What’s this page about?

Since January 2024, members of the CMG have watched randomly selected videos of stop and searches carried out in the past month in Tower Hamlets. These videos have been filmed on police officers’ Body-Worn Video (‘BWV’) cameras.

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 2026

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The January 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 (NB: edited for clarity): This stop opened with police officers having stopped a white-seeming young male (‘YM’) based on information from a member of the public (‘the informant’). YM asked what the informant reported and was told "3 or 4 young men wearing tracksuits trying to break into the black BMW". He was searched, nothing was found. He was wearing a rolled up balaclava as a hat, his face was not in any way obscured.

The female officer asked how old he was and he rightly said he did not have to say. The female officer wrongly said he had to. The searching officer then said he suspected him of a criminal offence so he had to give his details. The officer said the fact the YM had "a balaclava and gloves" had added to his grounds. He said he would arrest him for theft from a motor vehicle if he did not give his details. YM did.

At 05:50 minutes in, the male officer says "I sort of want to nick him" because he knows they have been doing something, whether or not they have been trying to break into the vehicle. He reiterates "I want to nick him". A blonde officer says that's not enough. They agree to call the informant for further information.

The blonde officer at around 08:00 minutes in says no tools were found, a search of the area has found nothing and YM and his friends did not run. At 08:35 minutes in, the male officer speaks to the informant who says she saw a group of guys including a Black male and another 2/3 guys in tracksuits. She says she saw the Black male and another going and jumping between the BMW driver's seat, one had gloves, they were removing stuff from the car, they were removing stuff from the trunk. The male officer asked if they were recording a music video (which YM had said he was going to do), the informant said no.

The male officer says to YM the informant has seen them inside the car (she did not say she had seen YM specifically in the car/at all) and so they are going to nick him. The decision is made to arrest YM and his friends. At 10:55 minutes in, the blonde officer says, "we've not got any proof, the car is locked". The officers discuss whether the arrest should be for theft from motor vehicle or interference, they go for both. They determine that the 4th person (the Black male) must have run off.

At 12:06 minutes in, YM is arrested for theft from a motor vehicle and cautioned. The officer gave grounds as: "you're under arrest from attempted theft from a motor vehicle". The YM said this would be a wrongful arrest. The officer gave necessity for the arrest as secure evidence, prompt & effective investigation.

YM says he will bring an action for wrongful arrest. The blonde officer seems to suggest one of his group should be strip searched.

YM asked if there was footage of the theft and was told no. He was told, however, that there is an independent witness. He asked what the evidence was. He is then told he's being arrested because he doesn't have photo ID and his identity can't be verified. He points out that one of his friends, who is also being arrested, had photo ID.

The male officer tells YM: "An independent witness has seen you inside a vehicle with a balaclava and gloves on, we've arrived in a few minutes and seen you 100 yards away." Again, this is not true. YM asks: "If I was doing something illegal. Wouldn't I run?"

At 24:46, his cuffs are double locked. They have been on the entire time.

CONCERNS

I am concerned that the officer did not objectively have reasonable grounds for suspicion in order to make the arrest. In forming this view, I note that the informant described a group of people different to YM and his friends. She also said the group she saw were seen in the BMW taking items from it. The officers note the BMW they saw was locked and no items were found on YM and his friends. Officers jumped to the conclusion that YM was a suspect simply because he was in the general area and wearing a tracksuit. That he had a balaclava on (as a hat) and gloves in December does not amount to reasonable grounds for suspicion.

I find it concerning that the male officer admits to wanting to nick YM and his friends because, even if they didn't do it, they were doing something. I suspect he did not, in his own mind, suspect them of the offence they were arrested for. I note the comments of the blonde officer that they had no proof. Stop and search forms were not completed correctly. Rated: Red.

Police response: The Chief Inspector for the emergency response team for which the searching officer is aligned to will be looking into this and providing their findings. Update would be provided to CMG when this is received from the Chief Inspector.

This video was watched by the Haringey CMG and MOPAC. Both agreed with the Tower Hamlets’ CMG’s feedback. The Metropolitan Police did not and provided a letter justifying the search. This is not able to be published due to it containing confidential information.

CMG feedback for second video: The S&S was fine. We could not see that a UoF form had been completed. I am marking this as a neutral for now but if no form has been completed that might change. Rated: Neutral.

Police response: I have passed the feedback to the searching officer’s supervisor and also spoken to the supervisor. The supervisor has now confirmed on meeting with the officer that the UOF form was not completed by the officer, the supervisor will now be issuing a Learning Through Reflection to the officer for not complying with policy and will be reviewing three subsequent searches of the officer.

CMG feedback for third video: This was a good search in that the officer was polite and offered the person a drugs referral. It would have been a green but they did not follow GOWISELY so it has to be an amber. Rated: Amber.

Police response: The line manager has discussed the feedback with the searching officer and the officer accepts the findings and will ensure full GOWISELY is completed when engaging in stop and search. Line manager have reviewed three searches of the officer and there are no concerns identified.

February 2026

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: The panel considered this could have been a neutral but ultimately felt the use of handcuffs was not justified and so an amber score was required. The panel had sight of the use of force form but ultimately did not consider that the person who was handcuffed showed a threat of violence and it was notable that the other officer who searched his friend had not handcuffed that person despite him being more vocal and less compliant. The panel would be interested to know the officer's justification for using force as recorded in her pocketbook. The panel felt the officer's tone was good and she appropriately recognised the person's vulnerabilities (homelessness) and checked he had somewhere to go. She was respectful in searching his bag of belongings as well. Please can feedback be passed on and the officer asked for her justification for using force? As DCI Peters suggested, she should watch the BWV this relates to. This goes for all the clips. Can you also check a UoF form was done, please?

Police response: The feedback was shared with the officer and line manager.

The line manager conducted a debrief with the officer, BWV watched and the comments from the CMG were taken into account.

The line manager noted that the CMG’s feedback was generally complimentary regarding the officer’s conduct, including positive recognition of her awareness of the subject’s homelessness. However, the CMG did question the officer’s justification for the use of force, specifically the application of handcuffs.

The officer explained that she was conducting a search of the male, who was significantly larger than her. Officer described herself as being 5’3” with a small build, while the subject had a clear advantage in both height and physical stature. Given the search was for drugs and that drug paraphernalia was present nearby, officer was concerned the subject might attempt to discard, conceal, or destroy drugs before she could react. This included the risk of the subject attempting to swallow drugs, which is a known behaviour if individuals are not properly controlled.

Referencing the TIM aspect of the TIM PADE PIPER mnemonic, the officer highlighted that the Time, Immediacy, and Means for the subject to carry out such an action would require only a fraction of a second. She noted that such actions would likely occur faster than her ability to respond, in line with the widely accepted principle that action is faster than reaction.

The line manager is satisfied with the officer’s account, justification, and actions. It was also confirmed that the officer correctly made a pocket notebook entry and completed a use of force form.

CMG feedback for second video: Panel was divided between neutral and amber but ultimately came down on amber because it was felt the use of handcuffs was not justified. Whilst the panel could understand an officer might have concerns about who was in the car (given it had tinted windows) and so be worried about a threat, the person was cuffed after they got out of the car and it was clear they came out without a weapon and in a compliant fashion. The panel also felt the officer could have shown his warrant card sooner. The panel would be interest to know the officer's justification for force. Please can feedback be passed on and the officer asked for his justification for using force? Can you also check a UoF form was done, please?

Police response: The feedback was shared with the officer and their line manager. The line manager reviewed the stop and search with the officer, including the Body Worn Video (BWV), and identified no concerns.

The line manager is satisfied that the officer’s use of force was appropriate and in line with PACE and relevant policies. It is recognised that individuals involved in the supply of drugs may attempt to obstruct searches by swallowing substances to avoid arrest. Previous incidents have shown that where individuals were not handcuffed, they were able to ingest drugs, which not only hinders the investigation but can also present a significant medical risk.

The use of handcuffs is a Home Office–approved tactic during stop and search, and in this instance, their use was appropriate. The officer clearly explained the rationale for applying handcuffs and, upon their removal, checked for any injuries. No concerns or complaints were raised by the individual who was searched.

Regarding the timing of the warrant card being shown, although it was presented after a short delay, no breach was identified. It is not considered that presenting the warrant card earlier would have changed the quality or outcome of the encounter, as the officer remained calm, professional, and communicated effectively throughout.

The officer delivered all elements of GOWISELY, and their communication style was clear, appropriate, and in line with required standards.

CMG feedback for third video: The search was compliant and the officer's tone was good. The BWV cut off early so couldn't assess in full. Please can feedback be passed on?

Police response: This was passed on to the searching officer and line manager, this is rated as neutral, the searching officer is from SE BCU.

March 2026

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The March 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: The panel felt that the grounds for this search were fairly weak: seen to discard something and walk away, strong smell of cannabis, and it being a drug hotspot. The panel was concerned the person's vulnerabilities: English as a second language and medical needs were not picked up on. The panel could not see the justification for immediate use of handcuffs nor them being kept on for 26 minutes. Question proportionality and use of resources.

To provide more detail, this was a stop and search of two very compliant individuals where, at its highest, they may have been smoking a joint. It involved at least 5 officers, which seemed excessive, as did the length of time it lasted. We felt the grounds were flimsy - the pair had been seen to discard "something" but not necessarily a joint, and the other grounds (smell of cannabis and the area being a drug hotspot) are subjective (smell) and too general (the area being a drug hotspot). The person searched did not speak English as his first language and he had a number of prescription meds on him. We did not feel he understood what officers were saying nor that his medical needs were realised. We simply do not understand why he was in handcuffs for 26 minutes.

I'd like this feedback (above and in the form) to be passed on and the officer's next 3 searches reviewed. I'd also like the justification for prolonged UoF. Can also you check a UoF form was done, please?

Police response: The feedback was shared with the line manager and the searching officer.

The line manager has met with the searching officer to address the feedback.

During this discussion, the officer acknowledged that a Use of Force (UOF) form had not been completed. This omission has been addressed and will be dealt with through a Learning Through Reflection (LTR) which the line manager would be issuing. The current system for completing the LTR is down, the line manager was recently advised on how to complete the LTR process with the power app currently down.

The line manager confirmed that he was present at the scene in a supervisory capacity and directly oversaw the incident as it unfolded. Based on his observations, he raised no concerns regarding the grounds for the stop or the use of force applied by the officer.

The incident involved two males who were observed walking very briskly upon noticing police officers approaching from the opposite direction. Both individuals avoided eye contact, and officers detected a strong smell of cannabis in the vicinity. As officers approached, the males attempted to make off but were stopped. Cannabis was subsequently found, reinforcing the grounds for the stop.

One of the males was placed in handcuffs. This action was justified due to the subjects’ behaviour indicating an attempt to evade police, the presence of drugs, and officer safety considerations. The searching officer, a female officer approximately 5ft 1 in height, reasonably applied handcuffs given the physical disparity and the need to maintain control of the situation.

The male remained in handcuffs for approximately 26 minutes. This duration was considered reasonable and proportionate due to a number of factors. There was a language barrier which slowed communication and extended the search process. The male was also in possession of a holdall bag containing multiple blister packs of tablets with foreign writing. Officers required additional time to identify the substances, including making enquiries using available resources.

It was not considered proportionate to remove the handcuffs during this process, as there was a risk they would need to be reapplied if prohibited items were identified. Maintaining the handcuffs ensured officer safety and continuity throughout the investigation.

The incident was managed as part of a Hackney Nights serial, with multiple officers present, including a supervising officer. Responsibilities were appropriately distributed among officers, including searching, completing paperwork, and conducting PND/LED checks, ensuring the situation was handled efficiently.

In conclusion, although the grounds for the stop were considered weak by CMG, the officers had reasonable grounds based on the smell of cannabis, the behaviour of the individuals, and the recovery of cannabis. The supervisor is satisfied that both the stop and use of force were lawful, proportionate, and justified. The only issue identified relates to the administrative failure to complete a UOF form, which is being addressed appropriately. The line manager is asked to review three subsequent searches and update me.

The CMG replied to the police and stated: “The question is what the officers reasonably suspected at the time of deciding to initiate the stop and search. They cannot say they had reasonable grounds to suspect because they ultimately found cannabis.” This was passed to the searching officer. The police confirmed three subsequent searches done by the officer had been reviewed and no issues found.

CMG feedback for second video: Panel not able to assess as no BWV uploaded.

Police response: This BWV is restricted.

CMG feedback for third video: The officer was heard to say "I don't think there's anything we're going to get out of this". The panel is therefore unclear why the occupants were searched, particularly given one of them was a vulnerable autistic child. Relatedly, the O of GOWISELY was not given. The panel couldn't see what grounds there were to search - there was no evidence of speeding and the panel could not see why the car being linked to drug dealing/the driver being linked to TFMV gave rise to reasonable grounds. It was not clear what the officers were looking for.

Please pass the feedback on and ask the officer the following questions:

1. What were you looking for and why wasn't this stated to the people searched?

2. How did the car being linked to drug dealing/the driver being linked to TFMV give rise to reasonable grounds? 

3. Why was the search conducted when the officer said beforehand: "I don't think there's anything we're going to get out of this"? In particular, why was a vulnerable, autistic child searched? 

Please can the officer's next 3 searches also be reviewed? 

Police response: The searching officer and line manager are not from Hackney or Tower Hamlets. The searching officer is from CN BCU. Feedback was sent to the searching officer’s line manager 17th April 2026, I have not had a response.  I have sent a chaser email to the CN BCU Stop and Search lead 24th June 2026, I am awaiting an update.