Get an expert to write your essay, starting at just $13.90 /page
Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.
Any subject. Any type of essay.
We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.Get your price
121 writers online
Firstly, I am going to highlight and explain arrest with a warrant. Generally, arrest with a warrant is an ongoing investigation when they believe someone to be doing illegal things. If police wish to make an arrest warrant, they must gain this warrant from the magistrate’s court. The court should be there with the details of the suspect, such as the law that applies to the situation and the evidence. The court will then issue a warrant where they believe it is fair to be done and the police then have the power to gain entry and make the arrest. Secondly, I would like to make you aware of what arrest is without a warrant. Arrest without a warrant is mainly for emergencies purposes. The police have the powers to arrest a person under reasonable suspicion this means if someone has/is going to commit an offence then the police can legally arrest them. Initially the powers of arrest exist under PACE (police and criminal evidence act 1984) but after 2005, they were slightly changed and made the PACE act 1984 wider. These powers are made because it would be peculiar if officers had to wait for a warrant while crimes are being committed. However, on the other hand, arrest is a violation of the human right to freedom. Arrest is considered as inevitable to those that break the law. S24 of PACE was replaces by S110 of PACE of the serious organized crime and police act 2005. This underlines that an arrest can be made without a warrant; the constable has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is committing/ has committed or is about to commit an offence.
It’s significant that they believe arrest is necessary due to the new. As previously, S.24 OF PACE arrest without a warrant if:
It’s been difficult to understand what “reasonable suspicion” should be classed to be as. Commonly, the understanding was that reasonable depends on the individual officer and what he/she believes is reasonable suspicion.( the constable basically gets to decide whether excessive or not so excessive amount of force is needed). This needed clarification and in the European Court of Human Right a case O’Hara v UK (2000) the court decided that reasonable suspicion be confirmed through a two-part test. Part 1 – Officers must have actual suspicion, subjective (single view). Part – 2 there must be reasonable grounds for that suspicion, objective (overall view).
The police code of conduct contains different rights, which are given to the arrested person. The code in question is code G and this comes from PACE and says that a lawful arrest requires;
Reasonable force; No clear-cut definition is available. It depends on the reasonable judgement of the particular officer and the surrounding circumstances. The officer will do as much or as little required to ensure the objective he/she has set out to achieve, in a safe and effective way.
According to the Court’s Handy side test, “necessary” means that a measure or decision should correspond to a “pressing social need. “Second, the Court’s definition does not correspond to what is usually meant by the test of necessity.
S28 PACE (for the joker) states even where it is obvious, the detainee must be told in accessible language that they are being arrested and the reasons/grounds of the arrest. This is because no matter the circumstances the detainee needs to understand that he/she is being arrested. Even where this is obvious to all, the officer cannot assume that the detainee knew.
Code C for the joker says that the detainee should be cautioned. “You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say maybe given in evidence.” This means a general right to silence is available but choosing not to speak to the police is not illegal but can be detrimental to the detainee. The police cannot allow you the opportunity to have time to make up an excuse for whatever it is you have been arrested for.
The police powers of arrest extend to arrest where an individual has breached police bail. The criminal justice and Public Order Act 1994 and now S46A of PACE gives the police right to arrest anyone without warrant that fails to attend the police station.
There is a common law right to arrest for the breach of the peace.
Mr. M was asked to leave a carpet shop by owner. Police arrived and he then went back into the shop and was arrested.
Argued that breach of the peace cannot take place on private land. COA disagreed.
The court of Appeal summarized conditions required for arrest for breach.
Serious organize crime and Police Act 2005 creates new S24A in PACE.
Citizens are usually permitted to make an arrest but only for an Indictable offence. This is with reasonable suspicion such an offence is being committed or has been committed.
How does this differ from the police powers of arrest? Why should it be limited?
Citizens are not trained to make arrest so there’s a limitation to what we can do. Police don’t have the equipment to make arrests. Police don’t have the equipment to make arrests. Police don’t want people hurting themselves or other people. Police don’t have power to take away peoples human rights.
32% of PACE a constable may search an arrested person in a place other that the police station if he/she reasonably believes that:
Why not wait until the suspect is at the station?
Amendments were needed to PACE as suspects in a position to get round some of the rules. For example, before a search of the mouth was considered as an intimate search under PACE and could not take place in public. S65 PACE was changed by CJPOA 1994, which states that searching the mouth should no longer be classed as an intimate search and can be displayed/done in public. This shows one of the reasons that searches sometimes have to be done quickly to gain/ get the evidence.
The procedure of body samples is a qualified/well trained doctor, nurse or dentist must take intimate body samples, not the police officer. Where possible, the doctor or nurse must be the same sex as you if they are taking an intimate sample (other than a dental impression) or examining an intimate part of your body. The police officer must tell you that you do not have to answer any questions asked by the doctor, nurse or dentist. They must tell you this before the body sample is taken. The police officer can take non-intimate body samples. The police probably will want to take your fingerprints or samples from your body, such as saliva or blood, to use as evidence if you are charged/accused with an offence. The police must follow proper procedures to take these, including following certain rules for young people or people with a cognitive disability or mental illness. Innocent people’s DNA profiles and fingerprints will now be wiped and removed from police databases routinely, but some people arrested for serious offences may have their record reserved for up to 3 years, and others may have these records reserved indefinitely (for repeated 2 year periods) for (national security) purposes. A police interview recorded on tape is real evidence what was said in it the interview. If it is so to announce the interview as evidence of the truth of the contents, it is hearsay evidence, and will only be admissible if the evidence satisfies one of the routes to admissibility in Section 114 CJA 2003. Either an interview is likely to contain a confession, statements that are adverse or partly adverse to the defendant, statements that are wholly exculpatory or there will be no comment made. Section 82(1) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), as “a statement that is partly adverse to the person who made it”, define a confession.
Joker is currently unaware of his surrounding or how to conduct himself whilst he is at the police station. A particular officer or surroundings from PACE S117 also haven’t informed joker that an arrest cannot take place if the officer does not have a warrant and what the procedures are for the officer if he claims a made. Joker also has to know what rights he has when being arrested for example, getting free legal advice, being able to make someone aware of his where about especially if he has children that need picking up; also if he needs medical help for any health related issues. Also to know if the police is following the correct procedure whilst he’s being arrested and detained for his safety particularly, joker has also not been told how to conduct a himself during the interview, whilst he’s being detained and arrested, which is unfair towards joker and all other suspects that haven’t been informed.
After once the stop and search has been concluded, you are immediately taken to a police station for questioning and the police will proceed to carry out of their investigation. Why could the police not just ask the suspect to come to the station at their next convenience because the police cannot take the risk that the arrestee would voluntarily come to that station. Also there could be a chance of tampering with evidence if the arrestee is allowed to go home. Another reason is they could be a chance of intimidating witnesses or arranging false alibis if the arrestee is let go. As well as this taking the arrested to the police station is a method of protecting the public.
There are strict rules and regulations to do with detention, these cover the treatment of the suspect, and the length of time the suspect are allowed to be held at the station. These rules and others are found in code of practice C. Under S30 PACE the arrested person must be bought to the police station as possible after arrest. The suspect (under S36 PACE) must be first bought to the custody officer at the police station who will then assess the evidence and ensures there is enough to make the arrest. If there is not enough evidence to charge, the Custody officer uses S37 PACE and decides whether he/she believes the officers need more time to gather evidence. If this is the case, the suspect could be granted Bail under S38 PACE. S30 PACE: As soon as someone is arrested, they must be taken into the police station immediately. S36 PACE: Taken firstly to the Custody officer for evidence to be taken and to be booked in the police station. Custody Officer: The person who sits at the police station and books the detainee in. S37 PACE: Custody Officer to decide whether the person should be kept the full 24 hours. S38 PACE: granted bail. – Police bail.
The Custody Officer has the job of ensuring that the detention is one that is lawful Under PACE. He/she is not there to take sides and has the job of rather neutral towards both parties.
Under S40 PACE: the custody officer must review the detention after 6 hour and then every nine hours. He/she does this by speaking to the arresting officers and finding a progress of their case. The officers must be seen as being as active as possible for the detention to continue.
S41 of PACE: allowed detention of suspect without charge to be up to 24 hours this was increased to 36 hours under S42 Criminal Justice Act 2003. The maximum time for detention without charge 96 hours but this can only be with the approval of a Magistrate.
S40 PACE: The Custody Officer has to constantly be active with tasks/jobs given/set for the individual also if 6 hours have past the detainee is there for and there is no sufficient evidence then the custody officer will decide whether to release them, so the arresting officer should justify why they brought the detainee in and why.
S41 PACE /S42 CJA2003: The detainee could be held up to 36 hours to mainly gather evidence. Extension of 24-36 hours to investigate can keep a person up to 96 hours in certain circumstances as terrorism.
Under 5.56 of PACE states the detained can nominate someone that will take an interest in their welfare. This person must be told of the arrest and where the detention is happening. This right can be delayed by a senior officer for 36 hours with reasonable grounds to believe that evidence/investigation will be interfered with. 5.58 PACE states that the detained must be informed of their rights to legal advice. Either their own or provided free of charge. The detained must be told orally about this right but must also have a document that states this too. Senior officer can delay this for 36 hours if he reasonably believes this will harm of interfere with investigation.
Looking at the above two sections, what possible reasons could be for delaying these rights? These rights can be delayed but usually very rarely and with good reason only. The rights can be revoked where the police believe that informing others of the detention could be hinder the investigation. The usual reason would be that evidence or the investigation would be tampered with in some way.
R. V. Samuel (1988) stresses that this right to legal advice can only be delayed in rare circumstances. In this case a male suspected of robbery was denied legal assistance despite his mother being made aware of his arrest. His final interview was conducted without legal assistance and as such the COA quashed (through it out) the conviction. The final interview was not admissible in court. R V Grant (2005) COA held that they would not tolerate “illegal conduct by the police”. The police in this situation attempted to intercept communication between the detained and his solicitor. Due to the police behaviour, the d conviction for murder was quashed. Other rights for the joker S.60 PACE the interview should be video or tape-recorded and this recording should be kept by the police as a record.
S.57 PACE vulnerable suspects (under 17, mental disorder/ disability should have an appropriate adult with them during questioning. Who would be an appropriate adult and why should they be there? For support as they find being in a police station being question as intimidating/scary therefore may be intimidating or tricked to saying something that is incorrect.
As you have been studying police powers, you would have noticed that as we progress though the topic, the more rights are removed from the individual. However, the “temporary” removal of these rights is deemed necessary in protecting the public. S55 of PACE covers the intimate search of a detainee. With the authority of an inspector or higher, the police have the power to conduct an intimate search. Obviously, the police is responsibility to make this search as respectful as possible and private. This search can be used where the police reasonably believe the suspect has something on his person (or in his person) that is likely to cause harm to him o other either in custody or in court, this search can also be extended to search for class A drugs. A medical professional or qualified nurse must carry out this search.
Intimate search for Blood, saliva and semen can be taken from the suspect.
S62: Non-intimate samples like hair and nail clipping can be taken with the permission of an inspector or above.
S63: DNA information can be taken and placed on the police database indefinitely. S04 (however, see next case).
The ECHR ruled that the keeping of DNA samples indefinitely (where there has been no charge) is a violation of Article 8 (right to private life). Only DNA from those convicted can be kept indefinitely. Police can take fingerprints from the suspect under S.61 and S.27 of PACE. Impressions of footwear can be taken from the suspect. 6.61 as amended SOCP (2005).
I believe the rights of the individuals who are arrested on the streets are protect to certain extent; this is because when they are being arrested they are told what is going on and what they can do whilst their being arrested“, you do not have to say anything, but anything you do say will be used as evidence” etc, here is a prime example of where the individual may be scared or intimidated they don’t have to say anything. Also when you are released and arrested and you haven’t been charged with anything poli9ce are obliged to drop you off where they picked you up from or have requested to go, as the arrest didn’t go anywhere. However being arrested in the street when there isn’t any witnesses who aren’t police constables are a bit scary as things could be potentially taken out of hand, police constables could abuse their power, because there isn’t no one there top say otherwise, such as using too much force.
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
Sorry, copying is not allowed on our website. If you’d like this or any other sample, we’ll happily email it to you.
Your essay sample has been sent.
Want us to write one just for you? We can custom edit this essay into an original, 100% plagiarism free essay.Order now
Are you interested in getting a customized paper?Check it out!