3.1 Drugs Flashcards
What is is the procedure for unplanned entry into a clan lab?
In an unplanned entry situation Police should:
1· Immediately remove persons of interest from the premises;
2· Isolate the site and maintain a safety perimeter;
3· Preserve the crime scene;
4· Notify their duty Inspector or Duty NCO, contact the NCLRT and where appropriate the local fire service and ambulance;
4· Seek advice from a NCLRT member or the Fire Service about decontamination procedures;
5· Occupants of the address and staff who have entered the address are to remain separated until decontamination issues have been addressed;
6· Seek medical advice if you experience any adverse effects.
What must you never do when you discover a clan lab?
Touch, handle, move, disconnect, deactivate or operate anything.
What are the 3 grounds of belief when executing a Section 20 Warrantless search of a place or vehicle for drugs?
- To believe that it is not practicable to obtain a warrant and that listed drugs are in that place or vehicle.
- To suspect that in or on the place or vehicle a drugs offence has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed.
- to believe that, if the entry and search is not carried out immediately, evidential material relating to the suspected offence will be destroyed, concealed, altered, or damaged.
Do I need another search power to search people found in my Section 20 warrantless search?
No, Section 21 states that A constable conducting a search of a place or vehicle under section 20 may, without a warrant, search any person found in or on the place or vehicle.
What is Section 22 - Warrantless power to search for controlled drugs and precursor substances if offence suspected about?
Section 22 allows me to search a person if I have reasonable grounds to believe they are in possession of a listed drug and that an offence has been, is being committed, or is about to be committed in respect to the listed drug.
What is the main difference between Section 22 and section 20?
Section 20 does not authorise a constable to enter or search a place or vehicle except in accordance with section 20 and 21.
Who can approve searches?
Unless impracticable in the circumstances, obtain approval from a sergeant or above before exercising this warrantless search power.
What is an internal search?
1· An X-ray machine or other similar device, or
2· A manual or visual examination (whether or not facilitated by any instrument or device) through any body orifice. (s23)
What is not an internal search?
A constable, authorised officer or searcher may conduct a visual examination (whether or not facilitated by any instrument or device designed to illuminate or magnify) of the mouth, nose, and ears, but must not insert any instrument, device, or thing into any of those orifices.
A visual examination in these circumstances is not an “internal search” and is permitted as part of a rub-down search. (s87)
In Hill v Attorney what are the two steps spoken about for believing on reasonable grounds that a controlled drug isin a house or vehicle?
- There must be reasonable grounds for believing there is a controlled drug in the house or vehicle and that an offence is being comitted.
- There are reasonable grounds for believing the drug is one of those specified. You must turn your mind to and know what drug you are looking for.
In Collins v Police, the officers observations of demeanour, appearance and “reasonable
grounds to believe” were questioned. What was the finding?
Evidence of demeanour and
appearance ALONE is unlikely to justify a search under the Search and Surveillance
Act provisions.
In RvT relating to an internal search where something was concealed in her mouth and she was placed face down on a bed, what was the finding?
It was ruled that it had not been an internal search.
The prohibition in the section is of a manual or visual examination of the interior of the mouth and does not prohibit the viewing of what can be seen by normal observation of the face, and when the mouth is open for speech.
Although the police had restrained the appellant (to prevent her swallowing) their conduct had not amounted to an internal examination.
In R v Roulston relates to an internal search where the appellant was strip-searched and placed a small package from his underwear into his mouth. What was the finding in this case?
An internal search was not completed as neither of the constables put their fingers or any instrument into the appellant’s mouth.
One of the officers’ concerns was fear for the appellant’s safety should he be permitted to swallow the package. In seeking to prevent him doing so they used no more force than reasonably necessary.
This course is even more acceptable if the suspect has, by placing the drug in the mouth, placed their health or life at risk.
