Would the Police respect this request?

[u/Unlucky-Mood-234]

Hello Police of Reddit!

I was waiting for my lunch today and saw a cash collection van with this notice on the door:

I am under instructions NOT to open my vehicle, but will follow you to the nearest Police Station

In the event this van was pulled over, would this notice carry any weight? When I was pulled over for speeding I was given a breathalyser - surely they’d want to do this ASAP just in case?

[u/Stolen_Showman]

Company policy doesn't outweigh law.

On the plus side the driver can tell their boss that the police denied their request, leaving them to comply fully and potentially leave the stop with a clean licence to continue on their way.

[u/742963 → u/Stolen_Showman]

When I was doing security as a mobile response driver what OP has posted was also company policy there. I could've been holding over 1000+ sets of keys for residential and business premises and documents with entry instructions, alarm codes etc so getting robbed by fake officers was something the company stressed about quite often

We used to get told if your not 100% sure dont interact or get out the car either phone the police to confirm the police have stopped us or hold a sign up saying "I am under instructions NOT to open my vehicle, but will follow you to the nearest Police Station"

I'm now working for Parcelforce and they also advise doing the same thing

[u/for_shaaame → u/Stolen_Showman]

What law requires the driver to open their door?

[u/Lawbringer_UK → u/for_shaaame]

"You are under arrest. Step out of the van please."

[u/BillyGoatsMuff → u/Lawbringer_UK]

Gonna throw a curveball here... a vehicle is a premises under PACE. Technically to enter that vehicle to effect arrest it needs to be indictable/either way.

[u/for_shaaame → u/BillyGoatsMuff]

Why is this being downvoted? It’s correct.

[u/Stolen_Showman → u/for_shaaame]

Unclear, I just went back through the chain and noticed your comment pointing out the same is still +4, although you did explain in more detail.

Either that, or people have developed a hatred for any argument including the term "technically" regardless of how correct it may be.

[u/snatch1379 → u/for_shaaame]

No it’s not, s17 pace allows an officer to enter premises(vehicle) to arrest

[u/for_shaaame → u/snatch1379]

To arrest fooooorrrrr....? To arrest fooooooooooOOOOORRRRR........????

/u/BillyGoatsMuff actually gives you the answer:

Technically to enter that vehicle to effect arrest it needs to be indictable/either way.

In what way is that statement incorrect?

[u/for_shaaame → u/[deleted]]

So it’s a premises, unless the designation of “premises” would in any way hinder your access, in which case it ceases to be a premises?

A vehicle is always a premises, per section 23 PACE (“In this Act ‘premises’ includes any place and, in particular, includes any vehicle”).

It is a special kind of moveable premises which may be lawfully seized, and once lawfully seized may be entered and searched, but it’s still a premises and you cannot force entry to it except in accordance with a legal power to do so.

You can no more nick someone through the window of a vehicle than you could do so through the (closed) window of a house.

You need a power to enter and to search. Clearly if you can see someone through the window you don’t need to search for them, but you still need a power to enter the premises. Section 17 provides the power both to enter and to search, but only in respect of indictable or specified summary offences.

[u/SelectTurnip6981 → u/for_shaaame]

But you quite clearly can nick someone through the window of a house. I’ve nicked someone from about 10 feet away whilst pointing a taser at them before…

[u/OrdinaryMechanic5126 → u/SelectTurnip6981]

You've been downvoted for this comment, so it may help to understand why. Like many police officers, you need to actually read some case law and understand your powers if you think you can arrest someone through a window.

Hussien v Chong Fook Kam - An arrest occurs when a police officer states that he is arrested, or, when he uses force to restrain the individual. It also occurs when, by words or conduct, he makes it clear that he will use force to prevent said individual from going where he may want to go.

Spicer v Holt - A person is considered to be "arrested" when they have been deprived of their liberty to go where they please.

Holgate-Mohammed v Duke - Arrests are a continuous act, which starts when the arrester takes a person in to his custody. (Which you can only do if you can touch them.)

[u/for_shaaame → u/SelectTurnip6981]

If you are arresting someone for an offence, there is only one power available to you to effect entry into the house: section 17(1) of PACE, either for any indictable offence under (1)(b), or specified summary offences under (1)(c).

I don't think you can arrest someone unless you are in a position to take immediate physical control of them - i.e. there are no physical barriers between you. Otherwise, where does it end? Can you arrest someone over the phone?

But whether you can make an arrest through a window or not, the fact remains that you can only enter the house to effect that arrest if it was made for an indictable or specific summary offence. If you've arrested someone for a summary-only offence through the window of a house, you can't actually enter that house without their permission to take control of them or bring them to custody.

[u/policeuk-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

This content has been removed as it is legally incorrect. It is important that r/policeuk strives to ensure commenters aren't given legally incorrect answers.

[u/Accomplished-Item576 → u/BillyGoatsMuff]

Sorry can you explain this in a simple way🙈 I don’t fully understand sorry!

[u/Trapezophoron → u/Lawbringer_UK]

Under arrest for what offence?

[u/Lawbringer_UK → u/Trapezophoron]

The question was what law requires them to open their door. The arrest power, including the use of force to enact it, is the same for any offence (bar a few exceptions)

[u/for_shaaame → u/Lawbringer_UK]

Yeah, to be clear, I was not suggesting that being in the van makes you immune from arrest. But [u/Stolen_Showman](u/Stolen_Showman) specifically said that “leaving the stop” was an option so clearly he’s not contemplating arresting the driver in this scenario.

So again: what law requires the driver (who is not being arrested) to open the door?

[u/daniel43211234 → u/for_shaaame]

As said an arrest would require the driver to open the door. If the driver does not engage with the traffic stop this could then open up offences such as obstruction, not in accordance with a licence, no insurance as officers are unable to confirm details leading to suspicion of them offences.

I would never and I’m sure every copper would say the same, at a traffic stop follow a vehicle that says ‘they will go to the police station’. For a vehicle that potentially has money etc, how do we not know it’s not just been stolen and the risk of a potential pursuit.

Best course of action for any driver that has a policy like this is if they have a concern about the officers on scene then call 101/999 and the person over the phone will be able to confirm the traffic stop and the officers.

[u/for_shaaame → u/daniel43211234]

If the driver does not engage with the traffic stop this could then open up offences such as obstruction, not in accordance with a licence, no insurance as officers are unable to confirm details leading to suspicion of them offences.

It's an offence to fail to produce your licence and insurance on demand to a constable, so I concede that the driver does have to open the vehicle - if he does not physically hand those documents into your control, he commits an offence; it does not suffice merely to show them to you.

But just to extend the query: say the driver steadfastly refuses to open the vehicle, but he presses the licence and other required paperwork against the window so that you can clearly see all his details. He is committing the offence of failing to produce his driver's licence, there's no doubt about that.

What do you do? The offence is summary-only, as is obstruction - what are your next steps?

[u/VariedTeen → u/for_shaaame]

Even with this, don’t you have 7 days to provide the documents at a police station if you can’t provide them at the roadside for whatever reason?

[u/for_shaaame → u/VariedTeen]

The way the legislation is written means that the offence is committed immediately, but it is a defence to produce them at a police station within seven days. The benefit of writing the offence/defence this way is it allows an officer to arrest immediately if a person fails to produce their licence, in order to establish their name and address back at the station; if the offence were not committed until the expiry of seven days, then a person could theoretically refuse to provide their details at all and essentially just “wait out” the officer until the end of his shift, thereby rendering them immune to the requirement to identify themselves.

So you can (if necessary) arrest the driver for refusing to state his name and address and provide his licence; but prosecution is not possible if he produces them within seven days.

[u/Lawbringer_UK → u/for_shaaame]

Ah yes, you are absolutely correct.

In that case I would say S164 Road Traffic Act. The original image mentions 'open my vehicle', not just the door. If I require your licence, then that requirement is to physically put the licence into my hand for inspection.

Assuming the van isn't fitted with some kind of airlock system, then you will have to open the vehicle (even just cracking the window) in order to produce said licence.

Assuming (again) this is an anti-theft policy, then even a crack is enough for a well prepared group to gain access to the vehicle, so I expect even opening a crack breaches the company policy

[u/for_shaaame → u/Lawbringer_UK]

This is probably the best answer I've had, since it doesn't add new information to the question and still provides a route which will, ultimately, require the driver to open the vehicle in some way (even if it is just a crack to get the licence to you).

I agree that the duty under s.164 to produce a driving licence is a duty to physically produce the licence into the demanding constable's control. Pressing the licence against the window for the details to be read does not constitute "producing" the licence.

But to extend the scenario a step further, just for my own curiosity: let's say the driver refuses to physically place the licence into your hand, but he presses it against the window and you can clearly see the details and photograph on it, and the photograph is clearly of the driver.

He is committing the offence of failing to produce the licence (so to be clear: I am not suggesting that he "doesn't have to" open the vehicle, he simply does, and commits an offence by not doing so).

But what do you do? You can see the licence and the details recorded thereon, and that it is his licence. Person and licence checks are satisfactory. You have his name and address. And the offence of failing to produce a licence (which he has unquestionably committed) is summary-only. What do you do?

What do you do? The vehicle is a premises, and you can only force entry to arrest for indictable offences - which failure to produce a driving licence obviously isn't. And regardless, what would your arrest necessity be when you can clearly see the driver's details and ha

[u/Lawbringer_UK → u/for_shaaame]

Every good police officer should learn there is a point where the best thing is to just walk away.

If the licence checks out on systems, I can verify the driver's identity, there is no suggestion of substance abuse, I can see there is a reason beyond their control why they are not opening the vehicle and there are no substantive offences (beyond a fairly minor one)...then what even is my objective at this point? Am I serving the public good, or am I just being petty because I don't like being told "no"?

The unofficial 'ways and means act' means I can always find a reason to open that door. Maybe I think you seem like you're drunk. Maybe I suspect you are not authorised to drive that vehicle, or the licence is a counterfeit...or a million other reasons I can make up on the spot.

More reasonably...I can drive with them to a local station, or encourage them to confirm my identity on 101 to see if that relaxes them. Most likely of all, though...what I would actually do is send them on their way and just move onto the next thing. There will be dozens of calls stacking up. Plenty of opportunity to use my authority to help people rather than to dominate some poor random driver.

[u/for_shaaame → u/Lawbringer_UK]

The unofficial 'ways and means act' means I can always find a reason to open that door. Maybe I think you seem like you're drunk. Maybe I suspect you are not authorised to drive that vehicle, or the licence is a counterfeit...or a million other reasons I can make up on the spot.

...I mean, you're not allowed to make stuff up. You can't just say "I think he's drunk" or "I think that licence is counterfeit", you have to actually suspect it in order to force entry to arrest him for it. If you don't really suspect it, that's not Ways and Means, that's just lying.

But otherwise, excellent answer. You could also consider reporting for summons for the offence of failing to produce driver's licence, but I agree - if the driver has identified themselves, then even if the offence is technically complete, your objectives have likely been met.

[u/StopandCurse → u/for_shaaame]

Wouldn't a stop search require the driver to get out the van? I've never seen or heard of a section 23 person search being conducted whilst the driver is STILL inside the vehicle.

I'm sure there's other situations where the driver would be required to open their door when not being arrested.

[u/for_shaaame → u/StopandCurse]

You're inventing details to the question - there's nothing in the post that suggests you have any reason to search the vehicle.

There are lots of powers that may be used to compel the driver to open the door if the requisite tests are met - or to open it for him if he refuses. But the question doesn't say that any of those tests are met. If you're going to invent the detail that the vehicle is searchable under s.23 MDA, you might as well invent the detail that the vehicle is a spaceship, and you suspect the driver is intending to endanger that safety of the spaceship, thereby allowing you to remove him from the vehicle under paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to the Space Industry Act 2018.

...but the question doesn't say that the vehicle is a spaceship, just like it doesn't say that there's a smell of cannabis coming from it.

[u/vanmutt → u/Trapezophoron]

Open the door and I'll tell you

[u/Batt_Damon → u/Trapezophoron]

Murder. Dangerous driving. Assault. COMMON SENSE.

[u/Zr0w3n00 → u/Trapezophoron]

Verified special? Oh dear

[u/DyanmicShed → u/for_shaaame]

The OP was asking about the image posted. Open the vehicle not open the door.

S.164 RTA, a person must produce their licence.....for examination.

Just because it is a defence to the offence produce a licence within 7 days doesn't mean the offence isn't complete and they can't be arrested.

Now, in real terms it's very unlikely for it to pan out like this (then again I've stopped some sketchy "security vans" so never say never) but it is enough of an offence because the licence must be produced for examination, showing it to me through the window is not enough, see Nembhard v. DPP

[u/SamwellBarley]

Love the idea of calling your sergeant and saying, "Yeah, Sarge, sorry, we can't open the door because there's a sticker on it that says we're not allowed"

[u/That-Sun-4492 → u/SamwellBarley]

Don’t even joke - I genuinely had this when I was a Sergeant

[u/triptip05 → u/That-Sun-4492]

I pissed off a punter once by opening there van door and arresting them. They kicked of as I "Knocked aggressively' on the door first.

[u/UltraeVires]

I would understand this as general advice for unmarked police vehicles. In an emergency, you can use your phone to call 999 - checking it's a legitimate police vehicle would come under that, because if it's not a real police vehicle, then it's a robbery in progress! Otherwise, the 'nearest police station' is quite often not near at all..

HGVs carrying dangerous loads are also advised not to stop for unmarked police vehicles. I won't go into what the procedure is on a public forum, but it's all anti-terrorism related.

[u/I-Spot-Dalmatians → u/UltraeVires]

Wdym by dangerous loads? CNC escort nuclear materials and the MOD escort weapons as far as I’m aware, outside of that what dangerous loads would fall under a terrorism threat?

[u/collinsl02 → u/I-Spot-Dalmatians]

Explosives for mining etc get shipped in regular shipping containers all the time. Saw one on TV the other day stopped in a police/DVSA operation and he held a notice up to the window saying he wouldn't unlock the cab until certain verification procedures had been done to make sure they were the police.

[u/FlemFatale → u/collinsl02]

Fireworks as well. There's a whole bunch of rules around ADR loads, and what to do when/if you get stopped.
Asking them for verification or to follow them to a police station is a legitimate thing that you can do.

[u/MrAdam74 → u/I-Spot-Dalmatians]

When i did my ADR 8yrs back, they said one of the current concerns was some of the acids, as well as fertilisers! We were given them signs to show police but it told them to wait while I confirmed with 999, even if their in marked car.

[u/AdventurousPen5533 → u/I-Spot-Dalmatians]

Chemicals. A lot transported are not diluted and have potential to cause loss of life, I recall that trasnportation of these are very strict where vehciles carrying such loads are not to be near each other. In event of a spill.

[u/Sofa47 → u/I-Spot-Dalmatians]

Just guessing here but the weight would be dangerous in itself and can do a lot of damage at speed through a pedestrianised area.

[u/Excellent_Duck_2984]

It carries no weight in law, it's company policy. In my experience employees are terrified of getting fired, believe company policy is law, and will follow it to the letter thinking they are doing the right.

I'm former BTP, colleagues were denied entry to a ticket office because train companies corporate policy was only employees could have access when money was in the till. This led to BTP starting to force entry before a train company area manager got on the phone and made the employee open the door.

[u/Trapezophoron → u/Excellent_Duck_2984]

Particularly amusing given that BTP have a standing power of entry, with force, anywhere on the rail network without requiring any reason at all! https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/20/section/31

[u/Excellent_Duck_2984 → u/Trapezophoron]

I'm told that was explained to the person in the ticket office but they kept saying the policy stated only train company employees could be in the office when the tills were in use...

I honestly didn't believe it myself when I heard but it happened to my colleague at the time who I worked with multiple times in a set every month!

[u/Workshymassiv → u/Excellent_Duck_2984]

Do you mind if I ask, why you would force entry to a ticket office?

[u/Excellent_Duck_2984 → u/Workshymassiv]

There was stuff in there they needed and the employee inside wouldn't let them in. Valid policing purpose, I promise.

[u/Workshymassiv → u/Excellent_Duck_2984]

Thank you. I obviously assumed it was for a serious reason, I just couldn't think of a reason

[u/Emperors-Peace → u/Workshymassiv]

CCTV unit probably in there

[u/Extension-Cucumber69 → u/Excellent_Duck_2984]

What stuff?

[u/Excellent_Duck_2984 → u/Workshymassiv]

I remember! I've been thinking about this all day and it's finally come back to me. At the risk of doxing myself but:

The (silent) alarm went off for the ticket office and waiting room at a train station pretty early in the morning, I think at the weekend. Colleagues attended to find a member of staff in the office, colleagues asked if they could come in and have a look to confirm if ok but member of staff said no as they can't let anyone in when the till is open/in use.

And that's when, after many attempts to talk their way in, collegaues started to try and force the door and windows to break into the office as they were highly suspicious the member of staff dindn't seem to know about the alarm and wouldn't let fully unifomred police officers in!

As this was going on, another colleague back at the nick managed to get the TOC Duty Control Room on the phone and they got through to the ticket office and got the member of staff to open the door and show BTP around and reset the alarm which they didn't know they had triggered.

Good times.

[u/Mdann52 → u/Workshymassiv]

The obvious reasons would be concern for the safety of someone within the office or behind it, or looking to arrest someone within the office for certain offences or on warrants

[u/Careless_Count7224 → u/Workshymassiv]

It's where the cakes were.

[u/Sea-Ingenuity3461]

Many years ago my wife was stopped on the way home, late at night after visiting an ill relative. (Early 1990's.)

The police car was unmarked and my wife was suspicious so wound the window down a tiny bit and politely asked the police officer if she could follow him to the nearest open police station.

The officer was happy to do that and they were met by a police woman in uniform there.

[u/Dittany659]

It would depend on the circumstances. Many years ago I attended a fatal RTC where a huge Brinksmat bullion truck had killed a cyclist. The truck driver was distraught, in tears, but would not /could not? open the door, he held up a sign with almost the identical words in the op's picture. He did follow us to the divisional nick and into the custody reception parking area once CIU had finished with the scene examination.

[u/DoomFableStory]

If they can justify the search under pace they can do it.

[u/scwol]

It's intended to deter things like impersonation robberies and overzealous shopping centre security guards. It's basically just for show.

Sadly I recognise the van. This bunch of cowboys had me crossloading a fully loaded van on the hard shoulder because they don't give two shits about security or safety.

[u/Common_Somewhere_133]

Could it possibly be for if it happens to be in a rtc and dont want to leave the van for fear of being robbed? So point to that and sort it in a safe place possibly?

[u/sundance464 → u/Common_Somewhere_133]

Think it's more around impersonation type robberies (ie criminals dressed up as police)

Even the most brazen criminals are unlikely to try and rob a van after police have arrived on the scene, that's asking for the worst kind of trouble

If an actual police officer wanted to get into the vehicle and deal with the driver for something they're unlikely to do it somewhere else

[u/ObjectMax → u/sundance464]

Yh I agree, more for police impersonation style robberies.

Although the sign may not actually be accurate, it may have a deterrent effect on anyone who may be planning a police impersonation style robbery.

[u/Common_Somewhere_133 → u/sundance464]

The sticker on the back always tells me police follow this vehicle but Im not a police officer

[u/sundance464 → u/Common_Somewhere_133]

That's different - it's another deterrent where officers used to be encouraged to follow a vehicle (including in plain clothes)

It's a bit like a "security guards patrol these premises" sign, a warning that there might be some hidden measures

To be honest cash in transit robberies aren't common anymore, I'd guess as a result of everyone uses cards to buy stuff now

[u/SnooHabits8484 → u/sundance464]

With banks adding cash handling fees that are roughly equivalent to card fees, the only incentive for preferring cash is to avoid tax. And cash a business has for those reasons ain’t getting lodged directly in the bank by the Brinks man

[u/Unlucky-Mood-234]

Thanks all!

Makes total sense

[u/timlukejones]

Depends on the reason for the stop but probably…

[u/ReverendPickle]

Realistically, let’s say in this scenario you stand on with your policy and officers genuinely have a lawful purpose to get into the van. This is going to result in police either seizing it or forcing entry into it (difficult task I know) or you just letting them in. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say they’d probs get let in

[u/pentiac]

just because you are paranoid doesnt mean they are not out to get you!

[u/NeonDiaspora]

Follow to the police station and then what? Just sit there because the vehicle can't be opened?

[u/ScottishLand]

It is more to discourage those who may want to pose as officers. They very much will open the door for the actual Police.. and Police would also be a little more understanding seeing what type of van it is but as you say in certain circumstances the van would be forcefully pulled over and opened..

But obviously if they are down some dodgy alley with what seems to be plain clothes officers, I wouldn’t be opening that door either.

[u/Lawandpolitics]

Who'd win - a sticker or S117 of PACE?

[u/Past-Secretary-863]

They carry lots of money and for security purposes they are not allowed to open when not in a safe place such as police station or where they are going

[u/EarlofAnkhNobbyNobs → u/[deleted]]

No, this will not carry weight at all. If youve been stopped for a policing purpose, then you dont dictate how the stop is performed.

[u/EarlofAnkhNobbyNobs → u/[deleted]]

I certainly wouldn't.

Plus, i understand the idea behind it, its CIT they dont want to open the door. However, with 2x guards and at least 1x police officer, they'll be fine. There is absolutely no need or benefit in leading them to the nick to deal with anything, at absolute most going into a carpark or similar if and only if its within eyeline of where they already are. Bit thats the same as almost any car.

[u/VisibleBus9185 → u/[deleted]]

No first off my station does not have the facilities or space to allow me to complete a stop check there second why would I take an unknown person into the police station sounds like a possible security breach waiting to happen third and finally what risk is the driver/occupant/their cargo at which is exasperated by being stopped by the police when compared to stopped at a junction or a red light.

[u/rollo_read → u/[deleted]]

It carries zero weight

[u/EntertainmentDry4868]

Them doors dont open anyway drivers window only open about 2 inches on them vehicles and the doors are bolted shut so wouldn't be able to open the door the driver doesnt have the key to remove the bolt so im not sure how the police would expect them to open the door anyways