Academic strip searched = police complaint and PTSD

Burnsy2023 · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:25

cheesyboy said:
I'm happy for police to not be allowed to force you to do anything they want. We should all have rights.

Simple fact: it was recorded by the police that she was strip searched because of a refusal to give her name.
Simple fact 2 : not giving your name is insufficient grounds to perform a strip search.

Seems open and shut to me.

Except they may not be facts.

She was arrested for obstruction. From what I've read on the incident, that's likely to be perfectly lawful. The s54 PACE search was authorised by the custody sgt to look for weapons that the detained person may used to harm themselves. All detainees are searched, however the level of search depends on what is authorised. Normally it's just a pat down and a ran over with a metal detector. The issue is whether the authorisation for a strip search was necessary, proportionate and recorded on the detention log properly. I haven't seen anything reported that helps me understand the sergeant's rationale for this authorisation, so I can't really comment.

Snookums · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:26

I feel like there must be some information missing here. To go from her handing a teen a know your rights card to then the police stating that essentially they wasn’t sure if she was of sound mind or a potential threat. The job of the police is to arrest and detain individuals they may seem to be a threat before it’s too late, take the boy for example, who they then found a knife on.

So the police deemed her as potentially mental, posing a possible threat, she then decided not to give them simple information they are asking for which would clearly have removed any suspicisons they had. So they strip searched her. I don’t see an issue here. Again missing info here but I presume it was to see if they could determine her identity, if she wasn’t giving her name she clearly wasn’t giving over a purse/any form of Id

Not everyone does there job perfectly all the time but hey ho, if you people want the police to act only when it’s too late I don’t see a problem there at all. :rolleyes:

Skunkworks · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:29

Minusorange said:
Fortunately because of people like this lady and myself and many others who aren't submissive and willing give up our freedoms so willingly unlike you and your ilk, you get to enjoy living in a fairly "free" society

By all means go spend a year in a dictatorship to experience what being forced to do what the police say is like and then come back to us on how we should willingly submit to authority whether we're innocent or guilty

You seem stable.

jsmoke · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:31

Efour said:
They should have beaten her in the back of a van and said she fell down the stairs.

Stupid femanist, middle class progressive, sjw, white privileged, idiot if you ask me.

Free thinkers need to feel the jack boot of justice on their necks. Hitler was right, etc etc.

Vegetable rights and peace, boom Shankar

You forgot tree hugger.

StriderX · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:32

Snookums said:
I feel like there must be some information missing here. To go from her handing a teen a know your rights card to then the police stating that essentially they wasn’t sure if she was of sound mind or a potential threat. The job of the police is to arrest and detain individuals they may seem to be a threat before it’s too late, take the boy for example, who they then found a knife on.

So the police deemed her as potentially mental, posing a possible threat, she then decided not to give them simple information they are asking for which would clearly have removed any suspicisons they had. So they strip searched her. I don’t see an issue here. Again missing info here but I presume it was to see if they could determine her identity, if she wasn’t giving her name she clearly wasn’t giving over a purse/any form of Id

Not everyone does there job perfectly all the time but hey ho, if you people want the police to act only when it’s too late I don’t see a problem there at all.

Except the police's own guidelines say it wasn't warranted. With the CPS backed up and the police morale at an all time low, i imagine some officers will be taking the shortcuts a little too often.

This **** got caught.

Dis86 · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:33

jsmoke said:
She didn't technically do anything to warrant an arrest. I think she was within her rights handing the card. The police are probably overworked, under resourced and have high targets to meet. Also all the political leanings and job rules they have to abide by led to an explosive situation.

It's the old world meets the new.

Quite hot also.

Obstructing an officer from carrying out their duty is an arrestable offence. Sooooo...Yes, she did.

She then also acted like a nutjob.

Dis86 · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:35

StriderX said:
Except the police's own guidelines say it wasn't warranted. With the CPS backed up and the police morale at an all time low, i imagine some officers will be taking the shortcuts a little too often.

This **** got caught.

They're guidelines. Not rules.

StriderX · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:35

Dis86 said:
They're guidelines. Not rules.

I'm pretty sure when it comes to the police, guidelines are basically rules.

Dis86 · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:37

StriderX said:
I'm pretty sure when it comes to the police, guidelines are basically rules.

I'm pretty sure they're still guidelines.

Burnsy2023 · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:38

StriderX said:
Except the police's own guidelines say it wasn't warranted. With the CPS backed up and the police morale at an all time low, i imagine some officers will be taking the shortcuts a little too often.

This **** got caught.

What guidelines exactly? It all comes down to how it's justified.

Dis86 said:
Obstructing an officer from carrying out their duty is an arrestable offence. Sooooo...Yes, she did.

She then also acted like a nutjob.

All offences are arrestable if you have a necessity to arrest as per Code G of PACE 1984.

cheesyboy · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:38

Burnsy2023 said:
Except they may not be facts.

She was arrested for obstruction. From what I've read on the incident, that's likely to be perfectly lawful. The s54 PACE search was authorised by the custody sgt to look for weapons that the detained person may used to harm themselves. All detainees are searched, however the level of search depends on what is authorised. Normally it's just a pat down and a ran over with a metal detector. The issue is whether the authorisation for a strip search was necessary, proportionate and recorded on the detention log properly. I haven't seen anything reported that helps me understand the sergeant's rationale for this authorisation, so I can't really comment.

It was in the article :

"Kurtis had originally recorded Duff’s refusal to give her name as the reason for the search, which is not sufficient legal grounds."

XeNoN89 · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:38

She sounds likes an anti police trouble making moron

Deleted member 77746 · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:39

She had no reason to intervene IMO. She could have been a threat if the police don't know her identity she may have been wanted. No-one here knows the real story. But carrying a knife in public? No thank you!

Police should be allowed to stop and search IMO if they suspect someone acting suspicious.

Thekwango · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:40

Snookums said:
Again missing info here but I presume it was to see if they could determine her identity,

by stripping her naked? i'll refer you to my earlier remark.

Thekwango said:
did they think it was going to be tattooed on her nethers??

maybe someone can enlighten me but how does stripping someone help to identify them? is there a national birthmark database, tattoo database, low hanging boobs database?

StriderX · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:40

XeNoN89 said:
She sounds likes an anti police trouble making moron

Another one in the thread, fantastic. The whole boy band is together.

Burnsy2023 · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:44

cheesyboy said:
It was in the article :

"Kurtis had originally recorded Duff’s refusal to give her name as the reason for the search, which is not sufficient legal grounds."

Was there any subsequent justification? The devil is in the detail. If that's the only justification given, then it would be unlawful.

Thekwango · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:44

XeNoN89 said:
She sounds likes an anti police trouble making moron

StriderX said:
Another one in the thread, fantastic. The whole boy band is together.

but that's exactly what she appears to be - doesn't justify strip searching her though.

btw, what boy band? do they have a name?

StriderX · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:45

Thekwango said:
but that's exactly what she appears to be - doesn't justify strip searching her though.

btw, what boy band? do they have a name?

Munich Boys of 1933?

enkoda · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:46

cheesyboy said:
It was in the article :

"Kurtis had originally recorded Duff’s refusal to give her name as the reason for the search, which is not sufficient legal grounds."

The get-out clause being used by the sergeant is the mental stability issue - on those grounds I guess it would be deemed reasonable to conduct a full search for possible weapons "for the safety of the suspect and the police officers". I'm not condoning what they did but it seems you only have to mention health & safety and all common sense goes out the window.

Thekwango · 30 Aug 2018 at 15:47

StriderX said:
Munich Boys of 1933?

never heard of them.