Stop and search is one of the most scrutinised and consequential powers available to a frontline police officer. Used lawfully and professionally, it is an effective tool for reducing knife crime, recovering stolen property, and disrupting drug supply. Used carelessly, it exposes individual officers to misconduct proceedings, forces to public criticism, and — more fundamentally — undermines the trust that makes effective community policing possible. This guide covers the law, best practice, disproportionality, and the most common mistakes officers make.
The Legal Framework
The primary power used by frontline officers is Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). This allows a constable in a public place to search a person or vehicle if there are reasonable grounds to suspect they will find stolen or prohibited articles — including offensive weapons, articles for use in connection with burglary, theft or criminal damage, and fireworks in certain circumstances.
Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is a different and broader power, requiring authorisation by an inspector or above for a specified area and time period. Crucially, s.60 does not require individual suspicion — officers can search anyone in the authorised area. This is a significant power that attracts particular scrutiny when used. It must be authorised at the appropriate level and only when genuinely necessary.
Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 permits search for controlled drugs where reasonable grounds to suspect possession exist. Section 47A of the Firearms Act 1968 covers searches for prohibited firearms.
Forming Grounds: What 'Reasonable Suspicion' Actually Means
Reasonable grounds to suspect is an objective test — not what you personally think, but what a reasonable officer in your position would think, based on specific, articulable facts. You must be able to explain your grounds clearly and specifically. The following are not sufficient on their own:
- Race, religion, appearance, or ethnic background - Previous criminal record without current specific intelligence - Being in a particular area - Looking nervous or running away
The following can contribute to reasonable grounds when combined with other factors:
- Specific intelligence (e.g., named individual suspected of carrying a weapon today) - Witnessed behaviour (e.g., saw item consistent with a weapon tucked into waistband) - Recent offending pattern intelligence for a specific individual in a specific area - Witness information that the person had a weapon a short time ago
Grounds must exist before the search begins. You cannot search to find grounds — that is unlawful.
GOWISELY
Every stop and search under s.1 PACE must comply with Code A of the PACE Codes of Practice. The mnemonic GOWISELY helps officers remember what they must communicate to the person being searched:
- G — Grounds: explain why you are searching them (specifically — not just "I think you're carrying something") - O — Object: what you are looking for - W — Warrant card: show your card if not in uniform - I — Identity: state your name and shoulder number - S — Station: state which police station you are based at - E — Entitlement: inform them they are entitled to a copy of the search record - L — Legal power: state which power you are exercising (e.g., "Section 1 of PACE") - Y — You are detained: confirm that they are being detained for the search
Failure to comply with GOWISELY does not automatically make the search unlawful, but non-compliance is a Code A breach that will be highlighted in any complaint or proceedings. Get into the habit of verbalising every element for every search.
Body-Worn Video
BWV should be activated before the search begins. Current NPCC guidelines and most force policies require BWV to be active throughout the encounter. The benefits are significant: it provides a contemporaneous record that protects the officer against false complaints, ensures the GOWISELY elements are verifiable, and creates accountability. Common errors include activating BWV after grounds have been communicated (missing the critical element) or forgetting to activate it at all on a busy night. Make it a habit: the moment you approach someone with the intention of searching them, activate your camera and keep it on.
Recording
Every s.1 search must be recorded — either electronically or on a paper form, depending on your force. The record must include: the person's self-defined ethnicity, date, time and location, the legal power used, the grounds for the search, the outcome, and the officer's details. If the person refuses to give their name, record that refusal. The person is entitled to a copy of the search record.
Accurate recording is not bureaucracy for its own sake — it is the evidential record of a lawful exercise of power. Poor or incomplete records make officers vulnerable in complaints and contribute to force-level disproportionality statistics that may be inaccurate if searches go unrecorded.
Disproportionality
The disproportionality debate is real and requires honest engagement. National data consistently shows that Black people are searched at a significantly higher rate per head of population than White people. Forces are required to publish this data and to have local oversight through their Police and Crime Commissioner and community scrutiny panels.
Disproportionality does not automatically mean discrimination. Searches should be targeted at individuals and locations based on crime data and intelligence, which may be unevenly distributed geographically in ways that produce apparent disproportionality when viewed at force level. However, stop and search based on appearance, bias, or stereotyping rather than specific articulable grounds is both unlawful and corrosive of community relations.
The practical message for officers is this: if you cannot articulate your grounds in specific, objective terms, do not conduct the search. Community trust is built or destroyed one encounter at a time, and a search that lacks proper grounds damages every officer in the force, not just the one who conducted it.
Recent Case Law
In Roberts v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2012] EWCA Civ 799, the Court of Appeal confirmed that s.60 CJPOA searches were compatible with Article 5 ECHR (right to liberty) because the deprivation of liberty was brief and had specific legal authority. However, the court noted that Article 8 concerns (right to private life) remain live in the context of personal searches.
More recently, challenge to disproportionate use of stop and search powers has focused on the Equality Act 2010. Forces that cannot demonstrate that their search activity is targeted on objective criteria rather than protected characteristics face judicial review exposure. Officers who understand this framework are better equipped to exercise the power in a manner that is both legally sound and professionally defensible.
Common Mistakes
Grounds formed after the search begins. Officers sometimes stop someone, speak to them briefly, and then claim the conversation generated reasonable grounds. Reasonable suspicion must precede the search — if you had nothing before the conversation, you cannot search based on the conversation alone unless the conversation itself produced specific new information (e.g., they told you they were carrying a knife).
Vague grounds. "He looked suspicious" or "He was hanging around" are not grounds. "Intel shows this individual is carrying a bladed article today" or "I saw a handle consistent with a knife in the right waistband area" are grounds. Be specific.
Not completing the search record at the time. Completing records at the end of shift from memory increases error and is a bad habit that creates risks. Record contemporaneously or as soon as practicable after the search.
Searching without activating BWV. There is no good excuse for this. If BWV was not active, expect the account of what was said to be challenged.
Using s.60 powers outside authorisation. Check that a s.60 is in force for your area before exercising it. Using s.60 powers without a valid authorisation makes the search unlawful.
Failing to inform the person of their entitlement to a copy of the search record. This is a specific GOWISELY requirement and a common omission that generates complaints.
Building the Habit
Stop and search, done well, is a professional skill — not simply a mechanical process. Officers who conduct it confidently, communicate clearly, treat the person with respect regardless of the outcome, and complete records accurately are the ones who generate the fewest complaints, build the most community trust, and avoid the professional consequences that flow from cutting corners. The law gives you the power; your professionalism determines whether it achieves anything useful.