Don’t stop and search just for cannabis smell
Police should not routinely stop and search someone simply because they smell cannabis, says new guidance. While being caught in possession of the drug can result in a prison sentence, police are being advised to walk away even if they suspect someone may have used the substance.
POLICE officers should not routinely stop and search someone simply because they smell cannabis, according to official guidance.
While being caught in possession of the Class B drug can result in a fiveyear prison sentence, police are being advised to walk away even if they strongly suspect someone may have been using the substance. The guidance was issued by the College of Policing, which helps formulate the training for all police officers in England and Wales.
But last night, one of the country’s most senior policemen said he would still encourage his officers to carry out stop and search on cannabis suspects.
Chief Constable Andy Cooke, of Merseyside Police, 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 criminals who are engaged in serious and organised crime.”
The guidance appeared in an official College of Policing document, which recommends that, instead of relying on smell alone, an officer should look for other factors to ensure a stop and search is justifiable. It states: “Other factors could include the person’s behaviour or demeanour, a current drugs marker on the vehicle, specific intelligence about the person or the presence of drugs paraphernalia.
“Officers should consider and record all of the information available to them, including their own observations of suspicious behaviour, not just the smell of what they believe to be cannabis.”
Despite the obvious dangers of drug driving, officers are also warned that smelling cannabis in a car is not necessarily justification for searching a vehicle or its occupants. The guidance also suggests that when using sniffer dogs, a positive reaction by the animal should be treated in the same way as if an officer smells drugs, and therefore should not necessarily be acted upon.
The document states that if officers feel under pressure to respond to public concerns about groups or individuals smelling of cannabis, a stern warning might be better than carrying out a stop and search.
David Raynes, of the National Drug Prevention Alliance, said: “This guidance is clearly wrong in law and it is plainly wrong in terms of common sense.” A spokesman for the College of Policing said while officers and staff were expected to consider the guidance, it was “perfectly legitimate” to deviate from it when there was a clear rationale for doing so.