Poll: Was it the right thing to do?
- Thread starter Insanum
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Evil Jak said:
He should'nt have searched the bag when she was'nt there... but then again, most of the time you carnt drink in public place, and if minors where also drinking...
Anyway, just remember:
1) If minors are are going to drink with you, drink in someones house, not in public. You could try going out into the feilds if you live in a rural area, but remember that the police can hear you from miles away if your making noise. It's best to drink in houses, besides there are toilets in peoples houses....They come in use.
2) If your with minors and you have alcahol in public, do your best to hide it and don't drink it!
3) When buying the stuff, make sure any minors are well out of sight. If your buying it in a super market, have them wait down the street.
Pretty obvious points really i suppose, but coming from experience. I do have quite a few drunken night tales.
Finally, i think that age is a highly arbitery measure in deciding when people can and can not drink, there are 15 year olds more mature than 21 year olds and vice versa... I'd also keep an eye on light weights and those who think its "cool" to get apsolutly wasted, you have to be careful of those types.
Good, then you would have lost your job for a wrongful arrest!Godavari said:
I hadnt supplied anyone with anything, people are not guilty of any crime until proven so. If I had supplied a minor with some and he saw me do so then I would agree that he was right but I didnt and by his own reasoning I had no logical reason to give them the alcohol.
Also what? You think I went with them to buy the stuff? I met up with a group of people some were underage and some werent... I also didnt know some of them... they bought their own alcohol!
The bag being searched was very illegal, since hes not an actual police officer he doesn't fall into the same jurisdiction for the laws needed to make that action legal, he required to get permission first. He was also risking charges to himself for her not being present during the search. And you are right ... Just knowing isn't good enough, some level of evidence needs to be present to prove you were intent on distribution, with everyone else being in possession of the alchol already theres no way to prove it. Unless he questions all the liquor store owners in the area to see if you bought the entire group's supply. Or when the real police arrive, they happen to find a very large recipt in your possession to prove you bought it all. Since that didn't happen, no evidence.Evil Jak said:
All in all you were hassled by a rookie, who probably won't last long at the rate hes going. Just try to keep a lower profile. A large group of people with alcohol is not blending in.
Wow... that's brutal. I am glad I never shop there.Hutchy_Bear said:
And the cop was wrong, BUT he did the only thing he could do.
It's not as simple as yes or no. In a few areas drinking in public is illegal. In any case as he was 'hanging around' with people under 18 the PCSO was right to assume that the beer could be supplied to this person's under age friends. He also correctly confiscated it.Insanum said:
Your friend should note that he does not have the right to loiter and drink on the street with impugnity. There are many national laws and by-laws that cover this.
The officer is not allowed to give a false indentification number though, if you were drunk you may have noted it incorrectly or there could have been an error on his side.
The officer was not at liberty to search a bag unless he believed it was abandoned and had reasoable belief that it had further contraband such as; drugs, weapons or alcohol.
If your friend has a problem he is free to write a complaint to the Chief Police officer of the area. If he is not satisfied then he can contact the IPCC. If he decides he wants to take matters into his own hands he can expect to be arrested.
It was a good call. Intent to supply is a good reason to confiscate, and let's not forget the fact you're not allowed to drink in public. A confiscation is getting off lightly.
Not true, if a bag is considered abandoned and may be hazardous to the public then he has the right to check it. If it was in London or another Section 44 zone then he has extra rights to check it for public safety.Antari said:
It really depends on how/when/why/where he searched the bag as to the legality of the act.
Again, this is not true. The officer does not have to prove anything, he merely has to have reasonable suspiscion of 'intent to supply'. Hanging around on the streets drinking and being in the comany of under 18 year olds would be considered reasonable suspiscion for him to believe they were supplying the alcohol to the younger people.
No, he would not lose his job for wrongful arrest since nothing was 'wrongful'. They may not have been able to bring a case against you but it's in the courts that you have to be proven guilty, not at the time of arrest. At the time of arrest he only needed to have reasonable suspiscion that you were breaking the law.Evil Jak said:
Even if you didn't give any alcohol to the under age people you were hanging around with the circumstances were sufficient for reasonable suspiscion of 'intent to supply'. The police can't just observe you at all times to see if you're commiting a crime, that would be harassment which is why we give them leeway to have reasonable suspiscion of a crime.
It's not like the PCSO could know that you didn't know these other people as you were all hanging around together. As they were drinking it's perfectly reaonable for him to believe you were all drinking from the same stash and confiscate it. You're free to go to the police station and claim it back.
If you really have a problem write to your MP or the Chief of Police in your area.
I personally have no sympathy for you. I'm fed up with groups of kids hanging around on the streets drinking. Go drink in a pub, bar or club. Go drink at home. Don't drink in the streets where you gather in large groups and intimidate members of the community that pay for you all to sit in your council flats and/or have to pay for the police to keep an eye on you.
And PCSOs still have powers given to them by by-laws. I'm fed up having to pay these people to keep an eye on you because you can't be bothered to drink in a designated sociable place.Evil Jak said:
Besides, why can't you just respect the fact that the law is the law and it's your responsibility to follow it without having to be told what to do by an actual police officer.
I'd say, on a strict legal basis, the officer has a possible, if shaky, argument. However, I still think he should have exercised his discretion and let it go. I feel he could afford to take the risk simply because he had no way of knowing, and thus I feel he should err on the side of freedom rather than excessive caution, as suspicion/inference does not equal the guilt of supplying alcohol to minors.
Otherwise, any store that possesses alcohol and admits a minor to its premises should have its alcohol confiscated, because though there are safeguards based on the sellers' (or in the OP's case, distributor's) judgement, we cannot actually be sure. I feel that such a situation reflects a) a lack of benefit of the doubt and b) an overapplication of the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law.
Otherwise, any store that possesses alcohol and admits a minor to its premises should have its alcohol confiscated, because though there are safeguards based on the sellers' (or in the OP's case, distributor's) judgement, we cannot actually be sure. I feel that such a situation reflects a) a lack of benefit of the doubt and b) an overapplication of the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law.
It was a situation where it was perfectly acceptable to believe he might supply the alcohol to the minors or had been doing so.guardian001 said:
You come up to a group of kids drinking. In the same group is an 18 year old with masses of beer, is it really unfair to assume he had supplied it as they could not have purchased it legally.
That's a completely different situation. Having a knife in your house is not illegal. Giving alcohol to a child over 5 in your house is not illegal.
It's all about reasonable suspscion. In this case I think he was justified in his assumptions.
How dont you get this... I didnt need watching as I wasnt doing anything wrong... I have no record, I dont walk around blasting out music with my hood up or my face covered. I also wasnt drinking, I had 12 closed cans in my bag... and as everyone had their own I clearly didnt buy it to give to them!beddo said:
EDIT: Oh and I dont live in a council flat, you dont pay me anything.
How about m freedoms not to be harassed be drunken kids on my way home from work or just walking around. While this group may not have done this it is an all too common occurence.Yeq said:
It was a reasonable assumption that he was supplying the kids with alcohol, why does no one get this!?
If you want to drink, go to a pub! They're everywhere and that's their sole purpose. In a few places it's illegal to drink in public. As far as I'm concerned this should be extended to every public place.
What this PCSO did was in the spirit of the law; to protect people from harm. In this case, to protect children from alcohol. In a bar you can be refused if you are too drunk. On the street with your mates? Well, it can lead to death or serious injury from alcohol poisoning or more often, drunken stupidity.
When these 'accidents' or rather 'natural selection events' occur, it's us, the public who has to pick up the tab for their treatment on the NHS.
He was irresponsible for letting the underage persons have liquor. Sorry, wish I could drink too, but that's the law. So yes the Policeman acted in the way he should've.