In this assignment I will Advise on the legality of the Police action with regard to the arrest, search, detention

and interview of Daniel Sanders. Briefly a youth matching Daniel Sanders description was seen taking lead sheets from outside a local church in High Street, Newtown. I will now analyse and evaluate the procedure the police followed under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and discuss whether it was correct or not. Having received reports from Mrs Williams that a theft was in progress at a local church, PCs Johnson & Ahmed were despatched to the scene. They met and interviewed Mrs Williams. They confirmed that one of the youths was white, wearing a red baseball cap with a logo and carrying a blue sports bag. A fast response vehicle, ZULU seven was also committed to the incident, driven by PS Caddy and PC Bonehill. As they approached the High Street, PC Bonehill identified a youth matching the description of a white youth, wearing a red baseball cap and carrying a blue sports bag. Under s1 of pace, the Police Officer may search Daniel Sanders if he has reasonable grounds to suspect that Daniel is carrying prohibited articles or stolen goods, in this case lead sheeting. But this can also include Articles used for certain Theft Act offences, Offensive Weapons and Articles used for destroying or damaging property Before a search can take place, under s2, the police officer must provide Daniel his name, police station and also be told why the search is taking place. When Daniel was asked to open hes bag, he told the officers Sod off you have nothing on me at which point he dropped the bag and ran off. Pc Bonehill then grabbed Daniel by the arm and said youre nicked on suspicion of theft. At that point PC Caddy searched Daniels sports bag but found nothing. Under s1 of (PACE) Daniels jacket can and was searched in a public place by the Police officer, but nothing was found. Under s3 (PACE) the police officer should have made a written record of this. Most of s24 and s25 has now been replaced by the Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2005, and under this legislation Daniel was arrested lawfully because the Police Officer had reasonable grounds to believe that Daniel is committing, has committed or about to commit an offence. After Daniels search he is arrested on suspicion of theft and taken to Newtown Police Station, where he arrived at 2300hrs on Friday 17th March 2008. On arrival he was placed immediately in a cell. The Custody officer did not follow the correct procedure. Section 3 of (PACE) clearly states that the custody officer should determine whether he has sufficient evidence to charge Daniel with the offence of theft which he was arrested and detain him at the police station or be released. As the original description of the suspect was a youth, he could be a minor and reasonable steps should have been taken to ascertain whether or not he is a juvenile. If he is, again he has rights. This would allow him not to be questioned unless hes parents, guardian, social worker or an appropriate adult is present. As Daniel has been detained, a detailed written record should have been made in the presence of Daniel and at that time be told by the custody officer, the grounds for his detention and hes rights, which seems has not been done. Hes right are he has a right to legal representation, have someone advised of hes arrest, be able to consult the Code of Practice and receive medical treatment if

required. As the records show, he had a bruised arm which should have required the custody officer to call a doctor to give medical treatment. Instead again he was immediately placed in a cell. The above shall not apply where the person arrested is, at the time when the written record is made; incapable of understanding what is said to him, is violent or likely to become violent and in urgent need of medical attention.