Stop and search
Where can a person/vehicle be searched?
Section 1(1) of the PACE Act gives the constable the ‘power’ to conduct a search that is in ‘public or that the public has access to. In this case, Alex was stopped in her garden but searched on the pavement outside her garden gate.
S1(4) PACE does not allow a constable to search a person or vehicle that is in a garden or yard used for dwelling purposes. Alex was in her garden when P.C Blatter pulled her out to search her on the pavement outside her garden gate.
Additionally, when arresting Alex, P.C Blatter did not at any point inform Alex of the reasons for her arrest, he just grabbed the hood of her coat, pulled her to the pavement, and started accusing her of suspicious behavior.
What can be searched?
S1(2) PACE gives power to the constable to search any person or vehicle for stolen or prohibited articles. However, S1(3) PACE does not empower the constable to search a person or vehicle unless he has reason to believe he will find prohibited or stolen articles. Code A, Paragraph 2.2A states that the exercise of the stop and search power depends on the likelihood of the person having an item for which they may be searched, and is not dependent on them being suspected of committing an offense with relation to the item. P.C Blatter discovered the new football kits after he searched Alex. Paragraph 2.2B states that a stop and search may never be supported based on personal factors such as physical appearance. P.C Blatter stopped Alex due to her appearance and behavior, furthermore Paragraph 2.4 states that reasonable grounds for suspicion must be linked to intelligence or information. P.C Blatter had no intelligence to formulate a basis for suspicion of Alex.
Paragraph 2.6B allows the constable to base suspicion on behavior if the information is not available. Alex ran from P.C Blatter which made him suspect guilty activity.
Paragraph 2.11 states that ‘There is no power to stop or detain a person to find grounds for a search. P.C Blatter searched Alex before he had any reasonable grounds to believe she may possess any prohibited or stolen items.
Information to be communicated during a stop and search.
S2(2) PACE requires that a constable is in uniform if he is to perform a stop and search, otherwise, he must provide documentary evidence that he is a constable.
S2(3)(a)- S2(3)(d) gives more information on what must be provided by the constable, such as;
the constable’s name and the name of the police station to which he is attached, the object of the proposed search, the constable’s grounds for proposing to make it. P.C Blatter was a plain-clothed officer that stepped out of a plain vehicle and failed to communicate this information with Alex. According to S(3) PACE, a written record must be made by the constable at the time of the search on the spot. or after the search if not practicable during the search. P.C Blatter did not provide Alex with a written record at the time of the search, and it is unknown if the record was provided after the arrest. This section is further cemented in Mustapha Osman v Southwark Crown Court, where the search was rendered unlawful because the constable failed to give his name and the station to which he is attached.
Conduct of Search
According to S2(9) PACE, the constable can require the removal of the outer jacket or coat and gloves, anything else is not allowed to be removed in public. Code paragraph 3 further provides details of guidance on the conduct of the search.
Paragraph 3.1 states that ‘All stops and searches must be carried out with courtesy, consideration, and respect.’ P.C Blatter was not courteous or considerate when searching Alex. Paragraph 3.2 requires the constable to seek cooperation with every case and a forcible search may only be made if it is established that the person is unwilling to cooperate. P.C Blatter forcefully pulled Alex back out onto the pavement to search her. Paragraph 3.3 limits the search to a superficial examination of outer clothing. The constable frisked Alex from head to toe.
Paragraph 3.5 further states that no power to require the removal of more than outer jacket, coat, or gloves. With the right to put hands inside pockets, and search around the collar. P.C Blatter fo searched Alex asking her to remove her tracksuit top, shoes, and her snood. According to Paragraph 3.8 warrant cards must be shown by non-uniformed officers and information to be given. No warrant card was shown to Alex before the search. In paragraph 1.4 the main reason for a stop and search is to enable the constable to confirm suspicion without arrest. P.C Blatter did not have suspicions that Alex stole new football kits until after the search. Moreover, Paragraph 1.5 states that a constable must not search a person where it is not applicable. P.C Blatter searched under Alex’s tracksuit top without any reasonable suspicion, therefore he had no power to search.
Human Rights Infringement
Article 17 of the Human Rights Act, 1998 provides for the prohibition of abuse of rights. It states that nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group, or person any
right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights
and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in
Section 1 (1) of the Equality Act,2010 provides that, an authority to which this section applies must, when making decisions of a strategic nature about how to exercise its functions, have due regard to the desirability of exercising them in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage. Under Section 1(3) this provision also applies to the police authority established in England. Further, Section 26 of the Equality Act, 2010 prohibits any person from harassing another through engaging in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and where such conduct has the purpose or effect of violating the other person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for another person. Alex can be said to have been harassed by P.C Blatter who by his conduct of trying to stop and search her especially in plain clothes failed to follow the provisions of the PACE Act and PACE CODE A in carrying out his duty. In the case of Jackson v Stevenson  2 Adam 255 the court stated that, with searches, the starting point is common law, under which it is contrary to constitutional principle and illegal to search someone to establish whether there are grounds for an arrest.
Grounds for the Arrest
Section 24(1) – (2) PACE dictates that there must be reasonable grounds that an indictable offense has been committed for the arrest to be carried out without a warrant. The court in Castorina v CC of Surrey ruled that any constable carrying out an arrest must have reasonable suspicion or a warrant. P.C Blatter arrested Alex without a warrant or without having reason to believe an indictable offense has been committed.
The necessity for the arrest
Section 24(4) PACE requires that at least one of the reasons under Section 24(5) of PACE is met. This Section is guided by Code G which says in Paragraph 2.4 that the constable at his discretion can apply one of the criteria under Section 24(5) if any. Some of the criteria mentioned under section 24(5) are; causing physical harm to oneself or another, causing loss of or property damage, causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway.
P.C Blatter did not have any reason to believe any criteria under section 24(5) were met. Paragraph 2.5 further states that “at least one of the criteria must be satisfied”. Alex did not meet any of the criteria listed under Section 24(5) therefore there is no power of arrest.
In the case of Fox v. United Kingdom (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 157, the court held that the reasonableness of the suspicion on which an arrest must be based forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention which is laid down in law. The court agrees with the Commission and the Government that having a ‘reasonable suspicion’ presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offense.
Section 28 PACE deems arrest unlawful if; the person arrested is not told that they are under arrest (Section 28(1)) or the grounds on which they are being arrested (Section 28(3)). Alex was not informed that she was being arrested she was likewise, not informed of the grounds on which the arrest was made. Paragraph 3.5 of Code G provides the caution to be stated during the arrest. P.C Blatter did not read this caution to Alex during her arrest. Paragraph 3.6 further states that the exact words of the caution are not necessary as long as sense is preserved. P.C Blatter failed to use proper caution but rather told Alex “That seals it. You are nicked”. This fails the Wednesbury principle which was et in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223A where the court held, that reasoning or decision is unreasonable (or irrational) if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it. In this instance, it is indeed unreasonable that police could conduct him or herself in the way that P.C Blatter did.
Grounds for Arrest
S24(1) and (2) PACE allow non-police officers to make arrests only if the offense is indictable or they have grounds to believe an indictable offense has been committed.
Neville suspected Alex of theft which falls under loss of property under S24(4) PACE.
Necessity of Arrest
The arrest must be carried out of necessity according to S24A(3)(a) PACE and can only be exercised if it is not reasonably practicable for the office to make the arrest S24A(3)(b) PACE.
Under Section 24 A (1) a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant where one suspects or has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed an indictable offense. Neville although misguided by the shouts of P.C Blatter, he in that instance, had to arrest as Alex was running away from P.C Blatter which made it look like she had done something. In this case, P.C Blatter was the one in the wrong as Neville acted like a good citizen carrying out his duty as so.
Procedural requirements for citizen’s
Fox v. the United Kingdom (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 157, arrest Under section 28 (1) The person being arrested must be informed that they are being arrested. Section 28(3) states that the grounds for arrest must be stated during or after the arrest. 
Neville did not inform Alex that she was being arrested nor did he state the grounds on which he is making the arrest.
Section 117 of PACE allows the constable to use reasonable force when exercising power without consent. Neville did not use unreasonable force tripping Alex and causing her to fall.
Consequences of Breach
A breach of the PACE act will render the arrest unlawful and can result in legal action against the police. A breach of code will not result in legal proceedings however they are admissible as evidence in civil and criminal proceedings. With the aforementioned in consideration the following PACE acts were breached;
S1(1) and S1(4) Stopping Alex in her yard. S1(3) stopping Alex without reasonable suspicion.
As Lord Reed explained in R (T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police  UKSC, it is well-established that failure to comply with the published policy will render the exercise of compulsory powers which interfere with individual freedom unlawful.
Human Rights Infringement:
Article 5 (1)(c) of the Human Rights Act, 1998 provides that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty unless the lawful arrest or detention of the person is effected to bring him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offense or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offense or fleeing after having done so. In this case, P.C Blatter’s arrest of Alex was unlawful which meant infringement of her right to liberty and security of person.
Additionally, P.C Blatter’s conduct is contrary to the provisions of Section 6 (1)(2) of the Human Rights Act,1998 which stipulates that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a convention right. Moreover, Article 5 (2) of the Human Rights Act, 1998 provides that everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and any charge against him. It is also prudent to note that Section 11 (b) of Human Rights provides that a person’s reliance on a Convention right does not restrict his right to make any claim or bring any proceedings which he could make or bring. Alex has therefore a right to institute proceedings against the unlawful arrest and search by P.C Blatter.
Thus, the court in H v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Liberty and another intervening)  EWCA Civ 69;  1 WLR 3021) held that in the event of a breach of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act that the victim of the unlawful act is entitled to seek a judicial remedy under section 8, which might in an appropriate case include an award of damages. 
Indeed, Police Officers must have the power to stop, search and arrest as this would enable deterrence of crime. However, left unchecked, this authority can be misused as in the case of Alex and P.C Blatter. To borrow from the case of, R (on the application of Roberts) (Appellant) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another (Respondents) UKSC 2014/0138, it cannot be too often stressed that, whatever the scope of the power in question, it must be operated lawfully. It is not enough simply to look at the content of the power. It has to be read in conjunction with section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, which makes it unlawful for a police officer to act in a manner that is incompatible with the Convention rights of any individual. It is said that, without the need to have reasonable grounds for suspecting the person or vehicle stopped to be carrying a weapon, it is hard to judge the proportionality of the stop. However, that is to leave out of account all the other features, contained in a mixture of the Act itself, PACE, and the Force Standard Operating Procedures, which guard against the risk that the officer will not have good reasons for the decision. The result of breaching these will in many cases be to render the stop and search itself unlawful and to expose the officers concerned to disciplinary action.
 Osman v Southwark Crown Court  163 JP 725
 Jackson v Stevenson  2 Adam 255
 Castorina v. Chief Constable of Surrey, The Times, , (unreported), Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No. 499 of 1988.
 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation, , 1 KB 223A
 Fox v. the United Kingdom, , 13 E.H.R.R. 157
 R (T) v Greater Manchester Chief Constable (CA), , EWCA Civ 25.
 H v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Liberty and another intervening)  EWCA Civ 69;  1 WLR 3021)
 R (on the application of Roberts) (Appellant) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another (Respondents) UKSC 2014/0138, , UKSC 79.