Legal issues of police 'spot checks' on firearms.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shootist

Well-Known Member
This is a work in progress, but I'll post as I go along to encourage input on what I may have missed. The intention is purely to consider the legal aspects of police spot checks, not the 'moral' aspects.

Search by police is governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and no doubt the Human Rights Act. Here then are what I consider to be relevant extracts from the PACE codes of practice.

Codes of practice – Code A Exercise by police of officers statutory powers of stop and search

2.9 An officer who has reasonable grounds for suspicion may detain the person concerned
in order to carry out a search. Before carrying out the search the officer may ask
questions about the person’s behaviour or presence in circumstances which gave
rise to the suspicion. As a result of questioning the detained person, the reasonable
grounds for suspicion necessary to detain that person may be confirmed or, because
of a satisfactory explanation, be dispelled. (See Notes 2 and 3.) Questioning may also
reveal reasonable grounds to suspect the possession of a different kind of unlawful
article from that originally suspected. Reasonable grounds for suspicion however
cannot be provided retrospectively by such questioning during a person’s detention or
by refusal to answer any questions asked.

(This is to do with stop and search powers outside of the home, but it does provide an important principle, that your refusal to cooperate will not of itself provide good reason to suspect.)

Codes of practice - Code B Searching premises and seizing property

1 Introduction
1.1 This Code of Practice deals with police powers to:  search premises  seize and retain property found on premises and persons
1.1A These powers may be used to find:  property and material relating to a crime
1.3 The right to privacy and respect for personal property are key principles of the Human Rights Act 1998. Powers of entry, search and seizure should be fully and clearly justified before use because they may significantly interfere with the occupier’s privacy. Officers should consider if the necessary objectives can be met by less intrusive means.
2.3 This Code applies to searches of premises: (a) by police for the purposes of an investigation into an alleged offence, with the occupier's consent, other than:  routine scene of crime searches;  calls to a fire or burglary made by or on behalf of an occupier or searches following the activation of fire or burglar alarms or discovery of insecure premises;  searches when paragraph 5.4 applies;  bomb threat calls;
(d) subject to paragraph 2.6, under any other power given to police to enter premises with or without a search warrant for any purpose connected with the investigation into an alleged or suspected offence. (See Note 2B.)
2.5 This Code does not apply to the exercise of a statutory power to enter premises or to inspect goods, equipment or procedures if the exercise of that power is not dependent on the existence of grounds for suspecting that an offence may have been committed and the person exercising the power has no reasonable grounds for such suspicion.

(I am not aware of any such statutory power to enter and inspect premises that are not reliant upon suspicion of an offence, at least in relation to the subject at hand. These are more usually encountered in the likes of Trading Standards of Health and Safety legislation. Even then, decided cases appear to require compliance with Code B.)

5 Search with consent
5.1 Subject to paragraph 5.4, if it is proposed to search premises with the consent of a person entitled to grant entry the consent must, if practicable, be given in writing on the Notice of Powers and Rights before the search. The officer must make any necessary enquiries to be satisfied the person is in a position to give such consent. (See Notes 5A and 5B.)
5.2 Before seeking consent the officer in charge of the search shall state the purpose of the proposed search and its extent. This information must be as specific as possible, particularly regarding the articles or persons being sought and the parts of the premises to be searched. The person concerned must be clearly informed they are not obliged to consent, that any consent given can be withdrawn at any time, including before the search starts or while it is underway and anything seized may be produced in evidence. If at the time the person is not suspected of an offence, the officer shall say this when stating the purpose of the search.
5.3 An officer cannot enter and search or continue to search premises under paragraph 5.1 if consent is given under duress or withdrawn before the search is completed.
6.7 If an officer conducts a search to which this Code applies the officer shall, unless it is impracticable to do so, provide the occupier with a copy of a Notice in a standard format: (i) specifying if the search is made under warrant, with consent, or in the exercise of the powers described in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.3. Note: the notice format shall provide for authority or consent to be indicated (see paragraphs 4.3 and 5.1); (ii) summarising the extent of the powers of search and seizure conferred by PACE and other relevant legislation as appropriate; (iii) explaining the rights of the occupier and the owner of the property seized;

(These highlighted points presume that the visiting officer is conducting a search rather than some convenient (to the police) security inspection. Given that any alleged breach of security will automatically be considered an offence I believe it is a search with a view to discovering a possible offence. If you tell the officer that it is not convenient and he insists then I think that removes all doubt that it is a search and covered by the PACE codes of practice.)

To be continued......
 
Last edited:
I just don't get the paranoia over this subject.
Police knock on your door, ask if they can check your firearms.
You decide right there and then, is it convenient or not, there is nothing else to it.
If they want to look they will, eventually, ask your self if it is worth winding them up.

Neil. :)
 
I just don't get the paranoia over this subject.
Police knock on your door, ask if they can check your firearms.
You decide right there and then, is it convenient or not, there is nothing else to it.
If they want to look they will, eventually, ask your self if it is worth winding them up.

Neil. :)

True dat...if the visit is intelligence led you wont have a choice..
 
If they want to look they will, eventually, ask your self if it is worth winding them up.

Neil. :)

So you should let the police in, without reasonable cause, or warrant, for fear you may 'wind them up' and suffer in some way as a result I presume? On the other thread bullying was mentioned and largely rejected, but is this not bullying, intentional or otherwise? Give me your dinner money, or else you could live to regret it.

We as FAC/SC holders are expected to abide by a complex set of laws, policy, and guidance, yet the police seem to think they can make up laws and policies on a whim. This is a bigger issue than should you let the police enter your home. It is about losing fundamental freedoms; freedoms that have been hard fought for over centuries and paid for in blood. Our laws, rights, and freedoms are what separate us as a democratic free nation from a totalitarian state.

Wolfie
 
Last edited:
check the BASC website, they have prepared downloadable advice on the powers Police have to "Spot check your security on an Ad Hoc basis" I also believe that in general terms that ACPO have given advice to their staff regarding Ad Hoc visits, but as usual watch this site for further info!
 
As someone that has only recently been granted my FAC and SGC, I am a little confused by the multiple threads that I have read about Police performing Ad Hoc visits to check that you are complying to the conditions of the certificates granted.

TBH, I was led to believe, by friends that have had their tickets for years, that the possibility of spot checks is nothing new. The only difference being that it is no longer the local village bobby popping in for a cuppa and a chat but some random PC sent out by HQ.
 
I've had an FAC for coming on 25 years from 3 forces. Never had an unannounced visit.

Wolfie
 
Also they are not actually searching for anything they don't know is there. They are simply inspecting what should be there.

My interpretation is somewhat different. In the first instance they have not 'right' or authority to make such a snap inspection, at least without giving notice of their intention. If they find, for example, a rifle left out (and that they didn't know was left out, or 'there' as you put it.) while you are cleaning it, allowing the solvent time to work while you are having your tea (or make up your own scenario) then they are looking to consider prosecuting you for an offence of failing to comply with the conditions on your certificate. In other words, they are making the visit to see if you have breached licensing conditions and have therefore committed a criminal offence. They are, in fact, searching for evidence of an offence. That requires them to comply with the law.
 
I also do not get the issue here as you can refuse to allow them in to check. They're not forcing their way in, bullying you or doing anything wrong. If you want to let them in then do, if you don't (for whatever reason) then don't let them in. It really is that simple.

The codes of practice that Shootist refers to are more to do with searches such as Sec. 1, 18, and 32 post arrest where there are powers to search/enter without consent.

Has anyone who has had a spot check actually asked the FEO/Officer what the reason is? My guess (and it's only a guess) is that it is a deterrent method to make firearms holders think a bit more about leaving their guns/ammo out as they'll be a slim chance someone may come knocking to check.
 
I just don't get the paranoia over this subject.
Police knock on your door, ask if they can check your firearms.
You decide right there and then, is it convenient or not, there is nothing else to it.
If they want to look they will, eventually, ask your self if it is worth winding them up.

Neil. :)

Is expecting them to comply with the laws they are supposed to enforce likely to wind them up do you think? Is that such an unreasonable expectation? It has taken about 15 years and many expensive appeal court cases to get them to understand that an arrest now needs to be necessary, a word they appear determined to interpret as meaning 'convenient'. Some still haven't figured it out.
 
I also do not get the issue here as you can refuse to allow them in to check. They're not forcing their way in, bullying you or doing anything wrong. If you want to let them in then do, if you don't (for whatever reason) then don't let them in. It really is that simple.

You are quite correct in what you say. You forget, though, that a police officer is acting under colour of authority. If he says he has come to inspect your firearms there is an implied power to do so, and for very many people, saying no to such perceived authority is very difficult to do. Then there is the commonly voiced fear, justified in far too many cases, that a refusal to comply may lead to unpleasant consequences that may cause problems for your licence. Let's face is, being difficult with firearms certificates must be one of the easiest ways the police have to upset law abiding individuals.

The codes of practice that Shootist refers to are more to do with searches such as Sec. 1, 18, and 32 post arrest where there are powers to search/enter without consent.

They are not just 'to do with' the searches you mention, they are everything to do with any search, including quite specifically (as I have quoted) searches with consent of the occupier. The last I heard, most forces had dispensed with the 'consent' aspect of searches as it was so clear that in the vast majority of such searches consent had been given under a perception that a refusal would make things worse.

Has anyone who has had a spot check actually asked the FEO/Officer what the reason is? My guess (and it's only a guess) is that it is a deterrent method to make firearms holders think a bit more about leaving their guns/ammo out as they'll be a slim chance someone may come knocking to check.

For the same reasons I have already suggested, many people are likely to avoid asking such questions, all the more so if they consider that the officer is acting outside his authority because that is precisely the time that an officer may be expected to become defensive and resort to unsavoury responses.
 
True dat...if the visit is intelligence led you wont have a choice..

In which case there will be a warrant. If it is convenient I have no problem with an inspection without appointment. I have no problem telling them to come back at a more appropriately arranged time if it is not convenient at the given unannounced arrival. If it is convenient, I would want a great lengthy chat about everything firearms related before I allow the inspection. That to me is an affable approach. If they are not interested in talking shop then they have no business inspecting.
 
So you should let the police in, without reasonable cause, or warrant, for fear you may 'wind them up' and suffer in some way as a result I presume? On the other thread bullying was mentioned and largely rejected, but is this not bullying, intentional or otherwise? Give me your dinner money, or else you could live to regret it.

We as FAC/SC holders are expected to abide by a complex set of laws, policy, and guidance, yet the police seem to think they can make up laws and policies on a whim. This is a bigger issue than should you let the police enter your home. It is about losing fundamental freedoms; freedoms that have been hard fought for over centuries and paid for in blood. Our laws, rights, and freedoms are what separate us as a democratic free nation from a totalitarian state.

Wolfie

If you are not busy, why not offer them a coffee? If it is convenient! I have already stated I have no problem telling them to make a more convenient appointment if I am busy, but if they catch me at the right time, they would get some perfectly prepared coffee, freshly ground. Let's face it, they have already granted you the authority to possess all these wonderful things that are not an entitlement to everyone!

Under the circumstances, I will be highly hospitable towards the police if it is convenient and I would expect a good knowledgeable chat from one of their representatives. If it is not convenient, then come back another time when it is convenient and I will be upwardly hospitable. If that is not an option for them, then they can come back with a warrant. But don't expect the freshly ground coffee.
 
Ask them some pertinent questions.

The 4 golden rules would be a start. The difference between a s1 and s2 shotgun. A few questions about security, such as the minimum thickness of a solid wood door required for a "gun room". If they fail these screening questions then question whether they should be inspecting something that they don't know what is and isn't complying with the law.
 
The obvious potential security breach that might arise from an unannounced visit is that they may not be police officers at all!
 
The obvious potential security breach that might arise from an unannounced visit is that they may not be police officers at all!

True. But then, no serving officer I've ever asked has had the least issue with me asking to see their warrant card :thumb:
 
True. But then, no serving officer I've ever asked has had the least issue with me asking to see their warrant card :thumb:

I wouldn't know what a warrant card looks like, let alone tell if it was genuine or not. How many people would have the presence of mind to ask anyway?

Surely the natural inclination when receiving a surprise visit would be to show the supposed police officers your guns/security arrangements and hope that they go away satisfied with the least bother all round, but it does leave you wide open to the more sophisticated criminal operation.
 
I wouldn't know what a warrant card looks like, let alone tell if it was genuine or not. How many people would have the presence of mind to ask anyway?

Surely the natural inclination when receiving a surprise visit would be to show the supposed police officers your guns/security arrangements and hope that they go away satisfied with the least bother all round, but it does leave you wide open to the more sophisticated criminal operation.

You can always ring the firearms office and ask if the person concerned is one of their staff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top