Answers
Thread 10
It is a cardinal principle of English law that any interference by the state or its agents with the person or property of a citizen must be authorised by law (Entick v Carrington (1765), Article 8(2) European Convention on Human Rights).
PACE provides the police with a number of powers to search property. Neither s.8 (search with a warrant) nor s.32 (search done immediately after arrest) apply here. The only possible power would be s.18. Again, there are problems with this.
Firstly, the keys should have been recorded as part of Dave’s property by the custody officer and their subsequent use without Dave’s permission is unlawful.
Secondly, s.18 only applies after somebody has been lawfully arrested. It has been established above that the legality of Dave’s arrest is, to say the least, questionable.
Thirdly, s.18 searches must be authorised by an inspector or above unconnected with the case (s.18(4) PACE.) There is no indication that this has been done.
Fourthly, s.18(1) provides a power of search, where an officer:
Fifthly, a search power is not an excuse to have a good look around, it must be exercised
“to the extent that is reasonably required for the purposes of discovering … evidence.”
Given that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights also
requires states to exercise powers proportionately, what were the police
hoping to find in a car cassette player that would assist in the investigation
of this particular suspected burglary?