This scenario raises the question of whether PC Sharkey has legally exercised his powers of stop and search. The statutory requirement of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1998 and the accompanying PACE Codes of Practice require PC Sharkey to have reasonable grounds for suspecting Marcus of committing an unlawful act while taking reasonable steps when conducting the search. The scenario also raises the question as to whether PC Sharkey has exercised his powers of arrest by having reasonable grounds for believing the arrest to be necessary, while providing Marcus with the right information for the arrest.
In order for PC Sharkey to have legally exercised his powers of stop and search he must have subjectively and objectively had reasonable grounds for suspecting that Marcus is containing unlawful or prohibited articles.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Section 1 (3) provides that a constable does not have the power to search a person unless he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited articles. Thus, in the case of Chapman v DPP Lord Bingham held that a constable must reasonably suspect the existence of facts amounting to an offence …show more content…
Thus, In the case of R v Bristol it was held that the police officer was in breach of s, 2(2) of the 1984 Act after he had suspected that the defendant was going to swallow drugs and applied pressure to the defendants throat in order to stop him swallowing it, as he failed to brining the attention to his name and police station which means the search was unlawful. The only steps P.C Sharkey takes is asking Marcus what is in the bag, these facts this do not constitute as reasonable step such as stating his name and police station which, as provided in R V Bristol , would constitute an unlawful search and a breach of s,2 (2)
In order for PC Sharkey to have legally exercised his powers of stop and search he must have subjectively and objectively had reasonable grounds for suspecting that Marcus is containing unlawful or prohibited articles.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Section 1 (3) provides that a constable does not have the power to search a person unless he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited articles. Thus, in the case of Chapman v DPP Lord Bingham held that a constable must reasonably suspect the existence of facts amounting to an offence …show more content…
Thus, In the case of R v Bristol it was held that the police officer was in breach of s, 2(2) of the 1984 Act after he had suspected that the defendant was going to swallow drugs and applied pressure to the defendants throat in order to stop him swallowing it, as he failed to brining the attention to his name and police station which means the search was unlawful. The only steps P.C Sharkey takes is asking Marcus what is in the bag, these facts this do not constitute as reasonable step such as stating his name and police station which, as provided in R V Bristol , would constitute an unlawful search and a breach of s,2 (2)