STOP and Search

Chapter 2: Introduction

This chapter investigates the disproportionate use of stop and searches powers against BME
communities. Besides, this chapter will further explore the uses and importance of search
powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) (1984), Criminal Justice and
Public Order Act (1994), Terrorism Act (2000) as well as the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971).
The frequent use of term disproportionate refers to the degree in which something seems to
be out of proportion to something else in relations to police powers to stop and search.
Moreover, more this term is used mostly to describe the disparity in how power is utilized
against minority ethnic groups in comparison to the(white) majority of the public (Bowling
and Phillips, 2007)

2.2Powers of Stop and Search

Stop and search is mainly an investigative power adopted for crime detection or prevention
regarding a specific individual at a time (Lustgarten 2002). These powers have a long history
in England and Wales, dating back to section 4 of the Vagrancy Act (1824) known as the
“sus” law. The purpose of the “sus” law was to allow police officers to stop and search
individuals when they were suspected of loitering in a public place. Section 66 of the 1839
Metropolitan Police Act allowed the police in London the power to stop and search
individuals they "reasonably suspected" of carrying anything "stolen or unjustly obtained."

Bristol riots in 1980 and the Brixton riots in 1981 contributed to an end in using the “sus”
law. This was mainly stopped because of the initiation of a negative relationship between
individuals from ethnic groups and police. The significant riots in 1981 based in London and
other major cities in the United Kingdom led to an inquiry by Lord Scarman regarding the
disturbances. The reports were highly significant of the police were exercising their stop and
search powers. These reports were crucial as they gave a real insight into disproportionate use
of stop and search powers. The Philips commission also recognised the damage the power did
to the relationship between police officers and the black minorities. Because of these
circumstances, it leads to the Police and Criminal Evidence. One criticism made by the
Philips commission of the police relates to how they exercise their powers to stop and search
individuals in the streets. Pre-Pace there was no regular monitoring of these powers which led
to police officers stopping individuals mainly based on their ethnicity. Bowling and Philips
argue that these powers have been heavily used against certain ethnic groups’ primarily
young black people. This led to numerous issues between police officers and certain ethnic
minorities.

The reports indicate the disproportionate extent, harmful behaviour, and misconduct by the
police towards young individuals from black and various other ethnic minorities due to
excessive use of their stop and search powers. These reports further suggest that race is a vital
issue in police suspect encounters. Besides this, it is further complicated by geographical
location and social-economic circumstances of the suspects. (Brunson and Miller 2006).

The 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) provided the police service with a new
national power to stop and search any individual or vehicle for stolen goods or prohibited
items (Delos and Shiner, 2016). Lugarsten (1986) argues that it is essential to follow all the
rules as conducting a stop and search without reasonable grounds for suspicion of a crime is
seen unlawful.

PACE introduced the provision of reasonable suspicion and a written record of the copy of
searches that are carried out. The copy must be accessible to an individual stopped. The main
aim of the PACE was to stop unlawful searches and balance the rights of suspects against the
demand to engage in crimes. In 1984 Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
(PACE) appeared in power. The primary aim of this Act was to allow police to stop and
search the individuals for stolen and prohibited articles throughout England and Wales.

PACE also introduced Codes of Practice which examine the use of powers in the Act. PACE
code A highlights the principles it utilises which to govern stop and search. It emphasises that
stop, and search powers must be applied moderately. Police officers must have reasonable
grounds of suspicion that an individual in possession of any stolen or prohibited articles
before deciding to stop and search them.

Reasonable grounds for suspicion can be described as a legitimate test which is conducted by
police officers before they can detain individuals or vehicles to search them under powers
such as Section 1 of PACE is to locate stolen or prohibited articles and section 23 of the
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which is to identify controlled drugs. It conducts this test in two
parts. First, it is essential that the officer must have genuine suspicion. Second, the doubt
found must be reasonable.

Reasonable suspicion can never be based on personal factors alone without supporting
intelligence or information. The code further shows that an individual's colour, age or the
way they dress, or any previous conviction cannot be applied solely or in combination with
anything to search that person. Besides this, the exercise of stop and search powers mainly
depends on the possibility that an individual searched in possession of any item for which
they may be searched. It does not rely on the person concerned about being considered of
carrying out an offence concerning the object of the search.

The fundamental aim of Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is to
provide police officers with a power to stop and search and to tackle the threat imminent
violent. Stop, and searches under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
1994 are quite different from section 1 PACE searches as they do not require suspicion in
individual cases. Additionally, stop and. Searches carried out under this act can be authorised
by senior police officers. These powers are intended to prevent violent offences at a massive
scale.

Today the most frequently used powers of stop and search are under Section 1 of the Police,
and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 23 Misuse of the Drugs Act 1971. These powers
allow police officers to search the suspect for any prohibited items they might have. These
powers require police officers to have reasonable grounds to suspect an individual to have
stolen or prohibited article or prohibited drugs to search. Less commonly used search powers
include Section 47 Firearms Act 1968 and under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000, it is
crucial that police officers have reasonable grounds for suspicion that an individual is a
terrorist. Therefore, it is vital that there must be an objective basis for that suspicion. It must
be based on facts or intelligence which are relevant to the article. As well as this any searches
carried out must meet the requiring under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Police
officers should not base reasonable suspicion on personal factors alone without reliable
information or specific behaviour by the individual they are searching. Moreover, an
individual's age, race, and appearance or a previous conviction should not be the reason to
search that individual (Bowling and Phillips, 2007).
2.3 The use of stop and search

Stop and searches per 1000 population,by ethnicity Englan and

Wales(2012-18)
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
2012 2014 2016 2018

White Black Asian

2.4 Disproportionate and discriminatory?

We can interpret the term disproportionate to a degree to which something is a proportion or

irrelevant to something else. This is seen throughout the stop and search as BME minorities
and more likely to be stopped and searched in comparison to the white majority. In 1987 A
submission to the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure by the Institute of Race Relation
drew attention to the mass stop and search of black individuals and racial abuse and regular
surveillance targeted against black communities. Besides this, a study conducted by Willis
(1983 page for a quote) represents that officers appeared not to adhere to specific provisions
of reasonable suspicion. The research further recommended, "black individuals particularly
young black males were often more prone to be stopped and searched by the police than
whites." Despite subsequent prosecution rates being the same. This is because ethnic
minorities were stopped and searched more often.

Following MacPherson, there was more significance placed on improved monitoring as well
as on the use of stop and search powers. Officers are required to record all stop and searches.
Ethnic minorities do not believe that the reasons provided to explain the high numbers of stop
and search against these communities are valid. Although they agree that there are other
factors which play a part; however, stop and search is a central element of discrimination
(Bowling and Phillips, 2007).

Reports allege that stop and search it say encounters involving individuals from minority
groups to be more likely to be noted than those which include white people. This is because
these incidents are demanding, and police officers feel the desire to protect their tails. This
can contribute to people losing confidence in a police force which can generate further issues
between specific ethnic minority neighbourhoods and the police service.

Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) brought the police service within the ambit of UK
and discrimination legislation for the first time. This Act states it is unlawful for police
officers to discriminate when carrying out their roles; this also includes when conducting stop
and searches or arresting individuals. Additionally, if the individual believes they have been
stopped or arrested based on the grounds of their race or ethnicity they can then complain to
racial discrimination (Bowling and Phillips, 2007).

Most searches require reasonable suspicion. However, s60(and the now less used section 47a)
searches are “suspicionless". Bowling and Philips argue that reasonable suspicion is mainly a
case of stop and search which usually require it. These stops, therefore, damage the
relationship between police and community and undermine the respect for police service.
Bowling and Marks state that officers have unlimited discretion when choosing whom to
stop; however, in practice, they tend to stop, and individuals based on "professional
institution." They suggest that these individuals from African Caribbean, Asian and of
Middle Eastern descent are more likely to be targeted than the white majority.

Additionally, these suspicionless powers are targeted at the "usual suspects." These targets
searches portray a negative image of police officers on BME minorities which therefore leads
to misunderstandings and conflicts between these groups (Bowling and Marks, 2017). Most
of the stop and searches are based on indirect contradiction to the PACE codes of practice
mainly on stereotypes, particularly where levels of discretion are highest. They further
suggest that searches based on stereotypes rather than the actual suspicion or reason are
unlawful. Like-wise, Lustgarten argues that high numbers of searches do not reach the set
criteria for reasonable doubt and consequently are classed illegal under PACE. He further
questions whether this means that the police officers are acting unlawfully in these
circumstances. British Police service has been concerned about discrimination and is keen to
provide excellent service to all communities. Both Scarman and MacPherson their reports
have highlighted the use of institutional racism, discrimination against specific populations
(Bowling and Phillips, 2007).

Carol Willis(year) conducted a study to explore the use of police powers to stop people in the
street. The survey produced data from four police stations some within and some beyond the
boundaries of Greater London. The study that rates of black people stopped were higher than
for the population. It further implied that in areas such as Kensington London, rates were
three times greater among black men ages 16 to 24 than for any other men in this group.
These figures reveal that officers follow specific criteria such as looking at the characteristics
of people before carrying out their judgment to use their stop and search powers. Macpherson
suggests that people from an ethnic group such as black people have been stopped more than
white people, who were arrested more than Asians. On foot, black people were four times
more likely to be stopped than people compared to diverse ethnic groups. These factors
suggest clear discrimination between stop and search Asian groups. These factors suggest a
clear bias between stop and search rates of ethnic groups (Holdaway, 1996)

Although PACE was bought in for the best intentions and to deal with everyone lawfully, it
has been subject to a different range of critiques (Miller, Bland, and Quinton, 2002). Bowling
and Phillips argue that that the pattern of excessive use of police stop and search powers is
entirely consistent with the trends of selective enforcement by police officers which are
usually based on cultural stereotyping and the "heightened suspicion" of Black and minority
ethnic communities. Scarman report highlighted this particular issue as the report suggested
that "some officers think that all young black people are potential criminals. Similarly, Smith
and Gray (1983) stated that police officers stopped black people as they believed that "nine
out of ten times they would have drugs." The over-generalizations and stereotypes are one of
the main issues to why individuals from BME communities do not trust police officers.

Moreover, the issue of extreme overgeneralization was further supported by Quinton et al.
(2000) study. About a hundred police officers from dozens of police forces were interviewed
to find out more about police, stops., decision making, and practice. This study highlighted
that police officer had a firm belief that individuals from BME communities usually have
drugs and are responsible for any crimes that might take place in the area. Their vehicles are
stopped without intelligence as the offices believe that they will most likely have drugs with
them. These examples clearly illustrate the link between stereotypes and the formation of
suspicion. Police officers use their powers to arrest individuals based on their ethnicity
without intelligence. Individuals from BME communities are stopped because of racial
discrimination. Although in the 1980s there has been a secure connection between skin colour
and the police action. The police officers at that time were unapologetic about the behaviour,
racist beliefs and targeting BME groups mainly young black people.

Similarly, a study conducted by Smith and GRAY (year) on police behaviour and street
duties. The police officers when asked on how they know whom to stop. One of the
experienced and high-rank officers replied individuals with "dark complexion, thick lips, and
usually dark fuzzy hair." This indicates the use of racist language to describe people from
BME communities. Bowling and Philips argue that although this is still an ongoing issue,
however, the police officers are now more reluctant to accept it due to consequences it might
have on their job and the police service as an institution. Janet Foster argues that the racist
attitudes and behaviour of police officers towards certain ethnic minorities has not decreased
or ended, but it has simply gone "underground." Although one can argue that racially
prejudiced attitudes affect the relationship between police service and BME communities,
Hall argues that there is no link between racially prejudiced attitudes and language. Report by
home office suggested that police officers "routinely use skin colour as an excuse for stop and
search." They stop individuals based on stereotypes (Bowling and Phillips, 2007).

Bowling argues that police officers usually cite various patterns of arrests as evidence that
black individuals are more likely to be involved in crime than their white counterparts.
Bowling further argues that police officers use this explanation for justifying their lawful stop
and searches against BME communities and mainly black individuals. Additionally, Black
people are more likely to be arrested for specific kinds of offences such as street robbery and
drugs involvement. Police service justifies all these unlawful arrests by explaining arrest data.
They argue that arresting officer must have grounds for the arrest to convince the supervisor
that they have acted according to the rules and the person they have arrested is an actual
suspect. However, there are various issues in using arrest data. This is it because it clearly
does not explain the involvement of ethnic minorities in the crime. This is because this data
does not state whether the individual arrested by police as guilty of an offence or not.
Bowling and Philips argue that about 20 percent of arrests have not further action taken
against them. This clearly shows that police officers are arresting BME groups just based on
their suspicions and not because of any actual evidence or intelligence (Bowling and Phillips,
2007).
2.5 The impact of disproportionate use of stop and search

The eternal significance of stop of search as an essential reason a hostility between the police
and black communities. There has been nothing more damaging to the relation between the
police and black community than ill-judged use of stop and search powers. The report
suggested that if there was one complain which was quite universal, it was stop and search. A
report carried out by Metropolitan Police (2004) suggested that the current use of stop and
search increased the level of distrust in our police. The excessive use of these powers has led
to more deep-seated racial tensions against the police as well as the increased level of
uncertainty about the police officer's credibility. The report further suggested that evidence
presented on the current use of stop and search continued to be influenced by racial bias.
Philips and Philips (1998) that there is has been a history of distrust and lack of confidence in
the police service by BME communities. As well as this Black communities within London
have also had issues with police service for their unfair treatment and discrimination against
them for many years (Bowling and Phillips, 2007).

Searches carried out under s60 are questionable as the police officers have the power to
search everyone in a neighbourhood without reasonable suspicion. This can still have a
negative impact as it can damage police and community relations as officers might be
carrying out the searches based on their assumptions (Miller, Bland, and Quinton, 2002).
Commissioner of Metropolitan Police recognised the demanding nature of this act. They
released a statement which began by highlighting the role of stop and search and its impact
on police-community relationships.

The study directed by Brunson and Miller (2006) provides a broader insight into the
relationship between the police service and young people from ethnic minority groups. They
achieved this through interviews with St Louis, Missouri. This research features the
disproportionate degrees of harassment by the police. Young people from black and other
ethnic groups reported a higher level of harassment by the police and a significant degree of
negative views towards the police in terms of their professionalism and approachability.
These attitudes have grown up from the young individual’s experiences of stop and search
which they acknowledge being inadequate in inhibiting and diminishing crime.

2.6 Conclusion
Police powers have expanded quite a lot since the past years. They suggest that these powers
have developed since the power to stop and search first introduced in PACE. Although the
current powers to stop and search are still not still after reports such as Scarman and
Lawrence inquiry. A lot has changed in terms of new set of rules and the strict guidelines
which are set for police officers to follow (Bowling and Phillips, 2007)

Bibliography
Bowling, B. and Marks, E. (2017). The Rise and Fall of Suspicion less Searches. King's Law Journal,
28(1), pp.62-88.

Bowling, B. and Phillips, C. (2007). Disproportionate and Discriminatory: Reviewing the Evidence
on Police Stop and Search. Modern Law Review, 70(6), pp.936-961.

Holdaway, S. (1996). The racialisation of British policing. Hound mills, Basingstoke, Hampshire:

Macmillan Press.
Links: [Link]
[Link]/media/237972/prs127_the_impact_of_stops_and_searches_on_crime_and_the
_community.pdf
[Link]

Disproportionate and Discriminatory:

Reviewing the Evidence on Police Stop
and Search