Conduct of officers during an arrest - Dorset Police, August 2018

On 4 May 2018, a Dorset Police armed response unit attended an address in order to arrest a wanted man. The wanted man did not live at the house but was believed to be staying there with the person who owned it.

The officers found the man hiding in the loft, detained him and escorted him to the living room of the house while they awaited a response unit to transport him to custody. The officers’ body-worn video footage shows that the man asked for a cigarette; while looking for tobacco, an officer found a small bag of a substance he believed to be cannabis. The man denied that the cannabis was his.

After another officer spoke to the homeowner on the phone, the officer who had found the cannabis informed the man that the homeowner had said the cannabis did not belong to them. The officer asked the man again if the cannabis was his, and the man shook his head.

Another officer then asked the man to “cough the cannabis” so that the homeowner would not get into trouble, and the man nodded. The man asked what would happen if he admitted to possession of cannabis, and the officer replied, “f*** all”. The officers also told the man that that they would have to contact social services if the cannabis belonged to the homeowner, because children were living in the property.

The man was later charged with possession of cannabis due to the admissions apparently made at the scene. During interview he denied the cannabis was his and said, “I was basically bullied into saying ‘yeah it’s mine’.”

The interviewing officers raised this matter with their supervisor and the matter was referred to us in August 2018 as a mandatory conduct referral.

In December 2018, the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the charge of possession of cannabis against the man due to lack of evidence.

During the investigation, our investigators obtained body-worn video (BWV) footage from the officers who attended the incident. They also interviewed the officers. They obtained relevant policies and procedures, including on the use of BWV.

We were of the view that, while the man claimed to have been bullied and pressurised by the officers, BWV appeared to show some brief interaction and attempted persuasion for him to accept responsibility for the cannabis, which did not support the officers’ actions as being threatening, persistent or bullying in tone. The evidence from all officers in attendance tended to support that there was a strong smell of cannabis on their arrival at the premises and that only the man was present inside.

Based on the evidence available, we were of the opinion that two officers, who tried to persuade the man to admit to possession of the cannabis, and did not challenge each other’s actions, had acted inappropriately. We were of the view that the third officer did not have a case to answer for misconduct.

After reviewing our report, Dorset Police advised that all three officers would receive management action regarding the use of BWV and the need to evidentially capture the full interaction or incident before BWV is turned off.

The force agreed that the two officers had a case to answer for misconduct. Both attended misconduct meetings, where misconduct was proven. They received written warnings.