Does a citizen have to open the door to UK police if they do not give a reason? I just watched a video of English police talking to a lady through her door. She refused to open up unless they told her why they were there. The police refused and told her to open up or they would force the door. She asked if they were going to arrest her and the police refused to answer that. Eventually she opened the door and they arrested her (I think they said for perverting the course of justice, but I can't be sure because it became a scuffle). Does she have to open the door without being told why? I've tried searching for the answer to this but so far I've only found what happens when a search warrant is issued, which seems separate to me, or when an arrest warrant is issued and it's outside a property or the police enter forcefully (as in a drugs bust) but I can't find what happens when this particular situation, a more run-of-the-mill situation. Edit: I can confirm that the police told her they had an arrest warrant. Still, this isn't about her per se but the general rule/right. According to this BBC interview with a police officer, On the street they would have to: explain to you what the grounds of that search is, what the object of the search is. They need to identify themselves. They also need to explain to you that you are being detained for the purposes of a search and your entitlement to have a copy of a search record. It appears that this lady would've had more explanation given to her on the street. This document by the government states: The police arrest procedure If you’re arrested the police must: identify themselves as the police tell you that you’re being arrested tell you what crime they think you’ve committed explain why it’s necessary to arrest you explain to you that you’re not free to leave This seems to assume you've already been arrested or are in the process of being arrested but does not state what should or can happen immediately prior to the arrest. This site says: Search without a warrant The police can enter a premises without a warrant to: tackle or stop a breach of the peace; enforce an arrest warrant; arrest someone in connection with certain serious offences; recapture someone who has escaped from custody; save life or prevent serious damage to property; search a premises where a suspect was during or immediately before their arrest. The search must relate to the offence (or a similar offence) for which the suspect was arrested and they must have reasonable grounds for believing evidence is there; None of these would seem to me to apply. I also can see that the officers wouldn't want to say they're arresting her in case she refuses to open up, but then they could force the door anyway, which brings me back to the question, why should they refuse to say? Any help or insight is much appreciated. Edit, Additional research: Section 28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), titled &quot; Information to be given on arrest&quot; only states what should happen during or after arrest, it does not mention anything about prior to arrest. I cannot find anything in the PACE act about producing a warrant prior to arrest. Part 17.1 states: a constable may enter and search any premises for the purpose… (a) of executing… a warrant (b) of arresting a person for an indictable offence Which suggests to me you can arrest without a warrant but that is for a breach of the peace and seem to imply some immediate need everywhere I look (I could be wrong). This interesting answer by a lawyer on a competitor Q&amp;A site (boo hiss) says a warrant is required but it's about search, not arrest. I did read earlier (but have somehow lost the link) that the police must produce the warrant if challenged and read it to you if asked but without the link I wouldn't trust my memory! Regardless, I still cannot find anything that deals with this situation where you can communicate with the police through a door.
This helpful video gives the answer, and it's no, you don't have to open your door unless they have a warrant. If you've committed an indictable offence (those considered most serious, such as murder, manslaughter, causing really serious harm (injury) and robbery) they have the power to enter without a warrant (see 17 b of the PACE Act). In the case I saw there was no indictable offence and so the lady didn't (shouldn't!) have opened her door. You can speak to them through a closed door or window and if they try to break in it is they that are breaking the law.
No An arrest is the act of detaining a person or property by legal authority or warrant and has been made when a police officer or another individual makes it clear to the person that they are no longer a free person. A person does not need to be physically touched to be placed under arrest as words alone are capable of bringing about an arrest if they establish that the person is no longer a free person. Now, if a LEO asks you to accompany them, then, so long as you have the choice not to, you are not under arrest.
There are two questions here: Is it really the police, or someone pretending to be the police in order to stage a home invasion? If it is the police they will be wearing uniforms and showing you their badges. I don't know how common it is for criminals to impersonate police officers. Do they have a valid search warrant? Once you have established that they really are police your best course is to stand back and let them in. Arguing about search warrants and &quot;fruit of the poisoned tree&quot; is a job for a lawyer later on. One option might be to quickly dial 911, put the phone down but still listening, and then open the door while saying &quot;are you police, can I see your badge?&quot;. If they are police then no problem. If they turn out to be imposters then the 911 dispatcher should be able to figure it out and send the real police around.
You know that a judicial proceeding has been filed against you when you are "served" with notice. In fact, legal proceedings cannot generally proceed without somebody swearing that you were served notice. If a criminal complaint is being pursued against you then you might also learn of this fact when an investigating law enforcement agent contacts you to question you or arrest you. "Filed a case" could mean all sorts of other things. For example, it could be that they filed a police report, or filed a complaint with some company or non-law-enforcement entity. It could be that they have in fact filed a claim in a court of law and whoever is serving process just hasn't been able to find you. In any of these events I don't know of any way that you could proactively determine that without knowing exactly where and how the "case" was "filed." Actually, if a criminal complaint was filed against you and approved then a court in another state could have issued a warrant for your arrest. Contact your local police and they should be able to do a nationwide search for open warrants on you. Police will not typically release information on "open investigations." So even if you knew the exact agency where it was filed they may not tell you anything. If they decided not to investigate it then you might have a right to request the complaint under open-records laws &ndash; that depends on the state and the agency.
No. Refusing to tell the address alone is not a reason to detain somebody. But there are situations where the authorities can demand that a person identifies himself or herself, including such details as the address (or lack of a permanent residency). In such a situation, failure to identify yourself can get you locked up. Also, the tone of your posting seems to question the legitimacy of the UK government and legal system as a whole. That is a box you're putting yourself into, and the company you find there is not very pleasant.
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. [...]
E can leave at any time E is not detained and there is no basis to detain her. As a child, that decision can be made by a parent. E can be subpoenaed to testify but she does not have to talk to law enforcement (and would be wise not to).
Yes. At international borders and international airports (because those are the equivalent of a border), US customs officers may do searches of people and belongings without a warrant and without any particular reason to think they'll find contraband. This includes the authority to do some level of disassembly of the car, if they then reassemble it. See United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149. This is known as the "border search exception." Moreover, police normally don't need warrants to search your car if it was mobile when they found it and if they have probable cause to believe they'll find contraband. This is known as the "automobile exception" or the "motor vehicle exception." It was established in Carroll v. US, 267 U.S. 132. Individual states may have stricter requirements on police searches, but the Fourth Amendment doesn't require police to get a warrant to search your car if, say, you drove it up to a checkpoint and they have probable cause. The difference at a border is that they don't need probable cause and the car never had to be mobile: they can search you on a hunch.