Stop and Search Powers: Are the police using them

effectively and fairly?

Nick Pender

Introduction

• Over 1m stops and searches per year• 300,000 hours per year of police time• Little understanding of how effective stop and

search is in prevention and detection of crime• Cited as a concern for police legitimacy in most

of the major public inquiries into policing since the 1970s.

What is success

• 9% resulted in arrest in 11/12• Arrest rates are not a measure of

effectiveness• Takes no account of if an item is found or

where other disposals option are used• Includes arrests that are not related to the

reason for the search

Percentage of recorded stops and searches resulting in arrest 2011/12

• Source: Police Powers and Procedures England and Wales 2011/12, Home Office.• The England and Wales line in Figure 2 is the total number of stop and searches resulting in arrest recorded by

the 43 forces in England and Wales divided by the total population of England and Wales (multiplied by 1,000).

19%

17%

4% 3%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

England and Wales 9%

We sought to find

• How effectively and fairly the police use stop and search powers in the fight against crime?

• If operational officers know how to use stop and search powers tactically as part of evidence-based practice to fight crime?

• How the powers can be used in a way that builds the public’s trust in the police, supporting the legitimacy of the service rather than eroding it?

Effective and fair stop and search

• Where proper reasonable grounds for suspicion exist, they are clearly explained, and the encounter is carried out with respect and courtesy

• Prevents and/or detects crime; avoids unnecessary arrest; and maintains public trust

• How often the object of the search is found - indicates the strength of the reasonable grounds for suspicion

Methodology

Legislation

• Over 20 statutory powers to stop and search• Three used most frequently:

- section 1 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984- section 23 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971- section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act

1994

What the public think

A quarter believed stop and search is used too often on certain groups

Those who were searched - 47% were not treated with respect and 59% were not given any privacy

(78%) believed that stop and search helps

the police to catch criminals

(92%) were aware that police use stop and search. over half said this made them feel safer

Public support stop and search but that

diminishes when they perceive they are

overused

.

19078 People391 Searched

Leadership

• Not seen as a priority by most chief officers – using wrong data to assess importance

• Slipped down chief constables’ agenda since the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report

• Use of powers not targeted at priority crimes• 13 forces are developing an understanding of

effectiveness (the rest (30) consider only volume, arrest rate, and ethnicity data)

Supervision and compliance

• Very low levels of supervision of encounters and records (requirement of code of practice)

• 27% of 8783 records reviewed did not have reasonable grounds for suspicion recorded

• Only 7 forces had over 90% compliance (only 2 had over 95%)

Supervision and compliance

Of the 391 respondents stopped and searched:• 44% said the police acted reasonably• 37% said they weren’t told the reason• 42% said they didn’t understand the reason• 47% said they weren’t treated with respect• 39% said their opinion of police had diminished• 24% said their opinion of police had improved

Governance and scrutiny

• Less than half of forces (19) arranged public scrutiny of stop and search

• Half of forces (21) did nothing to understand the impact on communities

• Only four forces seek the views of people who have been stopped and searched

Effectiveness and Fairness

• Lack of information collected means forces cannot understand the impact on crime or communities – the bureaucracy challenge!

• Only 7 forces record if the item searched for was found.

• Only 25 record if an item is found.

Effectiveness and Fairness

• Only 11 record the reason for arrest• Only 21 record the use of non-arrest

disposals• Less than half (19) of forces monitor and

review the use of section 60 CJPO

Training

• Most officers not trained beyond recruitment• Half (21) of forces provide refresher training• Many officers do not understand reasonable

grounds for suspicion• Supervisors do not know what is required of

them

Use of technology

• 17 forces record electronically• Reduction in data collected means forces

cannot assess effective or fair use• Only 9 forces are able map stop and

search against crime• Body-worn video and other technology can

offer opportunities

Recommendations

• Establish an understanding of what effective and fair use of the powers means

• Monitor use of the powers for legality and effectiveness

• Improve supervision of encounters and records

• Develop and implement national training• Improve intelligence gathering

Recommendations (con)

• Communicate with communities and involve them in scrutiny

• Consider the views of those stopped and searched, particularly those who are dissatisfied

• Introduce a national stop and search form• Explore technology solutions

Our commitment

Re-visit within 18 months

www.hmic.gov.uk