What’s this page about?

Since January 2024, members of the CMG have attended Bethnal Green police station to watch randomly selected videos of stop and searches carried out in the past month. These videos, which the CMG is supposed to view monthly, have been filmed on police officers’ Body-Worn Video (BWV) cameras. Since October 2024, the CMG has provided feedback on these videos using an online form, which police are expected to respond to. It is hoped this will lead to better accountability.

Due to a confidentiality agreement with the Met, the CMG is not allowed to provide identifying information about the searches. In the interests of transparency and oversight, however, we share our anonymised notes below.

If you have been subject to a stop and search in Tower Hamlets and want to speak to us in complete confidence, you can email us at our secure email: thcmg@protonmail.com Please be assured that we will not discuss anything you tell us with the police, unless you ask us to.

January 2025

The CMG did not have a BWV viewing this month.

February 2025

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The February form can be viewed here. We provided the following feedback on each video and this was the police’s response.

CMG feedback for first video: When the officer's badge number was requested - recording officer refused to provide 

Officer conducting stop and search on the recording officer's left used Section 50 grounds to obtain name and address off the back of smell of cannabis (?) - would this constitute sufficient grounds to request someone's personal details?

Overall, compliant stop and search assisted by compliant young people being detained and searched. Officers seemed to pester on obtaining name and address, despite them refusing and knowing they're within rights not to. Officers on the left using section 50 to demand name and address - unclear whether basis of smelling like cannabis is sufficient to exercise those powers.

Please can you answer the question posed and pass this feedback on to the officer involved via an email to the officer and their line manager in line with our feedback agreement. Please confirm that this has been done, we are open to hearing the officer's response. Given the length of time that has passed, the officer may need to review the footage. Rated: Neutral (but CMG Chair's opinion is it may be an Amber if the officer wrongfully used their s.50 powers).

Police response: Feedback passed on but no response received from the officer. In response to our question, the Met said: “the smell of cannabis alone wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient grounds to use S50, but combined with other elements (in this case the time of day, the location and the circumstances around why officers had been called) the smell of cannabis can be used as part of the grounds for using S50”.

CMG feedback for second video: Officers did not state name of station, nor inform of entitlement to copy of search record. Unclear whether identity was provided - object also unclear because across search record, and this stop and search - 2 different grounds were provided/alternated between: S1 PACE (search form), and then S23 MODA.

Person detained struggled with English - officers immediately aggressive, dismissive and rude towards him. Various comments made 'you're very distrusting etc' . Also, caution at the end was given very quickly - too fast for anyone to understand

Immediate use of force and aggression by 3 officers from the outset - escalated the situation rather than calm the situation down and allow for dialogue to set out explanation. Extent of force felt disproportionate.

Section 1 PACE used and in broad way in search form - but then during stop and search, s23 was cited. Inconsistent record/use of powers.

Main concerns:

- Level of force used from the outset felt excessive and disproportionate - particularly resulting in moped toppling over.

- Dismissive/aggressive attitude by all 3 officers - one could have de-escalated. Led to confusion, waste of time.

- Grounds cited/used - section 1 PACE and section 23 MODA - both used on vague and general grounds, and inconsistently e.g. s1 used simply because they were driving a moped, and associations with that, despite the moped clearly being a delivery vehicle. And unclear on what grounds s23 was identified and set out.

Please pass this feedback on to the officer involved via an email to the officer and line manager in line with our feedback agreement. Please confirm that this has been done, we are open to hearing the officer's response. Given the length of time that has passed, the officer may need to review the footage. As multiple elements of the search are flawed, the officer should be offered support from a stop and search mentor and their line manager should be asked to follow-up by reviewing their next 3 searches in line with our feedback agreement. Please confirm once this has been done and note that if further searches show issues, the officer should be provided with Learning Through Reflection. The CMG expects to be kept updated on this. Rated: Amber

Police response: Feedback passed on. We received the following response from the officer’s line manager: “With regards to the use of force I feel it was proportionate in the circumstances. It wasn’t solely because the person was riding a moped, he had been indicated to stop further down the road and had failed to do so, this would have helped build grounds for the search and also to justify a higher level of force being used in order to prevent him making off and a subsequent pursuit.

“The subject was immediately obstructive in my view, hence the perceived aggression from officers, in my view it is merely taking control and dominance during a stop and search where weapons are suspected.

“The issue around the differing search power used I think stems from the fact that PC A initially starts to give GOWISELY but then PC B, who has hold of the subject, says that he will do the search. PC A states S23 MDA but PC B uses S1 PACE. Obviously search grounds are subjective so there is nothing wrong with this. PC B’s search record on Connect is consistent with the grounds given at the time. PC B shows his warrant card to the subject on two separate occasions during this encounter, firstly when approaching the male and secondly immediately prior to the search. I cannot hear him verbally give either his name or the station he is attached to however.

“I’ve looked over a few of PC B’s searches since this and none have raised any cause for concern, with that I will sit down with him next week and have an informal chat reminding him of the legal necessity around giving GOWISELY in full.”

CMG feedback on third video: Only point of feedback - whether measures could be implemented to follow up on knowledge of vulnerability

Please pass this feedback on to the officer involved via an email to the officer and line manager in line with our feedback agreement. Please confirm that this has been done, we are open to hearing the officer's response. Given the length of time that has passed, the officer may need to review the footage. Rated: Green

Police response: Feedback passed on but no response received from the officer.

March 2025

The CMG did not have a BWV viewing this month.

April 2025

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The April form can be viewed here. We provided the following feedback on each video and this was the police’s response.

CMG feedback on first video: Rated neutral, no feedback to pass on.

CMG feedback on second video: Rated neutral, no feedback to pass on.

CMG feedback on third video: Rated neutral, officer rushed through GOWISELY even once detained/under control - this meant search receipt point not fully set out (the "E" of GOWISELY).

Response from officer who did the stop and search: “Out of curiosity have the members of the panel had to engage in some sort of role play around stop and search to understand it or is it just a completely third party opinion? Thanks for the feedback I will note that for next time.”

CMG feedback on fourth video: Rated Amber. GOWISELY not followed - officers did not say what they were looking for

Communication was poor: Asked multiple questions that would have been more appropriate to an interview after arrested. Told him what he was saying was "bullshit". They also threatened to arrest him for stealing the car despite not having evidence it was stolen. I found the officers' faux-friendly tone quite disrespectful and patronising, it also really jarred with them then disbelieving him/being sarcastic towards him. They also made jokes to each other about him. There was a complete absence of professionalism.

Grounds fairly spurious: Police said eyes were glazed, he seemed startled and there was a smell of perfume that could be using to cover up the smell of cannabis. That is both subjective and speculative.

Response from officer who did the stop and search: “I can only apologise for my language used towards the detained male and can see how some would deem that as unprofessional. It was not directed towards the male in maliciously in any way shape or form.

“I have taken what was mentioned and will take this as feedback and positive learning in any further stops conducted.”

CMG feedback on fifth video: Rated neutral. Female officer had a good tone and was respectful - her colleague could have been more respectful. For GOWISELY please slow down and speak more clearly (this is a repeat problem for most officers). Needs to make sure her BWV camera is not obscured and it doesn't stop before interaction ends.

Response from officer who did the stop and search: “Thank you for your feedback, it’s great to know both of my stops were looked at positively, it always gives a confidence boost.

“Regarding BWV not showing full interaction – I have switched my BWV off once I was completing the checks and called my supervisor in the vehicle, away from the subject. Once this was done and I got out of the vehicle the BWV was reactivated to show the rest of the interaction (questioning under caution, explaining PCR procedures etc.). As S23 MDA has been completed on the first BWV, I would not have thought the other BWV footage would be relevant for the public eye. But just for feedback on this from my side for the future group panels – more BWV which were not uploaded onto stop and searches might exist.

“And regarding camera being partially obstructed by my jacket at times – yes, that is what cannot be avoided sometimes and it’s a part of working in plain clothes (undercover..).”

May 2025

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The May form can be viewed here. We provided the following feedback on each video and this was the police’s response.

CMG feedback on first video: Rated Neutral. The officer's communication was absolutely a Green. The officer was polite, friendly and respectful. He ensured the person understood what was going on and answered all of his questions. He also asked him for his ethnicity, which is rarely done. The only reason I have rated this as "Neutral" is because he forgot to tell him he was detained for the purposes of the search and we can't therefore give it a Green - GOWISELY should be followed. But I would really like to see more officers interacting with the public like this.

The officer thanked us for the feedback.

CMG feedback on second video: Rated Amber. The officer's tone was polite and friendly. However, I was concerned that it took 3 minutes for him to explain to the child why he had been handcuffed and was being detained. I also felt that the handcuffs were left on for too long - he was an asthmatic 15 year old who said he ran from the police because his friends did. I did not think it likely he would run off again, particularly given the police had his mobile phone and his grandmother was on the way to collect him. Lastly, it wasn't clear at all if the officers actually found anything on him besides some chocolate bars. I thought the boy's grandother asked a good question when she asked why they were holding him when he hadn't stolen anything... Could the officer please advise why they kept the boy in handcuffs and whether he had actually stolen anything? If it is the case he was believed to have stolen the chocolate bars, I would really question the proportionality of handcuffs.

Police response: Feedback passed on but no response received from the officer despite multiple chasing attempts. It was subsequently identified that the officer had not completed a use of force form for the handcuffing and his manager was directed to complete learning through reflection with him.

On 21 January 2026, we received a response from the police that stated:

I can confirm that the feedback was delivered to the officer and their Line manager. 

The line manager of the searching officer has reviewed the footage and has held conversation with the officer to discuss the feedback.

Both the line manager and the officer discussed what the alternative options could have been, or different points at which the handcuffs could have been removed, and the officer has reflected on all of these and has taken learning away from it.

The officer understands that trust of young persons depends on police ability to explain things  in a way a young person will understand.

The safety of the young person was paramount and this formed most of the justification for the maintained use of handcuffs throughout the interaction, however as stated,  the officer has reflected on the maintained use of the handcuffs.

It was also highlighted that the use of the handcuffs apart from the safety of the young person, there was suspicion of having committed an offence.

Environmental factors was also given as impacting on the decision to continue using force and protecting the young person's safety, i.e, proximity to underground station and train tracks, fast-moving road nearby and the presence of other persons who appear to be associates/family of the young person.

The line manager will be monitoring this over the coming months and ensuring that this reflection by the officer is put into practice in any subsequent stops involving young persons.

The line manager stated after watching the footage he was pleased with the efforts  the officer made to build a rapport with the young person and hopes this was recognised by the panel.

It was stated that the other officer who was with the searching officer was in contact with the ERPT unit who were at Sainsbury’s making enquiries and the line manager does confirm that there was an investigation that was recorded.

The line manager have passed the message unto his team, as part of the wider discussions around  UOF during briefings.

The line manager has stated that LTR [Learning Through Reflection] was issued and does cover all the areas around the UOF including the  non completion of use of form form and not completing a statement.

Question from CMG: Reason for officer keeping the individual in handcuffs.
The individual was suspected of having committed an offence, detained until it was established that he had either committed/not committed offence. ERPT officers were attending retailer to establish whether suspect matched description from CCTV. Justification for that continued force is same as below.

Question from CMG: Confirmation of whether the individual had stolen anything (potentially a bar of chocolate).
No – no stolen items found and individual not recorded as suspect with regard to the initial offence that was reported on the CAD, after CCTV in store had been reviewed by other attending officers.

Question from CMG: MPS to advise on justification for handcuff use and confirm whether theft occurred.
Officer was responding to a call whereby it was alleged a group had been stealing items from nearby store. The young person  made off on sight of police officers, running at speed. Force has been used to effect search and prevent escape of subject, given his initial response to seeing police. There was also other members of public present, and officer was on his own at time of using force – force used in  order to protect public, protect officer.

June 2025

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The June form can be viewed here. We provided the following feedback on each video and this was the police’s response.

CMG feedback on first video: Rated Red. As an overview, I would say this search appeared racialised. The suspect looks mixed race. He told officers he is white but he certainly does not look it. The way he was treated by officers, particularly them claiming he was aggressive towards them and the disproportionality of the whole encounter gives me serious concerns that race played a factor. Of further concern are the following:

1. The written record is wrong and I have concerns it is fabricated. The officer stated that on speaking with the subject, "he became obstructive and began shouting". That is not shown on the footage and does not reflect the situation at all. The suspect was polite and cooperative throughout. It also states the person began "looking from side to side" and appeared nervous, that is also not shown on the footage. It is well known that police bias results in men of colour being considered to be more aggressive than they are.

2. During the search, the grounds for the stop and search were given as "firstly, vehicle not showing as insured, when I spoke to you, you were not being cooperative with me, you put your hands in the pockets, you don't want us near the car and I think you have drugs in it, you seem nervous." It must be noted the suspect clearly said, “I don't mind you searching the car.” I do not consider it is reasonable to assume someone is carrying drugs because their car is not insured. I think it is really weak to assume someone has drugs because they put their hands in their pockets and, as noted above, the suspect was cooperative and didn't seem nervous. Again I must question whether race played a factor in this officer's interpretation of the situation. Listing weak grounds does not amount to one strong ground.

3. The suspect was handcuffed for no good reason. He was not aggressive, obstructive or seeking to abscond. The suspect said when he was led into the van that the handcuffs were too tight. The skin was visibly wrinkled around the wrist. The officer acknowledged he put it on badly but said it was because the person's hand was at a funny angle. That is obviously the fault and responsibility of the handcuffing officer.

4. Despite only finding an empty drugs bag, officers decided to put the suspect in the van, check his shoes, do a drugs swab and subject him to a strip search. They said they suspected he might have been driving under the influence because of the size of his pupils, a point not raised beforehand and in any way negated by the swab being negative. The officers said they checked his shoes because he delayed in pulling over when they stopped him. The officers acknowledged he pulled over when they put their lights on but not when he saw them. It is unreasonable to expect drivers to pull over just because they see a police van...

5. The suspect said he had mental health problems and was going to pick up his "little" nephew. At no point did officers acknowledge this, including offering to tell the nephew, who may have been a minor, that his cousin had been detained and would be some time.

6. The BWV cut off before the strip search and when the suspect entered the police station. I am unclear why.

In summary, this was a disproportionate and very poor encounter. The suspect was pulled over for driving an uninsured car and things somehow escalated until he was being taken to the police station for a strip search. This is despite nothing of any significance being found and a drug swab coming up negative. The officers seemed to come up with new excuses, such as referencing his pupils and saying the car smelled of cannabis, which they didn't say initially. Despite the person remaining cooperative throughout, they kept him in cuffs for a lengthy period of time (the full clip was over 41 minutes) with no real justification.

I rate this a red, which means further action is required. I would like the issues to be flagged to the S&S Operational lead and for them to provide us with an email as to what action they have taken.

Police response: The police have asked us not to publish officers’ responses as we have previously. In summary, the officer involved said he did not agree with our feedback. This video was then watched by the S&S operational lead, who said he had no issues with how the search was conducted. We escalated this and the video was reviewed by MOPAC and another CMG in another borough. Both MOPAC and the CMG agreed with our feedback. This is now back with the Met.

CMG feedback on second video: Rated Green. The officer had a good tone and showed appropriate care to the person when he said he needed to sit down. I though she was polite and professional throughout. My only "negative" is that the BWV cut off prematurely. Otherwise it was good.

Police response: Feedback passed on but no response received from the officer.

July 2025

The police cancelled the CMG’s BWV viewing.

August 2025

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The August form can be viewed here. We provided the following feedback on each video and this was the police’s response.

CMG feedback on first video: Rated Amber. Bodyworn cut off before the copy of the stop and search form was handed over to the man. The written notes said drug paraphanelia was found on the boat but the man was told that they hadn't found anything. Had the man by the wrist before they had finished telling him he was being detained and the reasons why he was being lawfully detained. Cuffs were put on very early and without a proper explanation given to the man about why this was done - leading to him getting angry.

Written record does not seem to be accurate by stating drug paraphernelia found - we just saw vapes and cigarettes and possibly rolling papers. And on the footage he did not say that he occasionally smokes cannabis as the writen record says.  

BWV does not cover entire encounter - stopped before stop and search form was handed back to the person.

The man seemed not to fully understand what was happening or why he was being searched and this could potentially have been addressed by clearer explanation of the reason for detention, especially given the man's first language was not English and this seemed to be a barrier to understanding - speaking more slowly, rephrasing questions, explaining things using simpler language.

No mention of section 23 Misuse of Drugs Act, just section 1 PACE - even though officers went on to talk about drugs (Section 23) and the written record refers to drug paraphernalia.

The officers were polite to the man throughout. 

Key concerns: Did not state the 'Y' of GOWISELY, written reasons for the search did not match the BWV, appeared to be a drugs search but did not cite the correct legal power, person's understanding not checked given English was his second language

Please can you: Send a feedback email to officer and their line manager. Further, in line with our feedback doc, as multiple elements of the search were flawed, the officer should be offered support from a stop and search mentor and the line manager asked to follow-up to review next 3 searches.

Police response: I can confirm that the feedback was forwarded to the searching officer and Line manager [by] myself. Nic Cousins has also provided the line manager of the searching officer 3 further stop and searches references for the searching officer so that a review can be conducted and relevant actions taken. I am awaiting an update from the line manager who has also acknowledged my email, I will update you when I get the update, the line manager is currently away from work.

CMG feedback on second video: Rated neutral. The tone of the officer who was not conducting the search could have been nicer - he appeared visibly annoyed with the person even though he was being compliant. It may have been because the person being searched did not always understand the questions but it should be down to the officer to communicate more clearly to address this.

Please can you: Pass the feedback on to the officer in the clip who did not conduct the search as well as the officer who did and their line managers. It is the former's behaviour we were concerned about. Both could improve their communication where someone's first language is not English (see form)

Police response: I can confirm that the feedback was forwarded to the searching officer and Line manager.

The line manager for the officer who conducted the search has sat down with the officer and reviewed the BWV with him, line manager does state that the officer is a new officer who is learning and explained the stop and search and community resolution process. The line manager does confirm that the searching officer’s first language is not English and has advised him to take extra time to communicate. Line manager has no doubt that his Stop & Search encounters will improve.

In relation to the other officer who was present but did not search was also identified by the above line manager and referred to the line manager of the non searching officer who also did a review, similar to the above, the line manager has also stated that this officer’s first language is not English, and this may have been interpreted as ‘tone’.

CMG feedback on third video: Rated amber. Not compliant with GOWISELY: 

• Did not give clear grounds for the search - burglaries in the area is not a reasonable ground 

• Did not hear the officers say what they were looking for

• Officer tried to get the person to unlock the phone and gave an incorrect reason for doing this

• Officer did not identify himself or his police station

• No warrant shown

• No evidence that officers offered a copy of the search records

Stop and search forms were not accurately completed. They did not give the grounds provided in the written record verbally to the man

He did not seem nervous or shaking as the written grounds claimed

He was not asked to account for his presence in the area contrary to what the written record implies

Overall very weak written grounds for the stop and search - driving from Greenwich is not a reason for a stop and search

Key concerns: The written record did not match the BWV. It appears this person was pulled over because he had been driving from Greenwich, which doesn't come close to adequate grounds for a S&S. Our concerns were shared by the viewing facilitator.

Please can you: Send a feedback email to officer and their line manager. Further, in line with our feedback doc, as multiple elements of the search were flawed the officer should be offered support from a stop and search mentor and the line manager asked to follow-up to review next 3 searches. I understand Nic may have emailed directly about this

Police response: I can confirm that the feedback was forwarded to the searching officer and line manager. I can also confirm it was passed to my counterpart in SE BCU as the officers are non CE BCU officers. The operational lead of SE BCU has acknowledged the feedback and states that the report does not live up to the high standards set on their BCU and they have emailed the searching officer and line manager listing a few things that he want answers on. The Operational lead will be recording an Inspector’s review of the report when he receives the response. I would keep you updated. LTR [learning through reflection] was completed for the lack of saving the BWV and for the grounds.

On 11 February 2026, we received a more detailed response: The Operational lead wrote to the officer and the response he was waiting on was one to give an account of why the footage had been deleted . It was clarified that this was an officer error and therefore he was given LTR [Learning Through Reflection] for the failure to save the footage. The operational lead appreciate and understands that the footage apparently showed other lapses and although mentioned in the LTR there was clearly now no direct evidence to check these against. It is the SE BCU operational lead’s view that the grounds were lacking in detail and he was of the opinion that they were borderline satisfactory to justify the search.

The officer’s supervisor and second line manager has also had a meeting with the officer, the line manager has been randomly reviewing the body worn of the officer. The line manager has also briefed the wider team to set expectations around the requirement around stop and search.

The second line manager has stated that the officer is now on the right trajectory in relation to this stop searches. It has been mentioned as development on the officer’s Mid Year Review and he has had intervention meeting with his line manager.

The second line manager has also stated that they monitor and supervise all of their stop searches here on SE Proactive to ensure they maintain high standards.

The second line manager has stated that the searching officer does not require a mentor, he is an experienced officer who provides some good work. A few mistakes within his work that he is being supported through by supervisors.

September 2025

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The September form can be viewed here. We provided the following feedback on each video and this was the police’s response.

CMG feedback on first video: Rated Green. The officers were calm and polite on entry and kept an even tone and explained the reason why they were there clearly. That being said it did not appear there was much risk of the situation escalating. The one negative point was at the end when the man stuck around to get involved in a more heated discussion going on with another man and an officer. This officer shouted, “oi, move on, stop going into people's properties” which perhaps did not show recognition of the man's difficulties finding somewhere to sleep. One of the best stops and searches TM has seen based on humanity shown to person being searched given his difficult situation being homeless and the calm polite manner the stop and search was carried out. Acknowledging the man's situation of being homeless and explaining to the man clearly why the police had been called and why they needed to search him in a calm and polite way - and officer remained calm when the man got frustrated and pulled his trousers down rather than getting frustrated himself

Please can you send a feedback email to the officer and their line manager. I would like it to be flagged with the other officer that the panel were not happy he shouted "oi, move on, stop going into people's properties"

Police response: The feedback was passed back to the searching officer and line manager. The line manager has reviewed the bwv and as stated that he would speak to the officer for shouting "oi, move on, stop going into people's properties.

CMG feedback on second video: Rated neutral. Not clear why handcuffs were used since the man was very still and quiet and appeared completely compliant. The handcuffs also looked like they were put on very tightly and behind his back, standing in the middle of the street. It might have been kinder to move him out of the middle of the street to make him feel more comfortable. Officer also struggled with the handcuffs, felt like she was perhaps just using them to practice them.

It did slightly feel like the search was being used for police training and that was apparent at one point when the trainer was talking the officer through some points in sight and earshot of the man while he was still in handcuffs.

Given the situation the officer could have been a little friendlier to the man - one of the other officers chatted to him about something else when he was out of handcuffs which fellt more humanising. 

Please can you send a feedback email to the officer and their line manager? Please can you also find out the reason(s) why handcuffs were used?

Police response: The feedback was forwarded to the searching officer and line manager.

I have carried out a search of the use of force form to understand the rationale behind the use of handcuffs, the completion of that form is mandatory when force is used, however I cannot find the record of the form. I have therefore directed the line manager of the searching officer to complete the learning through reflection with the officer.

CMG feedback on third video: Rated amber. The written ground that he was driving erratically/oddly was not explained to the man - it was initially just said to him that it the stop was because the car failed to stop last week. they did not ask him to explain his 'erratic' driving, but in the written record it said that the man appeared nervous and stumbling over his words when trying to explain his driving. He was not stumbling or nervous at all, he calmly explained that he was in Greece last week when the failure to stop happened. also the record was marked as a stop and search and no search was witnessed despite the grounds being given. The bodyworn camera footage did not cover the entire interaction. There is no footage of a stop and search actually being carried out. There was one reasonable ground for the car stop - that the vehicle had failed to stop last week - and this was explained up front, but the second ground that the car was driving erratically and the person seemed nervous was not obvious to the panel. The person was not nervous - he was just confused. While some of Gowisely was conducted some was missed.

The panel has given detailed feedback in the form, which must be read in its entirety. I'm quite concerned having read their feedback. Please can you: Send a feedback email to officer and their line manager. Further, in line with our feedback doc, as multiple elements of the search were flawed, the officer should be offered support from a stop and search mentor and the line manager asked to follow-up to review next 3 searches.

Police response: The officer has stated that GOWISELY was given and disagrees that he was aggressive during the encounter. The officer has stated that in is role that he comes across people who appear to be confused when interacting with police but were in fact lying.

The searching officer explained that in relation to the feedback received that this stop appeared to be oppressive with the numbers of officers present to stop one car with one occupant,  was a tactic, the use of 3x TPAC cars in order to implement a box as this vehicle was picked up on a fast road, the searching officer disagrees that it was oppressive.

The officer has said that this vehicle was suspected to be a cloned/LOS and as routine with all these sort of incidents both the driver and the vehicle are detained for the purpose of a search so as to conduct the necessary VIN checks / go through the vehicle to find stamped VINs. The Officer has said that this gives a use of force power to remove occupants from the vehicle if they refuse to do so and ensure that they are being detained legally and without any issues.  The officer has said on this occasion, he was looking for items which are going equipped to steal such as jammers, tools etc which are quite big devices. The officer has said that at 01:56 you can see him take a brief look at the driver’s pockets and waistline, where these large items could be concealed and this would form as part of a search and hence GOWISELY etc required.

The officer has said that Cloned/LOS vehicles will take different routes and use different tactics to see whether they are being followed and has said that the fact that this vehicle went quite a long way round to his destination suggested that this may have not actually been his destination and just ended up there as he was testing police to see whether police were following him.

The officer has said irrespective of whether the driver  was a victim of cloned plates or not, he displayed poor driving with a traffic car behind him and he was not exempt to traffic offences just because his numberplates got cloned, hence the reason he was given a ticket.

Line manager have spoken to searching officer about this stop and advised him that when giving his name he is to slow down as he appreciate he does say his details quickly. Line manager has stated they always review all BWC of the  stop and search of the officer and never had any issues and he complies with the legal requirements of GOWISLEY. Line manager has said that the officer has always been a hard working and professional officer but will continue to monitor his stop and search.

The police confirmed three further searches by the officer had been reviewed and no concerns identified.

October 2025

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The October form can be viewed here. We provided the following feedback on each video and this was the police’s response.

CMG feedback on first video: Rated neutral. Feedback to pass on to officer and line manager: Good communication. However, the officer's BWV started once they had already stopped the person so we weren't able to assess if he had (per the written grounds and oral GOWISELY) walked off at speed or appeared to have picked up drugs. Please can officers be reminded to turn their BWV on promptly.

Police response: The read receipt does indicate the officer has read the email.

CMG feedback on second video: Rated amber. Feedback to pass on: The officer's tone was frankly awful. This was a stop by three plainsclothes police officers of three minors aged between 15 and 16. It must be stressed at the outset that just because the officer found drugs and a weapon it does not retrospectively justify the way he spoke to the child detained. I am also not clear if the officer showed his warrant card in line with GOWISELY.

The officer approached the child and asked him to to keep his hands still. The child moved his hands to tug up his trousers. This is a reflexive gesture we have seen many times before. The officer immediately swore at him, grabbed his arms and handcuffed him. It was a disproportionate and overly aggressive response. I question whether the child's race resulted in the officer believing he was an adult and treating him as such (adultification bias).

During the interaction, the officer told him to "grow up", referred to "safeguarding crap like that" and swore at him. This happened even after the child said he was 16. The officer also threatened to Taser the child's friend. He also switched the child's handcuffs to the rear stack position 6 minutes in, even though the child was sat compliantly on the wall. At one point, the child's phone rang, he asked the officer if it was his mum and the officer replied "maybe, maybe not" despite knowing the answer. The officer also sarcastically called him a "charming young man".

I fail to see how this is an appropriate way to talk to a child or how an officer can expect cooperation in response. Further, there was no consideration of the fact this is a child with drugs and money on them who might very well need safeguarding, which the officer was so dismissive of. Although the officer might focus on the "success" of this search in terms of what was found, it was a very disappointing watch and I have serious concerns about how this officer interacts with the public, particularly minors of colour. The officer should also be aware his BWV was obscured at the start - this shouldn't happen.

In line with our feedback document, please can you:

• Send a feedback email to officer and their line manager. 

• Offer the officer support from a stop and search mentor and ask the line manager to follow-up to review the next 3 searches. 

Police response: I held a face to face meeting with the searching officer subject of the body worn video viewed and also the officer’s line manager. Prior to the meeting, I had sent the CMG’s feedback to the officer and their line manager.

I explained the purpose of the meeting to the officer and their line manager, the role of the CMG and the new feedback process.

The following areas were addressed at the face to face meeting;

Officer’s Communication: The officer disagrees that his tone was frankly awful and has stated that he was respectful to the child, the officer acknowledges that he could have spoken better but he refutes the view that he was disrespectful and that he treated the searched child differently due to the child’s race.

Use of Handcuffs: The officer stated that due to officer safety reasons he had to take hold of the child and handcuff the child swiftly. The officer explained that he had instructed the child to stay still and the sudden movement of the child posed officer safety as it was unknown why he had moved or if he had anything on him that could pose danger.

Safeguarding: The officer denies any form of bias and that it contributed to the way he spoke or treated the child. The officer stated that he took the matter of safeguarding  child  seriously and it was important. The officer stated in reference to “safeguarding crap” it was not directed at the child, he was simply asking his colleague to search the police indices for any safeguarding issues, he acknowledges how this came across but stated that his comments were not intended to devalue the importance of safeguarding.

Taser: The officer stated that the behaviour of the other subject who was detained by another colleague was the reason he had made reference to using the taser, the officer stated at the time there was not sufficient numbers of officers at the ground to adequately provide cover.

In conclusion, the officer does acknowledges the feedback of CMG and takes points made by CMG on board to make future stop and search encounters better. 

I have directed the line manager to issue LTR [learning through reflection] to the officer in relation to not complying with the MPS Policy around completion of UOF force.

The line manager will  be reviewing subsequent searches of the officer.

The officer will now also be partaking in the 10x10 videos training.

On 11 February 2026, the police updated that: I can confirm LTR was issued to the officer by line manager for non compliance with policy for not completing UOF form and also for swearing at the young person in relation to Search reference 01/5157744/25

I can confirm that 3 S&S by the officer have been reviewed by the line manager, no issues or concerns identified.

CMG feedback on third video: Rated green. Feedback to pass on: No issues with this search, officer had a good tone.

Police response: No read receipt confirmation yet

November 2025

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The November form can be viewed here. We provided the following feedback on each video and this was the police’s response.

CMG feedback on first video: The panel rated this neutral. From my reading of their write up (as chair), it seems more to be an amber. Their feedback is: GOWISELY was followed and the grounds were explained in plain language. The tone of the officer was kind and polite, and he explained what he was doing at different points.

One of the grounds explained to the person was that he was asleep and therefore was suspected of taking drugs in the car. Not clear how being asleep in your car indicates potential drug use. The written grounds said his pupils dilated and he was slow and lethargic but this could have been due to it being at night and him having just woken up.

The officer put handcuffs on the person immediately, and they were on for a long time (c20 minutes). It was not clear why this was done and appeared to be an overuse of force. Once the man got out of the car it was clear he was very docile and sleepy and perhaps the handcuffs could have been removed once it became clear he was not presenting a risk.

Please can you pass the feedback on, confirm what the written record says re: grounds for the search and confirm if a use of force form was completed?

Police response: The grounds for the search were officers have attended location in response to a third party call whereby the informant stated there was a vehicle present at the location that was involved in ASB, specifically consuming alcohol within a vehicle, littering and playing music. On arrival police have seen the same vehicle present with three occupants inside. The driver appeared to be asleep, his chair fully reclined and took knocking on the window to wake him. On the front passenger side, outside the vehicle was a cannabis joint on the floor. It still had smoke coming from it and the passenger window was half down,  it appeared to have recently been thrown from the window. Officers could smell the cannabis, the subject’s actions were slow and lethargic after he was woken up. His pupils were dilated and balloons could also be seen in the rear of the car indicating class C nitrous oxide use. 

The police confirmed use of force forms were completed.

CMG feedback on second video: The panel rated this amber. Their feedback is: Footage started in the middle of a forceful arrest with the man on the ground face down being handcuffed with three officers. It was hard to assess from the footage but it looked like a high use of force to involve all three having their hands on him for this. Once the man was in handcuffs and turned over to sit on the ground things descalated and the officer spoke to the man politely. Grounds were explained and gowisely was followed. Nothing was found on the man but at the end they told him he was arrested (this was on the basis of police having seen him selling nox earlier on, before the pursuit by police). It would have made more sense to tell him he was arrested at the start and then search him using different powers. In general this level of policing for selling nox, particularly the use of force at the start when the man was in grounds being handcuffed, seemed disproportionate.

Please can you pass the feedback on and ask the officer to explain why the footage started in the middle of the incident? Please can you also provide me with the justification for the use of force? In line with our feedback process, please ensure this officer's next three searches are reviewed.

Police response: The officer stated in relation to the body worn starting in the middle of the encounter that it was an honest mistake and as soon as he remembered he turned it on. The officer stated  that his body worn video was not on sleep mode as per MPS policy, officer stated his bwv captured the 30 seconds of audio and video before he had activated it.

A use of force form was correctly completed by officer as well as a short pocket notebook entry regarding the incident. The line manager confirmed that next three searches were reviewed and were compliant with policy, no issues identified.

CMG feedback on third video: The panel rated this neutral but as GOWISELY was not followed, it should be rated amber. Their feedback is: The search was carried out respectfully - the officer's tone of the communication with the man was friendly and respectful and the officer built a good rapport with the man being searched. No handcuffs were used. The grounds for the search were not clearly explained to the man - just that it was under the misuse of drugs act but not why he was being searched. It is hard for us to assess as we don't know from the written records what the drug use intel was that the officers were basing their search on - but it appeared to us that the search for drugs was not necessary and the officers could have asked the men to leave the building without needing to search them for drugs. As it was the search possibly led to the sitaution escalating with the men appearing frustrated when being told to leave the building.

Please can you pass the feedback on and ensure this officer's next three searches are reviewed?

Police response: I had a meeting with the officer and their line manager. The officer reflected on the feedback received. The officer stated they had received intelligence through their ward mailbox about homeless persons dealing drugs from location and that they had also received information from the enforcement team of the local authority. The officer admits that they should have provided and explained better the ground and given gowisely in full. Subject is aware that they should have been mindful to the vulnerability of subject and signposted the subject to the services but admitted did not emphasise this as the local authority had already done it. The officer is aware that they need to pay attention to safeguarding and respond to vulnerability during stop and search encounters.

The officer’s line manager would be reviewing the 3 subsequent searches of the officer.

The line manager has updated me that the officer to date have not completed 3 searches, review would be completed in due course.

December 2025

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The December form can be viewed here. We provided the following feedback on each video and this was the police’s response.

CMG feedback on first video: The panel rated this amber. Their feedback is: The officers did not follow GOWISELY in that they didn't provide the legal power ('L') to the individual. The panel was concerned that the officer did not listen to the individual when he explained why he was there, instead he told him "you're not going to change my mind". This is concerning given a S&S is based on reasonable suspicion, which can of course dissipate during the search including based on what someone says (e.g. someone might have a reasonable explanation as to why they're in the area/have a particular item on them). The panel was also concerned that the grounds were flimsy and in large part focused on the area - “we get a lot of thefts here” - and so not specific to the individual. It is not clear why being sat by a van would suggest someone is intending to steal from it, particularly when that person appears to be of no fixed abode and street homeless. Further, it is not understood why him having a hi-vis would suggest he was going to steal. The panel felt the officer's tone was dismissive and he refused to listen to the individual who, at one point said, "I'll just shut up then". The officer also failed to pick up on the person's evident vulnerabilities including possible mental health issues (his mood oscillated throughout the search), street homelessness and immigration (he mentioned he's facing deportation). Lastly, the individual explained he had been at a friend's house who had given him packets of cheese. The officers could and should have spoken to that person, which may have invalidated the need for a search. The panel were additionally concerned that racial bias might have influenced the officer's suspicions. The panel would also note that given the person said he was Somali, he may have been Muslim and the officer should have considered that before asking him if he'd tried a sausage roll.

Please pass this feedback on and, in line with our feedback process, please ensure the officer's next three searches are reviewed. 

Police response:

The feedback is acknowledged by the searching officer but believes that they did give Gowisely. The facilitator for the viewing was spoken to who stated that part of GOWISELY was missing.

The searching officer accepts reasonable suspicion can dissipate prior to or during a search but on this occasion the male in question would not have said anything to allay his suspicions of him at that time.

The searching officer highlights the area suffers from TFMV offences and this male was in the car park for no reason. The officer says the fact the person appears to be NFA would suggest he doesn’t own any of the vehicles nearby and therefore would have reason to steal from them.

The searching officer suggest Hi Viz jacket is an MO for van dragging offences. The searching officer says he  could have expanded on this further by fully describing why suspects wear hi viz to hide in plain sight whilst stealing from vehicles in order to blend in and appear normal.

The searching officer says he is fully aware that the male in question is a class A drug user and currently going through a rehab programme with RESET having offered him SSMIT referrals on previous occasions therefore it wasn’t necessary to offer further referrals.

The searching officer also says he ascertained he has an address.

The searching officer has said he would be interested to know what the CMG expect officers to do with everyone they search in relation to vulnerabilities as by nature the majority of people that police have contact with fall into this category.

The officer has said he doesn’t feel it would be proportionate to make numerous third party enquiries to allay a search and in that instance would not have any powers to detain the male whilst these enquiries were conducted. Furthermore, the searching officer has said his explanation of having come from his friends house does not suppress his actions at the time of the searching officer stopping him, the searching officer says it merely tells him where he has come from.

The searching officer has said there is absolutely no basis for this accusation of racial bias and at no point is his race mentioned or suggested it had played any part in the grounds of the search and if anything the bias has been assumed by the CMG by raising this issue.

The searching officer has said a persons religion is not defined by their race, ethnic origin or Nationality. The searching officer has said the comment made about a sausage roll, from memory, was in relation to him having a Greggs wrapper in his bag, Greggs being famous for their sausage rolls. They also sell vegan sausage rolls.

CMG feedback on second video: The panel rated this neutral. Their feedback is: Officer's tone and communication was good. The panel is not clear why handcuffs were used given the individual's compliance and the number of officers present and we would like to check whether a use of force form was used. If not, this may impact the rating. The panel was concerned the individual was told if he didn't let them search his phone, he would be arrested. The panel would like to ask under what power(s) the officers considered searching his phone and why refusal would make it necessary to arrest. It is noted that the officers did not arrest him. The footage also started in the middle of the incident, this should not happen.

Please pass this feedback on, confirm whether a use of force form was completed and ask under what power(s) the officers considered searching the person's phone and why his refusal would make it necessary to arrest with reference to s.24 of PACE.

Police response: This is a search by MO7 officer- NE Surge Team, I have sent the feedback to the searching officer, their line manager and the MO7 operational lead for stop and search for them to provide their response.

CMG feedback on third video: The panel rated this amber. Their feedback is: 1. In giving the grounds for the search, the officer only mentioned smell of cannabis. Reference to slurred speech and bloodshot eyes came after the search. Smell of cannabis alone is not adequate grounds for a search.

2. The panel was concerned the person's vulnerabilities weren't adequately addressed by the officers - he said he was on Crown Court bail, living in Salvation Army accommodation and his partner had just had a C-section and given birth to a premature baby who was in the ICU. I question why the officers did not consider asking him to give bloods voluntarily for the drug test instead of arresting him - is that an option?

3. Officer comms were okay but the drug swipe officer was heard saying "be a man", which seemed unnecessary and likely only to escalate. The officer also was asking closed, cross-examination style questions but then accused the person of being too stoned to answer. If you say to someone as the officer did - "that's a crime, isn't it" - it is likely they will consider you have answered the question for them...

4. The panel was concerned that the officer had already decided to arrest the person before the test was complete. He is recorded as saying "he's going to fail this" and asking his colleague if she wants to do the arrest. The panel saw no evidence the test was positive for cannabis, although there was mention of cocaine. The panel seeks further evidence of the outcome of the drugs test.

5. The individual repeatedly asked for water. That was refused. That is not good practice for someone who, on his own account, is tired and has been in hospital for days.

6. The person was handcuffed. The panel would check if a UoF form was done.

Please pass this feedback on and, in line with our feedback process, please ensure the officer's next three searches are reviewed. Please find out the results of the roadside drug wipe and advise. Please advise if a person can give blood for a drug test voluntarily. Please can you also find out if a use of force form was completed.

Police response: The searching officer said that he did only give the mention of smell of cannabis as the initial ground, searching officer went further to explain that he was concerned about officer safety at the time as the driver was in charge of a vehicle and wanted to make sure that he got out of the vehicle as soon as possible, securely. Searching officer  said he knows from experience previous stops where drivers have quickly made off, officer reflected and understands that he should have given more than the smell of cannabis.

The officer has said that he catered for the vulnerability of the person and that of the partner of the searched person. The officer states that he engaged with the officer, officer stated that a connect safeguard was completed. Bloods cannot be given voluntarily, the suspect had to be arrested and taken to the police station for blood to be obtained by the medical practitioner.

The officer has said that he cannot comment for what the drug swipe officer was heard saying.

The officer said he had reached the decision to arrest as soon as the sample was provided as it immediately indicated positive for cannabis  but waited for the whole 8 minutes to be completed. The officer stated the test has capability to show cocaine but it did not indicate a failure for cocaine.

The officer has stated that the requirement to provide a sample does mean that water was not allowed

The UOF form was not done.

The feedback was passed on, discussion meeting with searching officer and line manager held. The next three searches reviewed by line manager

A person cannot give blood for drug test voluntarily, the person was arrested for the positive drug road side test. In custody, the custody sergeant would have required the person to provide blood sample for evidential analysis, failure to do so would have led to a charge. Bloods are sent to lab and does take a number of months to come back.

LTR has been issued by line manager  on 16/01/26 for not completing the UOF form and line manager have reviewed the officers next 3 stop and searches and there were no issues identified