Do I need to give details?

[johnjordan]

For the first time ever in over 50 years of driving I was followed by a police car last night for quite a few miles and eventually pulled over when he activated his blue lights and flashing headlights.

 

I knew I hadn't done anything wrong so was a bit annoyed to say the least.

The police officer asked me for my name and I asked him why.

He said I had to tell him because he had stopped me and was asking.

I really couldn't be bothered to argue with him so gave him my name, and my address when he asked for that too.

I asked him why he had stopped me and he replied it was because I had driven into a small town, gone straight through it and out the other end!!!

 

When I asked him if it was now an offence to go for a leisurely drive out on a nice summers evening he changed his story to checking if mine was a stolen car.

I told him I was not so naive as to know that he would already have checked that from his car before stopping me.

 

Now, I have always thought that unless they suspect you of having committed an offence you were not obliged to give them those details, am I correct?

 

I have a lot of respect for the Police but it annoys me if they are abusing their powers, if he was correct in what he said about having to give my details then fair enough.

 

Thank you.

 

 

[jotty]

So a Police Officer notes a car he hasn’t seen before driving, in his opinion, in a suspicious manner so he stops it to check and asks the driver to verify his details.

 

Dont see anything wrong with that, i’d Say he is doing his job.

[dx100uk]

he has to have probable cause

i cant see one

esp as he changed his reason.

 

violate a traffic law them yes that's probable cause

just driving thru, esp as the officer didn't relate to any potential traffic offence..go away off mate

you know who i am as you've already run me on PNC PC in you car.

[johnjordan]

47 minutes ago, jotty said:

So a Police Officer notes a car he hasn’t seen before driving, in his opinion, in a suspicious manner so he stops it to check and asks the driver to verify his details.

 

Dont see anything wrong with that, i’d Say he is doing his job.

In a suspicious manner? So driving through a town is now classed as suspicious?

 

Anyway, my question was do we have to give our details just because they say we do? I have no problem complying if that is the case or if they tell me why, not just "because I asked you"

[johnjordan]

Thank you DX, as I suspected.

[jotty]

32 minutes ago, johnjordan said:

In a suspicious manner? So driving through a town is now classed as suspicious?

 

Anyway, my question was do we have to give our details just because they say we do? I have no problem complying if that is the case or if they tell me why, not just "because I asked you"

Like I said, in his opinion, you seem to have misread my reply.

 

There could be many many reasons to cause that and I for one dont ever have a problem with giving details. Nothing to hide, nothing to worry about. 

[jotty]

40 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

he has to have probable cause

i cant see one

esp as he changed his reason.

 

violate a traffic law them yes that's probable cause

just driving thru, esp as the officer didn't relate to any potential traffic offence..go away off mate

you know who i am as you've already run me on PNC PC in you car.

And what if the car had been stolen minutes ago and not yet reported. It a Police Officer doing his job after all in preventing crime and not the Stazi. And what’s probable cause ?,

Edited June 30, 2019 by jotty

[johnjordan]

If he had said that was the reason at the beginning I would have had no problem in telling him whatever he wanted to know. My point was he merely said "because I asked you". That is Stazi.

 

And if I had stolen it minutes earlier surely I would have made a dash for it, his Astra is no match for my 300+bhp BMW

[dx100uk]

11 minutes ago, jotty said:

And what if the car had been stolen minutes ago and not yet reported. It a Police Officer doing his job after all in preventing crime and not the Stazi. And what’s probable cause ?,

oh yes they are..

if the car was recently stolen he'd have no reason to even bother asking your details ...lock 'em up.

 

doing his job does not = abusing your rights...

 

you appear to want to live in north Korean and jump when told too.

[Ethel Street]

The police's national information site, the government gov.uk advice, and s163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 all seem to think that a police officer does not need a specific reason to stop a motor vehicle. s 164 and s165 go on to say the police can require the driver to provide their name, address, date of birth and produce either then or later their licence insurance and MOT, all without having to provide a reason for their request. (Nowadays of course police can instantly check online the licence etc details)

 

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q723.htm

 

https://www.gov.uk/stopped-by-police-while-driving-your-rights

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crossheading/powers-of-constables-and-other-authorised-persons

 

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Ethel Street

[dx100uk]

Now go back and read the question asked..

It was in regard to giving name and dob.

 

Not docs... as all those relate too

 

pulling someone over 'just' to ask someone the above is not resonable cause..nor a justified reason in the above pdf's..we are not n.korean

 

[Ethel Street]

I did read the question dx.  The police page I linked and s165 (1) RTA 1988 are both clear that  the police can "require" a driver to provide their name and address without giving a specific reason. 

 

 I referred to the power to stop because self-evidently the police must first stop the car before they can "require" anything of the driver and it's all in the same legislation.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Ethel Street

[dx100uk]

they cannot cherries and berries you

walk up to the driver and say give me your name and address.

 

[Ethel Street]

3 hours ago, dx100uk said:

they cannot cherries and berries you

walk up to the driver and say give me your name and address.

 

 

Sorry but I don't agree with your interpretation of the RTA nor, from what the police national information database says, do they. Is there a source that says they must have a reason? 

 

 

[dx100uk]

 i agree its a minfield...

 

but yes they must have and state a valid reason to ask Name DOB Address

and that's only in relation to an accident  or traffic offence

or anything criminal .see..'probable cause' 

 

but as above ...merely telling the driver ..'He said I had to tell him because he had stopped me and was asking. '

merely stopping you is not a reason... note he used the word 'asking'

 

and

 

I asked him why he had stopped me and he replied it was because I had driven into a small town, gone straight through it and out the other end!!! 

not a valid reason to ask Name DOB Address not in relation to an accident.or traffic offence

 

When I asked him if it was now an offence to go for a leisurely drive out on a nice summers evening he changed his story to checking if mine was a stolen car. [he already knew it wasn't reported stolen] not a valid reason to ask Name DOB Address not in relation to an accident.or traffic offence

 

pers i'd be having a word with the desk sergeant hope you got his name and collar number which they must give you upon request and cant refuse.

 

……………………………………..

 

164
Power of constables to require production of driving licence and in certain cases statement of date of birth.
(1)
Any of the following persons—
(a)
a person driving a motor vehicle on a road,
(b)
a person whom a constable [F5or vehicle examiner] has reasonable cause to believe to have been the driver of a motor vehicle at a time when an accident occurred owing to its presence on a road,

 

 

165
Power of constables to obtain names and addresses of drivers and others, and to require production of evidence of insurance or security and test certificates.
(1)
Any of the following persons—
(a)
a person driving a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) on a road, or
(b)
a person whom a constable [F41or vehicle examiner] has reasonable cause to believe to have been the driver of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) at a time when an accident occurred owing to its presence on a road [F42or other public place], or
(c)
a person whom a constable [F41or vehicle examiner] has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use on a road of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage),
must, on being so required by a constable [F41or vehicle examiner], give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce the following documents for examination. 

Edited June 30, 2019 by dx100uk
sorry for the edit internet crap in scotland re the weather ..dx

[BazzaS]

8 hours ago, dx100uk said:

he has to have probable cause

i cant see one

esp as he changed his reason.

 

 

 

You said this before on a thread, and were wrong there, too.

I posted there, too, but you persist in the “probable cause” delusion.

”Probable cause” applies in the USA.

 

In the UK, the power of a constable to require the name and address of a driver, REGARDLESS of if an offence has been, or is believed to have been, committed, arises from S 165 of the RTA 1988.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165

 

You’ll notice S 165(1), (b) and (c) refer to an accident, or suspicion of an offence.

S 165 (1)(a) doesn’t require suspicion of an offence or accident, only that the person was driving a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage). It is 1a OR 1b OR 1c. 1(a) on its own suffices.

 

where do you feel S 165 (1) (a) imposes a requirement for “probable cause”?

 

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by BazzaS

[dx100uk]

probable cause might well be the wrong 'term'

 

as I said above a minefield

1.DOB

2.name and address of the driver and registered keeper

I have wrongly lumped together then.

 

[jotty]

No its not a minefield, in fact its dead simple.

 

A Police Constable can quite correctly stop a vehicle to check at any time. 

 

We live in a rural area that was blighted by car crime and burglary, so the Police decided to stop and ask anyone they didn't know or suspected didn't live in the area and check them out. Guess what within a week they had locked up the criminals and stopped the crime wave. Simples.

[Ethel Street]

7 hours ago, BazzaS said:

 

 

You’ll notice S 165(1), (b) and (c) refer to an accident, or suspicion of an offence.

S 165 (1)(a) doesn’t require suspicion of an offence or accident, only that the person was driving a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage). It is 1a OR 1b OR 1c. 1(a) on its own suffices.

 

 

 

 

Yes, exactly. 1(b) deals with the situation where following an accident the driver has legged it and 1(c) where after committing an offence the driver has legged it. They allow the name and address to be demanded even the though the person is no longer in the vehicle when questioned by a police officer. If the person is driving at the time stopped by the police then 1(a) is the applicable clause and it does not require any reason to be given, there is no requirement for 'probable cause'.

 

I also don't think it's a 'minefield', ss163 - 165 RTA 1988 seem very clear to me.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Ethel Street