Police told: Don’t search suspects just because they smell of cannabis
POLICE reacted with anger last night after being told to stop searching people because they smell of cannabis.
Their watchdog said beat officers need more evidence someone may have committed a crime before carrying out a stop and search.
The diktat was met with incredulity from officers of all ranks, with some saying they would ‘always’ search someone who stank of the drug.
There is a suspicion the move is fuelled by police chiefs desperate to end the disproportionate use of stop and search.
The latest figures show black people are eight times more likely to be stopped than their white equivalents. At the same time, they are less likely to have drugs found on them than white suspects. The instruction will
‘Bit of a dog’s dinner’
also be seen as the latest step towards decriminalising cannabis, a drug many leading officers privately admit is at the bottom of their ‘to-do list’.
The controversial but little noticed guidance was reiterated yesterday in a report by the Inspectorate of Constabulary.
It highlighted how the College of Policing quietly declared last year that the smell of cannabis is not normally enough to justify searching a person or their vehicle. Instead, officers should always look at other factors, such as behaviour, before deciding if there are ‘ reasonable grounds’ for a search, it said.
But many officers of all ranks disagreed. Merseyside Chief Constable Andy Cooke said he would not be giving the advice to his teams. He wrote on Twitter: ‘The guidance in my view is wrong and the law does not preclude it.
‘Smell of cannabis is sufficient to stop- search and I will continue to encourage my officers to use it, particularly on those criminals who are engaged in serious and organised crime.’
Another officer, Matt Locke of Northumbria Police, called the guidance ‘inconsistent’ and a ‘bit of a dog’s dinner’.
An officer in North Yorkshire Police tweeted: ‘If I smell cannabis on someone or coming from a vehicle then I’ll conduct a search. I don’t think there’s a cop in this land that wouldn’t.’
Police can use stop and search powers if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect someone is carrying items such as drugs, weapons or stolen property.
But the power has become a political football. As home secretary, Theresa May called for police to drastically cut its use.
With violent crime rising, however, Scotland Yard Commissioner Cressida Dick has signalled that she will always support officers who use it when necessary.
The Inspectorate of Constabulary analysed more than 8,500 stop and search records and found almost 600 were conducted solely because police could smell cannabis. Its researchers claimed searches based on other grounds, such as the suspect’s behaviour, result in more arrests.
The report also said police carried out 3,698 searches, 43 per cent of the total sampled, because officers believed a suspect had drugs on them for their own use, even though drug possession offences may not be ‘pri- ority crimes’. The comments suggest the watchdog believes searches for drugs possession may not be the most effective use of police time.
Mike Cunningham, who was behind the report, responded to questions on social media by saying cannabis ‘can be reasonable grounds’.
But the former chief constable, who is about to take over at the College of Policing, added that it will be ‘for the officer to explain’.
He said the advice ‘encourages multiple grounds’ to merit a stop and search.
The National Police Chiefs Council said it was looking at why young black men were disproportionately stopped.
It said stop and search powers were important ‘ with rising knife and gun crime’, and were a deterrent for those considering carrying out acid attacks.
‘The guidance is wrong’