Daily Times

The phrase “the thin blue line” is often associated with the police as it is used to describe police discretion. The act to perform “reasonable suspicion” is the centre of attraction in the use of discretionary powers conferred upon police officers. Police are considered as the “gatekeepers” of the criminal justice system. The majority of police discretion is employed by the micro-level officers of police while tackling street crimes.

Generally, a police officer is alone when performing his work and there is always a situation where discretion comes into play. Consequently, the police officer plays in situations where he has discretion whether to draw his weapon, make an arrest, to shoot a gun, to perform a search, to stop and assist someone, or to issue a traffic ticket. These are few examples of situations involving a combat against street crimes.

There are various positive aspects of a police officer’s position to use his discretion. It allows him flexibility and necessary leverage to deliver his duties. Infect, it allows the police officer to quickly interpret the applicable statutory law and act upon the determination. The use of discretion also helps to foster police and judicial economy. If the police officer had to consult with other officers or go to a judge every time they needed to make an on-the-job determination, this would result in a drain not only on the economy but also on the overall law enforcement and judicial systems.

The stop and search encounters require an officer to have “reasonable suspicion” to act accordingly, and the excessive use of this discretion of wide range authority has put a considerable amount of allegations that it is being abused. We are living in a world where we face frisking of clothes even while going to the grocery stores. Police have set up check posts all along the roads and housing societies. Shopping malls are following their footsteps as they out of the fear of criminal activities. This situation has reduced people’s rights and a question mark on the public sector’s duties and obligations. This could be viewed as a failure of intelligence-led policing. In twin cities, none of the check post conducting stop and search has the services of a lady searcher or a private room where a detailed search could be carried out avoiding humiliation for the suspect. The effectiveness of such arrangement could be compared to places where this strategy has been practised, and data is available for evaluation. This has not produced results which are encouraging for other forces to set as an example to tackle the problem of crime we are facing. Even the stop and search policy did not yield sufficient results in the UK. Over a million stop and search encounters have been recorded every year since 2006, but only 9 percent of these led to an arrest in 2011/12. While in Pakistan, surprisingly, there is little attention paid either by the police or the public to compile data to know how effective this discretion in reducing or detecting crime is.

The use of stop and search powers are considered critical in efforts to tackle drug, knife, gun, stolen property and gang crimes. But, it has a little impact on efforts to combat serious crimes. The overuse of these powers also affects the relationship between the community and police. Police have to improve their image to ensure that all sections of society have confidence in their ability of decision making. It is worth mentioning that the riots of 2011 were linked to stoking discontent among the people against the police that fueled to spread across England.

People should only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer. The police officer must inform the person of his name and police station, the reason they want to search and why an officer is legally allowed to search you. If a police officer intends to take off some parts of the clothes or want to remove anything wearing for religious reasons like a burka, veil or turban, they must take the suspect out of public view and the officer must be of the same sex as a suspect. There should be a register to lodge complaints against justification, and the behaviour of police at all check posts and a competent authority should be known to all residents to register their complaints at any stage.

We are living in a country where the people are infected with all sorts of false ideologies and have a kind of bias against each other. The polarisation of this bias is seen in almost all departments of public sector according to their professional standards, and police are not excused on this issue. This bias is potent to bring discrimination in the use of discretionary powers of police officers. This situation could be averted by a mere consideration by the officer whether his decision is affecting him before making a stop. If they think prejudice is playing a part, they should not use the power. Richard Bennett, of the College of Policing Training Hendon UK, is of the view, “our assumption is that every single person has biases. But the important thing if you’re someone acting on behalf of the state and exercising your powers is to recognise those biases and to ensure they do not impact on your decision-making around things like stop and search and other operational decision.”

The stop and search policy adopted by the police had no discernable effect in reducing crime; rather it is a great concern for the public. These operations are apparently controversial because a particular group of people are likely to be stopped and searched on the check posts by the police than rest of the public. Most officers have not received any training in the use of stop and search powers since they joined the service as there is not any form of refresher training in this regard.

In the absence of regular training, the police officers develop habits which are learned through watching and listening to others. This can be a positive approach if experienced mentors are engaged but otherwise can lead to the spread of inappropriate or, in some cases, unlawful practices. There is a need to develop a structured national training program to improve officers’ understanding of their use of the powers, the establishment of reasonable grounds, the impact of the utilisation of the powers of communities, and how to use the powers effectively in tackling crime. The effort to collect data based on the understanding of what works best to cut crime and ability to record information could improve the situation.

Stop and search must be applied fairly, effectively, and in a way that builds community confidence rather than undermining it. Each encounter should be carried out with respect and courtesy and based on fully explained reasonable grounds in order to reduce negative and unlawful experiences. No one should be stopped on the basis of their race, origin, appearance or ethnicity.

The IG’s and police training colleges should establish an authorised professional practice document. A clear specification of what constitutes the effective and fair exercise of stop and search powers and guidance in this respect. Police should improve monitoring of the way officers stop and search people; that can satisfy their higher hierarchy that the power is used to catch criminals and maintain public trust. It should be ensured that officers carrying out stop and search encounters are supervised, and all the incidents are recorded in the shift reports duly maintained. The relevant intelligence gleaned from stop and search is gathered promptly, and placed on their force intelligence system and is analysed to assist the broader crime-fighting effort. It should be ensured that those people not satisfied with the way they are treated during stop and search can report this to the police and have their view considered and if they wish, can make a formal complaint quickly easily.

The writer can be reached at malikmasud@hotmail.com