What is a recordable offence and can you refuse to give your DNA and fingerprints to the police? What is the essence of a recordable offence and what happens if you decline consent to give your DNA and fingerprints in the station? What provisions define the notion of a recordable offence? What are the implications of something being a recordable offence versus not being one and what is the purpose of certain offences being deemed recordable ones?
What provisions define the notion of a recordable offence? A Recordable Offence is one that falls within the scope of the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000 (as amended 2003 to 2016) that: provide for the recording in national police records of convictions, cautions, reprimands, and warnings for the offences specified in the Schedule and for any offence which is punishable with imprisonment in the case of an adult. [note, the schedule is far too long to repoduce here] Or, in other words, one where... ...the police are required to keep a record. Generally speaking, these are crimes for which an individual could be sentenced to a term of imprisonment or they have otherwise been made recordable by statute. The term also includes a number of non-imprisonable offences for example begging and illegal taxi touting. The police are not able to take or retain the biometric information of an individual who is arrested for an offence which is not recordable. [Source: ACRO Criminal Records Office] What are the implications of something being a recordable offence versus not being one and what is the purpose of certain offences being deemed recordable ones? The police can take fingerprints and non-intimate DNA samples (say from plucked head hair or a mouth swab) from someone arrested for a recordable offence without their consent, as per section 61 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for fingerprints: (3) The fingerprints of a person detained at a police station may be taken without the appropriate consent if— (a) he is detained in consequence of his arrest for a recordable offence; and (b) he has not had his fingerprints taken in the course of the investigation of the offence by the police. And section 63 for DNA samples: (2A) A non-intimate sample may be taken from a person without the appropriate consent if two conditions are satisfied. (2B) The first is that the person is in police detention in consequence of his arrest for a recordable offence. (2C) The second is that— (a) he has not had a non-intimate sample of the same type and from the same part of the body taken in the course of the investigation of the offence by the police, or (b) he has had such a sample taken but it proved insufficient. section 65(1) provides these definitions: [...] &quot;fingerprints”, in relation to any person, means a record (in any form and produced by any method) of the skin pattern and other physical characteristics or features of— (a) any of that person’s fingers; or (b) either of his palms; “intimate sample” means— (a) a sample of blood, semen or any other tissue fluid, urine or pubic hair; (b) a dental impression; (c) a swab taken from any part of a person's genitals (including pubic hair) or from a person's body orifice other than the mouth; [...] “non-intimate sample” means— (a) a sample of hair other than pubic hair; (b) a sample taken from a nail or from under a nail; (c) a swab taken from any part of a person's body other than a part from which a swab taken would be an intimate sample; (d) saliva; (e) a skin impression; [...] What happens if you decline consent to give your DNA and fingerprints in the station? If one is at the station under arrest for a recordable offence, then section 117 allows a constable to use reasonable force if the suspect refuses to co-operate: Where any provision of this Act— (a) confers a power on a constable; and *(b) does not provide that the power may only be exercised with the consent of some person, other than a police officer, the officer may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power.
Because you are on their premises and they get to decide what people can or can't do while on their property. This has nothing to do with if recording is legal or not, it has to do with basic property rights and trespass. Let's assume that recording is perfectly legal: so is eating ice cream. However, if its my shop, I can require that you do not make recordings just as I can require that you do not eat ice cream. If I make this requirement known you have three options: you can comply, you can leave or you can stay and do the thing I have prohibited. The first two are legal, the last one isn't; its trespass which is both a tort for which I can sue you and a crime for which you can be arrested and prosecuted.
england-and-wales The length of time a suspect is held in police custody before being released is unrelated to the police's power (and duty) to sieze potential evidence for further examination or to require e.g. the surrender of a passport as a condition of pre-charge bail (along with the requirement not to apply for international travel documents or tickets etc). If the suspect is assessed to be a flight risk, under section 50A(2)(a) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) they can retain a passport if they see... the need to secure that the person surrenders to custody The retention of property, such as a phone, is allowed under section 22 PACE: (1) Subject to subsection (4) below, anything which has been seized by a constable or taken away by a constable following a requirement made by virtue of section 19 or 20 above may be retained so long as is necessary in all the circumstances. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above— (a) anything seized for the purposes of a criminal investigation may be retained, except as provided by subsection (4) below— (i) for use as evidence at a trial for an offence; or (ii) for forensic examination or for investigation in connection with an offence; and (b) anything may be retained in order to establish its lawful owner, where there are reasonable grounds for believing that it has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence. (3) [...] (4) Nothing may be retained for either of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above if a photograph or copy would be sufficient for that purpose. [...]
Yes, a person can be charged with the murder of person or persons unknown The reason that police are really keen to identify the victim include (in no particular order): It will probably clear up a missing persons case; So they can inform the next-of-kin; Being able to place a named person who loved and was loved before a jury rather than nameless corpse increases the chance of conviction - all else being equal.
I'm no expert, but I had assumed this clause was present in case of the following situation. Joe is arrested for a robbery of a London bank. Joe says nothing under questioning. At trial, Joe's defense is that at the time of the robbery, he was in Sheffield drinking beer with his brother. On the basis of common sense, a jury could think: "Surely if Joe were really innocent, he would have told the police of his alibi at the time he was questioned, and saved himself a lot of trouble. Since he didn't do that, maybe a more likely explanation is that he wasn't actually in Sheffield, but that sometime between arrest and trial, he came up with the idea of faking an alibi in Sheffield, and convinced people to testify falsely to that effect. Yes, that does seem more plausible. So we are not going to give much credence to Joe's supposed alibi." So it really would be the case that not mentioning the alibi during questioning would harm Joe's defense at trial. The warning, then, is intended to keep Joe from doing this inadvertently. If Joe's alibi is genuine, but out of a misguided desire to exercise his right to remain silent, he doesn't mention it during questioning, he may accidentally increase his chances of being wrongly convicted. Everybody has an interest in avoiding this.
Criminal charges are filed and prosecuted by the government, on behalf of the public, and there is no requirement for approval or cooperation by the victim. As a policy matter, a DA may decide to not charge a person in case the victim is unwilling (though less so in cases of domestic violence), perhaps because of the widespread impression that the victim has to "press charges" (which indeed they would have to do in the case of private prosecution, which is no longer allowed in the US). The alleged victim's reddit exchanges on the topic are here. An uncooperative victim does not make a good witness, even if they are compelled to testify. The police statement that they cannot pursue an investigation should not be interpreted as a statement of law, it's probably a statement of policy and practicality.
Generally, no Police cannot enter private property subject to a number of exemptions: they have a search warrant, or when in close pursuit of someone the police believe has committed, or attempted to commit, a serious crime, or to sort out a disturbance, or if they hear cries for help or of distress, or to enforce an arrest warrant, or if invited in freely by the occupant, or under various statutes which give the police powers of entry (not necessarily by force) into a number of different kinds of premises.
The legal question here is whether police have an enforceable power to enjoin a person from visiting a particular person or from entering a particular jurisdiction (especially the one where they have police powers). The obligation to obey police orders generally ends at matters regarding arrest, traffic orders, or crowd control. Freedom of travel is a fundamental constitutional right, along with freedom of association. That does not mean that you can go absolutely anywhere you want and do anything you want with whoever you want, but it does mean that any restriction have to be encoded in law, and such laws have to pass strict scrutiny. Any enforceable legal restrictions would have to emanate from the courts.