it's based on reasonable grounds, so if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe they will find something illegal on the person etc they can lawfully perform the search
it's based on reasonable grounds, so if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe they will find something illegal on the person etc they can lawfully perform the search
it's based on reasonable grounds, so if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe they will find something illegal on the person etc they can lawfully perform the search
Section 1 PACE (which you have linked to) contains only stop and search powers for stolen items and bladed articles. There are other police stop and search powers in other statutes (e.g. for drugs), including those which permit (with the appropriate level of authorisation) stop and search without reasonable grounds.
So in certain circumstances, yes, the police can stop and search you because you look dodgy.
Section 1 PACE (which you have linked to) contains only stop and search powers for stolen items and bladed articles. There are other police stop and search powers in other statutes (e.g. for drugs), including those which permit (with the appropriate level of authorisation) stop and search without reasonable grounds.
So in certain circumstances, yes, the police can stop and search you because you look dodgy.
It's unlawful if the officer had no reasonable grounds to suspect you were committing a crime. Though it might be difficult to appeal against, the age old get around they use is "I thought I smelt cannabis on him".
depends on the circumstances, obviously. If they saw you robbing an old lady or waving a gun around theres no real need to stop and search you, for example. Given your repeated asking of this question though i assume youve been arrested? In which case go speak to your lawyer about it.
No - a breach of procedure can be put forward in court but the investigation continues. It is up to the court to decide whether there was a breach and the impact it has upon a case.
Well what were you caught with and what makes you think the plods actions were unlawful? Given what you've said they thought you were in possession of something illegal and they were right.
Other than that, ask your lawyer... not strangers on a student forum
What can the suspect do to try and exclude any evidence obtained as a result of the police's unlawful actions
Speak to their lawyer. The difficulty that you have is that there needs to be reasonable suspicion to conduct the search. You have been searched under a suspicion and then arrested because something has been found on you. As such, being in possession of the item proves the suspicion correct. Now you're at the point where you have been charged which means that you have been interviewed and have not provided a reasonable account for why the item is in your possession - this means when you get to court and you answer questions, they can assume you are lying because you could have answered those questions in interview. Also, I can already tell that you are guilty of the offence because you're admitting that you have committed the offence and are looking for a way to blame the police for discovering it (literally doing their job).
My best advice for use in future is to not to be a criminal.