Do the Police need a warrant to search a boat?

[furnessvale]

 

True, I quite agree.

 

However there is nothing stopping a boat owner saying that they do not consent to such a search, run inside, bolt the doors, shout to them that they will have to show you a warrant to enter and then stoke the fire up. At that point they are neither under arrest nor subjected to a warrant. And if you are not under arrest then there is no obligation to speak to the police to tell them anything.

But I now have even more suspicion to arrest for an indictable offence so I will be kicking the door in to make that arrest. Once arrested I do my search.

 

Remember, I was entering in the first place to effect an arrest not just to search.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

 

I was once stopped for having no insurance, I told the copper I had just been pulled over 10 minutes before and that the insurance company had got the details wrong, quick radio check and he was very apologetic

Indeed the police can only work on best available evidence. On both occasions, and based on information supplied by your insurance company, the computer was telling the police that you weren't insured. In the intervening 10 minutes the insurance company had not had time to update records.

 

I think it was very magnaminous of the second officer to apologise. I would have been directing you to demand an apology from YOUR insurance company who cocked it up in the first place.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Rufford]

Also another lovely tid bit of information, I do believe that there is a legal right to have a solicitor present while the search takes place. Not many people take that right up tho.

Of course, I could be wrong but seeing as I spent 12 hours in a cell reading nothing but the 1984 PACE Act Im fairly confident Im right on that.

[Robbo]

I am sure for their purposes a boat is a vehicle.

 

 

It may be both,

 

When someone attempted to break into my boat the other year, I phoned the police to report. They asked if I lived on the boat, as if you do they send some one out as it's a dwelling, if you don't they don't!

[Rufford]

But I now have even more suspicion to arrest for an indictable offence so I will be kicking the door in to make that arrest. Once arrested I do my search.

 

Remember, I was entering in the first place to effect an arrest not just to search.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Indeed the police can only work on best available evidence. On both occasions, and based on information supplied by your insurance company, the computer was telling the police that you weren't insured. In the intervening 10 minutes the insurance company had not had time to update records.

 

I think it was very magnaminous of the second officer to apologise. I would have been directing you to demand an apology from YOUR insurance company who cocked it up in the first place.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Steel door, kick away :-)

 

Entering in the first place? My recollection is different, do you have witness's? I do, do you have any evidence? - not at that moment in time. Are you prepared to explain your suspicions and the evidence that lead to the impromptu search on the following morning to a judge? (The only evidence being 'I thought I smell cannabis m'lord') and bearing in mind that the CPS's case will be represented by a CPS brief/solicitor while Im represented by some rather expensive specialists in criminal law?

 

Are you 100% sure that you want to kick the door down and do what could construe as an illegal search (providing of course you find nothing, which by the time you do break down the door would of course be the case)?

 

I have nothing to lose, a Police Officer could well ruin his career by committing what could turn out to be an illegal search (if nothing is found, it would be an illegal search).

 

Still want to risk your career on that 'I thought I smelt cannabis' suspicion?

 

Refusing to talk to a police officer, telling them you are busy and retreating to your steel cave is not illegal, nor suspicious (well it is, but its not suspicious when worded correctly!)

 

Indeed the police can only work on best available evidence. On both occasions, and based on information supplied by your insurance company, the computer was telling the police that you weren't insured. In the intervening 10 minutes the insurance company had not had time to update records.

 

I think it was very magnaminous of the second officer to apologise. I would have been directing you to demand an apology from YOUR insurance company who cocked it up in the first place.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Indeed, I dont blame them for it and I can fully understand why it happened. Im not anti police, far from it - I have seen them handle a lot of things I would not like to handle and I have seen them do a lot of good, it really is not an easy job, and 90% of the coppers I have met are reasonable and to be honest people I wouldnt mind having a drink with - if not a smoke with. But there is always that one who is out to make a name for themselves.

 

Know the law, know your rights and be prepared to take the lead in the conversation so that you can effect a safe retreat :-)

[carlt]

But I now have even more suspicion to arrest for an indictable offence so I will be kicking the door in to make that arrest. Once arrested I do my search.

 

Remember, I was entering in the first place to effect an arrest not just to search.

 

What a shame the police told me that it wasn't possible to do any of this when I reported that I had tenants that were dealing heroin from my property.

 

I even offered them a set of keys so they didn't have to scratch their boots.

 

Perhaps I should have wafted a bit of herbal smoke outside the door as that appears to be a trigger.

[Jerra]

Talk about stereotyping who the "yob" in my example might have been.

Sorry George but you are jumping to conclusions and/or putting words into my mouth.

 

You are assuming just because I can empathise with the young coloured people who regularly complain about police harassment I was thinking your "yob" was coloured.

 

Totally and utterly wrong. In my experience (perhaps due to the area I live in) yobs are generally white. Also because I can empathise with the coloured young people I am less likely to assume they are any more a "yob" than their white counterpart.

 

Please don't jump to conclusions.

[furnessvale]

Also another lovely tid bit of information, I do believe that there is a legal right to have a solicitor present while the search takes place. Not many people take that right up tho.

 

Of course, I could be wrong but seeing as I spent 12 hours in a cell reading nothing but the 1984 PACE Act Im fairly confident Im right on that.

Section C of PACE codes of practice requires the police to allow a witness to be present during a search if requested. It can be anyone so yes a solicitor can be present.

 

Note I do not have to unreasonably delay the search and I can carry on if I think waiting will defeat the ends of justice eg you are busy destroying evidence.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[furnessvale]

 

Steel door, kick away :-)

 

Entering in the first place? My recollection is different, do you have witness's? I do, do you have any evidence? - not at that moment in time. Are you prepared to explain your suspicions and the evidence that lead to the impromptu search on the following morning to a judge? (The only evidence being 'I thought I smell cannabis m'lord') and bearing in mind that the CPS's case will be represented by a CPS brief/solicitor while Im represented by some rather expensive specialists in criminal law?

 

Are you 100% sure that you want to kick the door down and do what could construe as an illegal search (providing of course you find nothing, which by the time you do break down the door would of course be the case)?

 

I have nothing to lose, a Police Officer could well ruin his career by committing what could turn out to be an illegal search (if nothing is found, it would be an illegal search).

 

Still want to risk your career on that 'I thought I smelt cannabis' suspicion?

 

Refusing to talk to a police officer, telling them you are busy and retreating to your steel cave is not illegal, nor suspicious (well it is, but its not suspicious when worded correctly!)

 

Indeed, I dont blame them for it and I can fully understand why it happened. Im not anti police, far from it - I have seen them handle a lot of things I would not like to handle and I have seen them do a lot of good, it really is not an easy job, and 90% of the coppers I have met are reasonable and to be honest people I wouldnt mind having a drink with - if not a smoke with. But there is always that one who is out to make a name for themselves.

 

Know the law, know your rights and be prepared to take the lead in the conversation so that you can effect a safe retreat :-)

If necessary, I will open your steel door. I once had one of my officers kick in a reinforced door such that, eventually, the entire door, frame, and attached side window fell into the hallway leaving a brick outline.

 

I lost track of the number of times I "I know my rights" threats, and "you will have to face my QC" when I was working. I also knew my rights otherwise I wouldn't be putting myself in that position in the first place.

 

I fully agree some bobbies went off half cocked and then wondered what hit them. I was not one of them and in the circumstances outlined I would have been within my rights. I only needed reasonable suspicion in the first place and every escalation by the "accused" (bad word I know) only increases my suspicion or even obstructs me in the execution of my duty.

 

By the way you make very sweeping assertions in the first part of your post which are nonsense.

 

I find nothing therefore it IS an illegal search? Cobblers!

 

I am going to back away from my duty because I may face some high flying QC?

 

You have destroyed the evidence. Fine but make sure you do a good job.

 

So basically, in the scenario you describe, you ARE a criminal and are using spurious rights arguments to evade justice?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Sorry George but you are jumping to conclusions and/or putting words into my mouth.

 

You are assuming just because I can empathise with the young coloured people who regularly complain about police harassment I was thinking your "yob" was coloured.

 

Totally and utterly wrong. In my experience (perhaps due to the area I live in) yobs are generally white. Also because I can empathise with the coloured young people I am less likely to assume they are any more a "yob" than their white counterpart.

 

Please don't jump to conclusions.

You brought colour into the equation not me. I am happy to forget it.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Edited January 30, 2014 by furnessvale

[Jerra]

I only needed reasonable suspicion in the first place

 

You brought colour into the equation not me. I am happy to forget it.

Two points George.

 

First it is the reasonable suspicion which worries me. I have no doubt the police who gave me a hard time when I was young would have said to their superiors "I had a reasonable suspicion" when there was no cause for suspicion at all. A police officers reasonable suspicion may not be what a reasonable member of the public considers reasonable.

 

Second. I only introduced colour as an example of how the police have alienated a section of society, you assumed I was calling the "yob" coloured. However as you say we shall forget that part of the discussion.

[Rufford]

If necessary, I will open your steel door. I once had one of my officers kick in a reinforced door such that, eventually, the entire door, frame, and attached side window fell into the hallway leaving a brick outline.

 

Steel door of a boat. Will take a long long time.

 

I lost track of the number of times I "I know my rights" threats, and "you will have to face my QC" when I was working. I also knew my rights otherwise I wouldn't be putting myself in that position in the first place.

 

Those people are funny are they not? The fact still remains it will all depend on what can be proven in court. If you cannot find anything to back up your suspicion of 'I thought I smelt cannabis', you are indeed in trouble. Eitherway its an awful lot of paperwork.

 

I fully agree some bobbies went off half cocked and then wondered what hit them. I was not one of them and in the circumstances outlined I would have been within my rights. I only needed reasonable suspicion in the first place and every escalation by the "accused" (bad word I know) only increases my suspicion or even obstructs me in the execution of my duty.

 

Its hardly an escalation to go into ones own boat and lock the doors is it? Unless you say that I am under arrest in which case it would be. All depends who acts first I suppose.

 

By the way you make very sweeping assertions in the first part of your post which are nonsense.

 

I find nothing therefore it IS an illegal search? Cobblers!

 

So searching someones boat under a 'suspicion' of smelling cannabis and finding NOTHING would not cause you problems? Think it might. Failing that the IPCC might.

 

I am going to back away from my duty because I may face some high flying QC?

 

Nah, you sound like your on a mission!

 

You have destroyed the evidence. Fine but make sure you do a good job.

 

I believe incinerating cannabis is what your meant to do with it?

 

So basically, in the scenario you describe, you ARE a criminal and are using spurious rights arguments to evade justice?

 

Possibly? However its all what can be proven in court isnt it? Is one chap who might be having a smoke really worth all that hassle? It could go either way, depending on how it unfolds - but is it really worth the hassle?

I am somewhat concerned now, George knows his old boats and seems the sort of chap who would love to test this out in practice!

[Rod a mod from Tod]

Easy Rider!

& Carl post after

 

I'm not getting the Bogart connection. Is there some rhyming slang i'm missing. I'm usually good at them.

[carlt]

& Carl post after

 

I'm not getting the Bogart connection. Is there some rhyming slang i'm missing. I'm usually good at them.

Named after Humphrey Bogart who was often seen with a cigarette in the corner of his mouth but never removing it or drawing on it.

[Rod a mod from Tod]

Ah! Light come on. Not the best link or connection i have heard.

[Henhouse]

 

 

as an example of how the police have alienated a section of society,

 

I do not for one minute believe that the police have any intent to alienate anyone.

 

In fact the situation is quite the reverse. It is the people or groups of people who choose not to abide by the laws of the land and conform to a way of life that most right minded people would find acceptable who have alienated themselves.

 

We live in the oldest and fairest democracy in the world. We have a justice system which has evolved over many centuries, where you remain innocent until proven guilty, and have the right of appeal.

 

If anything, I believe we treat some convicted criminals too softly.

 

If you live by the rules you have nothing to fear.

 

I am sure most policemen would be quite happy if the most danger they ever faced was in helping an old lady across a busy street.

 

Sadly, each year we see reports of another officer shot, or stabbed whilst going about their duty.

[NigelMoore]

As I said in #4, the police may routinely and legitimately board the boat under the Prevention of Terrorism Act - as exampled by Tim Lewis in #53. The marine police will be far more aware of the implications of boarding boats than their land-bound colleagues. The PACE Act differentiates between powers of search of 'a person or vehicle', and powers of search of 'premises'. The latter [which specifically includes any form of boat] requires a warrant. Even the former cannot be relied upon when the vehicle is in residential premises.

 

It would be surprising indeed if a marine police officer alleged powers to board a boat without a warrant on any grounds other than the PoT Act, but others may easily misinterpret the extent of their powers. Depending on where the boat is, other Acts listed by Wikipedia empower searching boats for very specific purposes, such as for: dead seals under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970; stolen government property under the Public Stores Act 1875 [Metropolitan Police only], or dutiable goods under the Customs & Excise Management Act 1979.

 

If a police officer boarded your British owned boat outwith any such appropriate authorisation - such as in the OP - the master of the vessel would be empowered to order them off the boat, and if the officer did not comply, the master of the boat would be empowered to arrest and detain the officer for a summary offence under the MSA.

 

Whether you would choose to exercise that power might depend on your general attitude [and theirs].

[Peter Reed]

 

I do not for one minute believe that the police have any intent to alienate anyone.

 

In fact the situation is quite the reverse. It is the people or groups of people who choose not to abide by the laws of the land and conform to a way of life that most right minded people would find acceptable who have alienated themselves.

 

We live in the oldest and fairest democracy in the world. We have a justice system which has evolved over many centuries, where you remain innocent until proven guilty, and have the right of appeal.

 

If anything, I believe we treat some convicted criminals too softly.

 

If you live by the rules you have nothing to fear.

 

I am sure most policemen would be quite happy if the most danger they ever faced was in helping an old lady across a busy street.

 

Sadly, each year we see reports of another officer shot, or stabbed whilst going about their duty.

And,sadly we hear reports of unarmed suspects getting shot by the police.

[Rufford]

As I said in #4, the police may routinely and legitimately board the boat under the Prevention of Terrorism Act - as exampled by Tim Lewis in #53. The marine police will be far more aware of the implications of boarding boats than their land-bound colleagues. The PACE Act differentiates between powers of search of 'a person or vehicle', and powers of search of 'premises'. The latter [which specifically includes any form of boat] requires a warrant. Even the former cannot be relied upon when the vehicle is in residential premises.

 

It would be surprising indeed if a marine police officer alleged powers to board a boat without a warrant on any grounds other than the PoT Act, but others may easily misinterpret the extent of their powers. Depending on where the boat is, other Acts listed by Wikipedia empower searching boats for very specific purposes, such as for: dead seals under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970; stolen government property under the Public Stores Act 1875 [Metropolitan Police only], or dutiable goods under the Customs & Excise Management Act 1979.

 

If a police officer boarded your British owned boat outwith any such appropriate authorisation - such as in the OP - the master of the vessel would be empowered to order them off the boat, and if the officer did not comply, the master of the boat would be empowered to arrest and detain the officer for a summary offence under the MSA.

 

Whether you would choose to exercise that power might depend on your general attitude [and theirs].

 

Aye but where does this fit in if they police are pursuing a 'crime in action'?

[Jerra]

 

I do not for one minute believe that the police have any intent to alienate anyone.

 

In fact the situation is quite the reverse. It is the people or groups of people who choose not to abide by the laws of the land and conform to a way of life that most right minded people would find acceptable who have alienated themselves.

Two points.

 

First. It is only you who has even suggested the police intend to alienate anybody. I merely said a section of society was alienated.

 

Second. I find your sweeping statement a little unfair ( I nearly said racist but I am trying to avoid using colour as an example). There is no doubt young coloured males feel alienated by the police. Your statement suggests that the majority of young coloured males behave in a way which (shall we say) makes them fair game for police attention. I have known many who are better than their white counter parts.

 

To suggest this about any section of society is plainly wrong. It is (to me at least) as daft as saying all CCers are untidy, dirty, rule breaking water gypsies. Which clearly they aren't.

[Tigerr]

Perhaps the copper was desperate for a toke?

 

Before all this terrorism lark, I used to take my dory up to the o/s of the Houses of Parliament.

Did you take it up the OXO tower as well?

[journeyperson]

Just like a car or a person if there is probable cause they can search you and the boat under the misuse of drugs act.

 

 

Nope possession of cannabis is an offense. It was relaxed a few years ago. But they retracted it back to being illegal.

 

Ah, I remember the relaxation but I didn't know it had been retracted. Shame really, I don't use the stuff myself but I know quite a few perfectly responsible people who do and I'm wondering if they are up to speed? (no pun intended).

[Captain Fizz]

Sorry George but you are jumping to conclusions and/or putting words into my mouth.

 

You are assuming just because I can empathise with the young coloured people who regularly complain about police harassment I was thinking your "yob" was coloured.

 

Totally and utterly wrong. In my experience (perhaps due to the area I live in) yobs are generally white. Also because I can empathise with the coloured young people I am less likely to assume they are any more a "yob" than their white counterpart.

 

Please don't jump to conclusions.

Am I correct in assuming that when you say "coloured" you actually mean Black!

[Rufford]

Am I correct in assuming that when you say "coloured" you actually mean Black!

 

Does that mean white people are transparent?

[Simon clarke]

This is all so academic. If a police officer want's to search he will. His ass will be covered by his bosses whatever. Just let him search and don't prolong the situation. Unless you are prepared to waste time and money pursuing an illegal search claim in court. Just remember the judge is already on the police side. They have plenty of reasons and acts of parlament that will let them. .

Unless of course your worried about the stash of heroin or cache of guns you have on board, but all you can do is delay the inevitable. I would just let them search and get on with my life!

 

Does that mean white people are transparent?

If you had lived in South Africa you would know it's an insult to call a black a coloured and vice versa. What the hell, good and bad whatever the colour.

[system 4-50]

Do different rules apply to the Police boarding my vessel if I'm flying a Pirate's flag?

[Jerra]

Am I correct in assuming that when you say "coloured" you actually mean Black!

Basically I mean all ethnic minorities, but I suppose the "blacks" (if you insist) suffer most.

This is all so academic. If a police officer want's to search he will.

If you had lived in South Africa you would know it's an insult to call a black a coloured and vice versa. What the hell, good and bad whatever the colour.

The police being able to do what they want and everybody just sitting back and accepting it is the worrying factor.

 

With regard to colour I gather from my daughters partner (brought upin South Africa) that that was mainly due to the nuances of apartheid.