioner has stated his intent to issuenew guidance, improve officer training andhalve the number of random drug stops. Healso intends to reduce substantially the use ofSection 60, which will be used for smaller, highcrime areas rather than whole Boroughs.At six per cent, the proportion of stops andsearches that result in an arrest is lower inLondon than any other major UK city leadingthe Commissioner to set a new target of20 per cent.

Crime detectionOfficers are required to execute searches basedon fact, information and/or intelligence. (20) Itcould be argued that a reasonable proportionof searches should therefore result in arrest or

Fig. 1. Number of Stops and Searches in England and Wales: 2000/01 – 2009/10 (19)

1,300,000

1,200,000

1,100,000

1,000,000

900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

PACE 1984 andother legislation

Criminal Justice and PublicOrder Act 1994

Terrorism Act 2000, s44


an out of court disposal such as a caution or afixed penalty notice. Some research shows thatstop and search has a small impact on crimedetection (22) but there is no agreement on whatconstitutes an ‘acceptable’ level of detectionand only a small minority of searches result inan arrest. In 2009/10, nine per cent of searchesunder PACE 1984 and other legislation resultedin an arrest (see Fig. 2), four per cent lowerthan ten years ago.(23) In practice, the proportionof arrests following a stop and search dependslargely on the reason for the stop. In 2009/10,for example, 211,200 searches were madeunder the suspicion of possessing stolenproperty with 12 per cent resulting in arrestwhereas 550,500 searches were made underthe suspicion of carrying drugs with only sevenper cent resulting in arrest, primarily forcannabis possession. The latter is importantsince nearly half of all searches under PACE1984 and other legislation were drug-related, (24)with these arrests constituting a third of allarrests for drug-related crime.

The National Policing ImprovementAgency (NPIA) suggests that greaterattention should be placed on maximisingthe quality of arrests derived fromsearches to improve productivity.Searches should therefore focus onprolific offenders rather than cannabispossession if they are to deliver the mosteffective use of resources. (25)

Crime prevention A low detection rate alone does not necessarilyundermine the use of stop and search powers.Proponents of the power, especially underterrorism legislation, argue that its use disruptsand deters criminal activity rather than simplydetecting it. (26) A Home Office report, whichacknowledged the difficulty of measuringdeterrence, estimated that searches reduce thenumber of ‘disruptable crimes’ by just 0.2 percent and questioned its use in disrupting drug-markets since it is targeted primarily on users

Fig. 2. Percentage of searches resulting in arrest by statutory power, England and Wales:2000/01 – 2009/10 (21)

PACE 1984 andother legislation Criminal Justice andPublic Order Act 1994 Terrorism Act 2000, s44(non-terrorismrelated offences) Terrorism Act 2000, s44(terrorism relatedoffences)

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%


rather than dealers. It did however suggest thatsearches may be effective as a deterrent whenused intensively in a particular location. (27)

Gathering intelligenceAn officer cannot stop and search a suspect forthe purposes of gathering intelligence about afuture crime, although they may use informationobtained in a legitimate search to inform futurecrime detection or prevention. This may includethe appearance of an individual, possession ofdrug paraphernalia or names, addresses andphone numbers.

Key issuesRecording practicesSince the introduction of PACE in 1984, officersare required to make a record of all searches.The importance of recording was underlined byLord Macpherson’s Inquiry, whichrecommended that police stops, whether or notthey resulted in a search, should be recorded.Until recently, an individual who is stopped (butnot searched) was entitled to a copy of therecord, or written instructions on how to retrieveone, in order to ensure that the police are heldto account for their actions. Sir RonnieFlanagan’s Review of Policing however,recommended the removal of the recordingrequirement on the grounds that it was timeconsuming and bureaucratic.

The requirement to record searches remains,but the number of fields an officer must fill outhas now been reduced from twelve to seven. (28)The following are mandatory: ethnicity, objectiveof search, grounds for search, identity of theofficer carrying out the search, date, time andplace. The Crime and Security Act 2010, ofMarch 2011, does however allow police forcesto cease the recording of Stop and Account,although it can be retained by forces to addresslocal concerns about disproportionate use ofthe power. As of October 2011, 31 out of 43

police forces in England and Wales had ceasedrecording stops. (29)

In a survey conducted by the MetropolitanPolice Service and the Metropolitan PoliceAuthority, 95 per cent of 200 young peoplesurveyed wanted to retain the recordingof stop and account. (30)

The reduction of recording has raisedconcerns.(31) In addition to no longer beingrequired to record a person’s name andaddress, officers are not required to record theoutcome of the search. Without this information,it is more difficult to monitor repeat searches, tomeasure the effectiveness of the power (32) andto hold officers to account for how it is used.

The use of technology, such as Airwave, canreduce bureaucracy while still satisfying therecording requirement (33) and some forces usePersonal Data Assistants to reduce the use ofpaper stop and search forms. With the facility toautomatically record fields such as time anddate, handheld devices save time and enableaccurate recording. The NPIA and Kent Policeare piloting an initiative to record stops andsearches using voice input.

Community impactIn 1983, just two years after the Brixton Riots,the Home Office acknowledged the importanceof community support in the effective use ofstop and search powers. (34) The public mustperceive searches to be fair and just if thepolice are to exercise their authoritylegitimately. (35) The greater their legitimacy, themore likely the public will comply with theirrequests for cooperation and assistance. Giventhe number of public encounters that occurthrough stops and searches, the experience ofindividuals during searches can have a profoundeffect on their attitude towards the police:officers who treat an individual fairly and withrespect inspire greater confidence and trust.Positive interactions are crucial as the effects of


a stop can go beyond the individual; a singlenegative interaction can reverberate acrossthe wider community. (37) Particularly importantis whether a person felt that a good reasonhad been given for the stop. (38)

The importance of procedural justice can beseen clearly in the follow-up to the August2011 riots that started in London but spreadacross the country. While the instigatingfactors for the riots are numerous andcontested, research suggests that publicdiscontent over the way in which stop andsearch is carried out played a significant role.The UK riots panel noted that “…concern waswidely felt by young Black and Asian men whofelt [stop and search] was not always carriedout with appropriate respect.” (39)

Individual forces are encouraged to take noteof any legitimate stop and search complaintsthey receive and use this information toinform training and improve operational

practice. (40) The Independent PoliceComplaints Commission (IPCC) policy onstop and search (41) states that local policecommanders should inform communitiesabout how stop and search is being usedand give the public the opportunity to raiseconcerns about the tactic.

DisproportionalityHistorically, the most controversial aspect ofstop and search has been thedisproportionate targeting of ethnicminorities. Both Lord Scarman and LordMacpherson identified the destructiveconsequences of marginalising a communitythrough heavy policing tactics, including stopand search. Despite efforts to increaseaccountability through robust monitoring andawareness, disproportionality persists. (42) In2004, the Metropolitan Police Authority,giving evidence to the Parliamentary HomeAffairs Committee, reported that the misuseof these powers had worsened racial and

Fig. 3. Searches under PACE 1984 and other legislation per 1,000 population, by self identifiedethnicity, England and Wales: 2006/07 – 2009/10 (36)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

White

Black

Asian

Mixed

Chinese or Other


ethnic tensions, increased the level of distrustof the police and cut off valuable sources ofcommunity information and intelligence. (43)

In 2009/10, under PACE 1984 and otherlegislation, black people were seven timesmore likely to be stopped and searched thanwhite people, and Asian people 2.2 (twice aslikely) to be searched than white people. (44)Research conducted by the London School ofEconomics on disproportionality underSection 60 searches has shown that in2009/10 black people were nearly 30 timesmore likely to be stopped and searchedthan white people. (45)

As the level of disproportionality varies acrossforces throughout England and Wales, it isdifficult to attribute the differences to a singlecause but the Association of Chief PoliceOfficers/Home Office Stop and SearchManual notes that in forces with lower levelsof disproportionality, force policy explicitlystates that an officer’s performance will not beassessed on the number of stops andsearches they performed, but on theoutcomes and quality of their searches. (46)

Stop and search statistics need to beinterpreted with caution (47) and whether thislevel of disproportionality amounts to racialdiscrimination is open to question. In 2000, aHome Office research report identified threepossible explanations for the disproportionuse of stop and search: an ethnic bias on thepart of officers; the available population forsearching contains a greater proportion ofethnic minorities, who spend more time inpublic spaces; and searches occur ingeographic areas with a greater concentrationof ethnic minorities. (48) Factors such as age,employment and exclusion from school alsoaffect the likelihood of being stopped andsearched. Nevertheless, it is indisputable thatthe disproportionate use of stop and searchon black and ethnic minority communities isperceived by them as racially motivated and

therefore needs to be taken seriously whetheror not there is any racist intent.

ConclusionThe Government’s recent changes to Section44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are to bewelcomed. Here, the government hasacknowledged the need to support policelegitimacy by ensuring police powers are usedas they were intended. But this is not alwaysthe case. In contrast, the government’sdemands for greater police accountability situncomfortably alongside its equally vociferousdemands for reductions in bureaucracy. Witha greater emphasis on local accountability, theintroduction of elected Police and CrimeCommissioners presents a real opportunity forforces to make decisions based on localconcerns. Where these relate to the use ofstop and search there is every chance suchconcerns will be addressed. However, thisobjective requires more, rather than fewerforces to collect the information to properlymonitor how – and how often – stop andsearch is being used. It is only then thatforces can address community concerns andidentify any shortcomings in its use.

Tragedies such as the murder of StephenLawrence or events such as the August 2011riots bring stop and search into the mediaspotlight, leading to much discussion anddebate about its effectiveness, itsappropriateness and its legitimacy. Since theintroduction of stop and search, the power hasremained consistently challenging andcontroversial. The disproportionate use of stopand search among certain sections of societyremains a significant issue and efforts toaddress this should remain a priority. Howeverresearch suggests that the public does notwholly object to the use of stop and searchprovided it is used fairly and properly –regardless of age, gender or ethnicity.(49)If the power to stop and search is used in thisway, it can only improve police effectivenesswithout compromising police legitimacy.

The briefing – Stop and search10

Notes and references

1. Willis, C. (1983) The use, effectiveness andimpact of police stop and search powers:Research and Planning Unit paper 15,London: Home Office

2. Lord Scarman (1981) The Brixton Disorders,London: HMSO

3. Ibid.

4. An individual stopped by an officer and askedto account for their presence or actionswithout being searched constitutes a ‘stopand account’.

5. Macpherson, Sir William (1999) StephenLawrence Inquiry, London: HMSO

6. Lord Carlile of Berriew (2007) Report on theoperation in 2006 of the Terrorism Act 2000,London: The Stationery Office

7. Home Office (2010) Statement by the HomeSecretary on stop and search powers underthe Terrorism Act 2000 (section 44) availableat: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/parliamentary-business/oral-statements/stop-and-search-statement

8. Home Office (2011a) Operation of policepowers under the Terrorism Act 2000 andsubsequent legislation: Arrests, outcomes andstops and searches, London: Home Office

9. HM Government (2011b) Review of counter-terrorism and security powers: Review findingsand recommendations, London: TheStationery Office

10. Home Office (2011c) Prevention andsuppression of terrorism: Terrorism Act 2000(Remedial) Order 2011, London: Home Office,available at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counter-terrorism/terrorism-act-remedial-order/terrorism-act-remedial-order

11. Metropolitan Police (2012) Stop and Search:Frequently asked questions, available at:http://www.met.police.uk/stopandsearch/what_is.htm#whatstop

12. Dodd, V. (2011) ‘Racist stop-and-searchpowers to be challenged’ The Guardian,8 July 2011

13. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984:Code A, London: The Stationery Office

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Metropolitan Police (2012) op. cit.

17. Home Office (2011d) Terrorism Act 2000:Code of Practice (England, Wales,Scotland) for the authorisation andexercise of stop and search powersrelating to Section 47 of Schedule 6Bto the Terrorism Act 2000, London: TheStationery Office

18. Home Office (2011e) Police powers andprocedures England and Wales 2009/10 2ndEdition, London: The Stationery Office

19. Ibid.

20. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984op. cit.

21. Home Office (2011e) op. cit.

22. Miller, J. et al. (2000) The impact of stopsand searches on crime and the community,London: Home Office

23. Home Office (2011e) op. cit.

24. Ibid.

25. Miller, J. et al. (2000) op. cit.

26. House of Commons Home Affairs Committee(2005) Sixth report of Session 2004-05:Terrorism and community relations, London:The Stationery Office

27. Miller, J. et al. (2000) op. cit.

28. Home Office (2011f) Stop and search,available at http://homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/stop-and-search/

29. Metropolitan Police Authority (2011) Report 6,27 October 2011 meeting of the MPA FullAuthority: Stop and account, available at:http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/mpa/2011/1027/06/

30. Ibid.

31. Bowling, B. and Delsol, R. (2010)‘Reducing stop-and-search paperworkundermines fairness’ The Guardian,26 May 2010 and StopWatch (2011)Carry on Recording, available at:http://www.stop-watch.org/uploads/WhyRecordingIsStillImportantBriefing.pdf

32. StopWatch (2011) op. cit.


33. Lund, S. (2009) ‘Changing the record’, PoliceMagazine, available at http://www.polfed.org/PoliceMag_0909_Changing_the_Record.pdf

34. Willis, C. (1983) op. cit.

35. Tyler, T.R. (2004) ‘Enhancing police legitimacy’,The Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science, 593 (1), 84-99and Hough, M. et al.(2010) ‘Procedural justice,trust, and institutional legitimacy’, Policing 4(3), 203-210

36. Ministry of Justice (2011) Statistics on raceand the criminal justice system 2010, availableat http://www.justice.gov.uk/ publications/statistics-and-data/criminal-justice/race.htm

37. Stone, V. and Pettigrew, N. (2000), Theviews of the public on stops and searches,Police Research Series Paper 129, London:Home Office

38. Ibid.

39. Riots Communities and Victims Panel (2011)Five days in August: An interim report on onthe English riots, available athttp://www.5daysinaugust.co.uk/PDF/downloads/Interim-Report-UK-Riots.pdf

40. Home Office/Association of Chief PoliceOfficers (2005), Stop & search manual,available at http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/stopandsearch_intermanual.pdf

41. IPCC (2009) IPCC position regarding policepowers to stop and search, available athttp://www.ipcc.gov.uk/Documents/stop_and_search_policy_position.pdf

42. For a detailed analysis of disproportionalityand stop and search see Equality and HumanRights Commission (2010) Stop and think: Acritical review of the use of stop and searchpowers in England and Wales, Equality andHuman Rights Commission

43. Metropolitan Police Authority (2004) Report ofthe MPA Scrutiny on MPS stop and searchpractice, available at http://www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/stop-search/stop-search-report-2004.pdf

44. Ministry of Justice (2011) op. cit.

45. Akwagyiram, A. (2012) ‘Stop and search useand alternative police tactics’, available athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-1655248946.

46. Home Office/Association of Chief PoliceOfficers (2005) op. cit.

47. Waddington, P.A.J. (2004) ‘In proportion: Raceand police stop and search’, British Journal ofCriminology, 44 (6), 889-914

48. MVA Consultancy and Miller, J (2000)Profiling populations available for stops andsearches, Police Research Series Paper 131,London: Home Office

49. Stone, V. and Pettigrew, N. (2000) op. cit.

The Police Foundation is the onlyindependent charity that acts as abridge between the public, the policeand the Government, while beingowned by none of them.

The Police FoundationPark Place, 12 Lawn LaneLondon SW8 1UD Tel: 020 7582 3744www.police-foundation.org.uk Charity Registration Number: 278257

© The Police Foundation