Police 'spot' checks

[firsttimer]

Orion- Firstly I would state that I agree with the majority of your contributions on the forum, however, if you reflect on quite a few posts that I have responded to in the past, I attempted to provide genuine advice and opinion based on facts only to be denigrated by you. You may recollect your insistence that the Home Office Guidance was the be-all and end-all in a post, but despite my pointing out this was guidance and not mandatory on Chief Constables you still proceeded to argue. You also attempted to tell us in a post how the Scottish Forces apply the procedures for FAC applications despite my personal experience and attempting to convey this to a fellow Scottish FAC applicant who was attempting to acquire the same rifles as I have and was seeking advice.

Again in this current post you and others made statements that cited the police have no right of entry to private premises unless invited or with a warrant which is not strictly true as my OP with Section 47 of the FA 68 proves. Yet again you could not simply accept this nor the fact that the law can and is sometimes bent to achieve an outcome. I also attempted to demonstrate that despite being a 'lawful' firearms holder this could be breached and an offence about to be or committed allowing Police entry.

So it appears that because you frequent the forum on a regular basis the only advice and opinion that counts on here is YOURS despite it not being the full and factual picture!

Time you took a bit of your own medicine, but I'd rather bury the hatchet (no not in your head!) and get on with enjoying the Forum with forthright views backed by fact.

 

[teyhan1]

Firsttimer, surely if the act to which you are refering is what we are debating then it must surely revolve around the wording of "reasonable cause to suspect".
I would argue that 'spot checks' are not "reasonable cause to suspect".
A spot check is not a check going on information or inteligence. It is a random check
Why aren't the police doing 'spot checks' on University campuses for drugs. We all know that there are probably drugs on campuses. A little bit of weed kicking about here and there. That's reasonable cause. But I bet the police won't start doing it. It's too broader search for them to undertake for one.
They are quite clearly picking on firearms users. They know where the guns are and therefore it's easy but most of all it's un-reasonable. We all have to jump through hoops to get our firearms and we are all proven law abiding citizens going about our normal business. God knows I hate the Human Rights Act but doesn't that say something along the lines of the state not being able to unduly interfere with you going about your normal business.

"reasonable cause to suspect" should not mean the meer owning of a gun entitles the Police to come knocking without reason (although it does in Japan, where they can come anytime they please!!)

 

[Si]

The police are not even allowed to stop a motorist and search the car unless they have reason to believe an offence is being committed, i.e - brake light not working, dangerous driving or no tax... etc.

What makes these spot checks any different?... well probably the fact that they knock on the door and say "can we come in?" If you say yes then you have given them permission.

 

[bewsher500]

The police are not even allowed to stop a motorist and search the car unless they have reason to believe an offence is being committed, i.e - brake light not working, dangerous driving or no tax... etc.

What makes these spot checks any different?... well probably the fact that they knock on the door and say "can we come in?" If you say yes then you have given them permission.

Ha Ha!
and how simple is it to come up with something that needed to be investigated?

difference is you can see the motorist and convey that suspicion
you cant see the FAC holder or his/her weapons until they answer the door

 

[jamross65]

The police are not even allowed to stop a motorist and search the car unless they have reason to believe an offence is being committed, i.e - brake light not working, dangerous driving or no tax... etc.

What makes these spot checks any different?... well probably the fact that they knock on the door and say "can we come in?" If you say yes then you have given them permission.

Si

The examples you quote do not give them the power to search the vehicle...

Suspected of carrying drugs, offensive weapon etc would, but not the road traffic offences you mention...

What they do give is the power to require a breath test.

Edited to add: search it for what, and on what grounds?

 

[Si]

No, but once they've stopped the car they can then further assess the situation... (smell alcohol or weed) to give reason to search the vehicle and it's occupants.

 

[firsttimer]

Firsttimer, surely if the act to which you are refering is what we are debating then it must surely revolve around the wording of "reasonable cause to suspect".
I would argue that 'spot checks' are not "reasonable cause to suspect".
QUOTE]

Teyhan- Think you missed the bottom of my post #31 where I too agree that 'spot checks' are not 'reasonable cause to suspect', my subsequent post was a jibe !

 

[teyhan1]

Firsttimer, surely if the act to which you are refering is what we are debating then it must surely revolve around the wording of "reasonable cause to suspect".
I would argue that 'spot checks' are not "reasonable cause to suspect".
QUOTE]

Teyhan- Think you missed the bottom of my post #31 where I too agree that 'spot checks' are not 'reasonable cause to suspect', my subsequent post was a jibe !

My mistake. I missed that although there is a little bit of devils advocate in your post.

 

[Whitebeard]

The police will do to us whatever they think they can get away with, lawful or not.

Ian.

 

[Hornet]

Yes, it's a bit sad isn't it.

I'd say that 99.99% of those who frequent the forum on a regular basis are more than willing to give advice and opinion in an honest and forthright manner. Just goes to show that the exception proves the rule this time around.

Although I'm somewhat in the dark as to what he was 'egging' me on to prove or disprove? A statement was made regarding police having the ability to see evidence of wrongdoing merely because a citizen exercised their lawful right, and I and others responded. It looks to me that someone might be trying to remove egg from their own face - and failing.

Pass him the flannel, silly man.

 

[jamross65]

The police will do to us whatever they think they can get away with, lawful or not.

Ian.

yeh, your right. because they are on bonuses after all depending on how many folk they 'fix' in the course of a day...

Grow up...

There are two young female police officers now dead because they joined an organisation that is primarily there to protect folk like you...

 

[Wrens Mews]

yeh, your right. because they are on bonuses after all depending on how many folk they 'fix' in the course of a day...

Grow up...

There are two young female police officers now dead because they joined an organisation that is primarily there to protect folk like you...

Well said..............

 

[bobthedug]

The police will do to us whatever they think they can get away with, lawful or not.

Ian.

I normally don't respond to offensive, idiotic comments such as this and often find them mildly amusing. This time I don't.
Jamross65 used a simple two word phrase "grow up" which is very appropiate. My two word phrase for you is perhaps less appropiate and ends in "off"

Bob

 

[Scots_stalker]

You get the type of police officer you deserve. If you are polite and pass the attitude test then you usually get the same back
act like a bam pot and you will get treated like one.

 

[Whitebeard]

The murder of two WPCs is a tragic occurence and i have greatest sympathies for the respective families but that does not retract from the fact that the police will do to us whatever they think they can get away with, firearms licensing is a prime example.


Ian.

 

[lister]

The murder of two WPCs is a tragic occurence and i have greatest sympathies for the respective families but that does not retract from the fact that the police will do to us whatever they think they can get away with, firearms licensing is a prime example.


Ian.

whitebeard the police are just doing there job
I go to work I do my job and I go home I do not think that my wife should get a phone call saying I am dead but it could happen
the police do a job that I could not do if you can do the job or a better job apply
they work within the law
the law is an ass if you what to change the law become an mp

 

[Whitebeard]

Lister, this is just it mate, many work within the law and many dont.

Ian.

 

[lister]

I am shortly going to apply for my fac plus shotgun
I will give my 'good reason' the police will say yes or no
they are not there to stop me having firearms they are thete to protect the public
when I was a boy it was a police force
now we have a police service

 

[JMS906]

If a constable knocked at your door and asked to come in and you refused, he would have to go away. He can't simply take the line "aha, you must be up to something" so I'll get a warrant.

Fortunately, that isn't the law. Case law resulting from PACE states that mere suspicion ("I think you're up to something") is not reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion must be based on something concrete (concrete being the word used in the judgement). So if an officer encounters someone on the street at 2am and he's carrying a holdall, and the officer is aware that a burglary in which silver cutlary was stolen occurred only ten minute ago and not far from there, he might suspect he has the burglar but, thus far, he has no resonable grounds for suspicion. However, if the officer hears clanking from the holdall and thus reasonably thinks it it might be the stolen cutlery then at that point he has reasonable grounds for suspicion. Similarly, telling an officer who comes knocking at your door asking to see your firearms that he cannot come in is most definitely not 'reasonable cause to suspect' a crime is being or is about to be committed.

If an unannounced constable arrives at your door saying he's undertaking a 'spot check' of your firearms, you can tell him it isn't convenient, he should is to go away and if he wants to check your firearms he should make an appointment. And you, as a responsible FAC holder, could prepare eveything for when the police returns to examine your guns, FAC and any other paperwork, and if they want to spend their time doing it, count your ammo stocks.

If an officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that you are committing a firearms offence, then he should get a search warrant from a magistrate. If when he comes knocking he already has a search warrant in his back pocket, he will typically ask you if he can come in and see your guns - without telling you that he has a warrant. He will do this because it makes things easier for him: a search warrant restricts what he can do, if you agree to him coming into yoru home he isn't restricted in that way. So explicitly ask him whether he has a warrant. If he does, tell him he will have to execute it as you refuse entry otherwise. Explain that you are not simply being awkward but by making him execute the warrant it protects your interests. If a constable executes a search warrant, then:

- only the persons named on the warrant may enter; if one officer is specifically named then only he may enter, not an entire search team (this is a clerical error on the part of the police); I have seen warrants that name a specific officer and other warrants that said "all the officers of [named constabulary]"

- he is only permitted to search for the items named on the warrant; if he is searching for a rifle, then the warrant would not authorise him to search, for example, through your desk drawers as a rifle could not be hidden there; the warrant more typically would say something like "firearms and component parts, ammunition and components, and documents"

- once he has found the items named on the warrent, he must leave immediately

- as the subject of the warrant, you are immediately entitled to a solicitor paid for by legal aid - so phone one immediately (not that all solicitors would know the foregoing)

- the police must create a search log

Be aware that under PACE, a constable lawfully upon any premises "may sieze any thing", with or without a warrant.

As for 'spot checks', I should have thought that most constabularies were too busy to spend their time that way.

Hope this helps.

-JMS

 

[barkin` buck]

A very enlightening post, thank you. My wife knows the thing to do just in case this kind of thing ever happens, though around here the Firearms licensing bods seem to be sensible, you never know. Just remain polite and don`t knowingly antagonise the police whilst putting them off until they come back when convenient, thank you and goodbye.