ASP Trevor Bailey provided several specific insights into correct police procedure regarding searches, the use of warrants, and public transparency. He provided details on Hot97 on Tuesday, while speaking to a police raid carried out in Lowman’s Bay on Monday 16.
Bailey emphasized that police officers do not have the authority to arbitrarily enter property or kick down doors at will. Instead, the following procedures must be followed:
Legal Authority: Police must be armed with a warrant signed by a competent authority, such as a Justice of the Peace, Magistrate, or Judge.
The Application Process: To obtain a warrant, police must follow a specific procedure where they swear to “an information”. This involves providing credible and sufficient evidence such as observations of illegal activity or searches of individuals leaving a premises to satisfy the authority that a search is justified.
Serving the Warrant: Bailey specified that police are supposed to show and read the warrant to the occupant. He also expressed personal support for the idea of police providing a copy of the warrant to the individual being searched.
The ASP further outlined strict guidelines regarding when a search should or should not occur:
Presence of Owners: Police should not conduct a search if no one is present at the property. He argued that breaking locks and searching in the absence of owners makes a “mockery of the judicial system,” as the owners can easily claim they had no knowledge of any illegal items found while they were away.
Occupancy: If the owner is absent but another person is occupying the property, police may proceed with the search.
Avoidance of “Chances”: Bailey criticised the practice of police “taking a chance” by searching locations not specifically covered by their warrants based on new information received on-site. He stated that if a unit acts without the necessary warrants for all properties being searched, it is “not the correct thing to do”.
Bailey on Tuesday 17, advocated for a transparent relationship between the police and the public
Recording the Police: He stated there is no criminal offense in recording police while they are operating in a public space. an stated that if officers are following the correct procedure, they should have nothing to fear from being scrutinised or recorded.
Confiscating Phones: Bailey labelled the practice of taking away phones from citizens who record the police as “foolishness” and suggested that recordings of police doing their jobs correctly could actually help improve public relations.
When police depart from these established procedures, Bailey noted several consequences could follow:
Disciplinary Action: Officers who follow incorrect procedures may face sanctions or disciplinary proceedings before the police commissioner.
Legal Liability: If a search is conducted improperly, the resulting lawsuit is typically directed at the state (the Attorney General and Commissioner) as well as the individual officers, because the officers are acting as representatives of the state. He noted that the state has previously paid compensation to individuals who successfully challenged police actions in court.