Should they get in the car?

[meic]

A twelve year old Scout is stopped by a plain clothes Policeofficer in an unmarked car, while walking home at 8am Sunday morning from an overnight camp.
Walking on the pavement along an A road with light but regular traffic.

The Policeofficer gets out of the car, shows a card and questions the scout.
Name and address, where going, where been, where they got the biscuits that they are eating.
Next why didnt your parents pick you up in the car?
Then the officer says they wouldnt let their child walk along a main road alone and asks the Scout to get in the car and be driven home.

Should the Scout get in the car?

a) A male Scout and female officer
b) A female Scout and male officer.


Edit: I think I finally have got the Poll right after numerous corrections.

[gaz]

No they should not, whatever the male/female combination.

[thirdcrank]

meic

Excuse me if I don't treat this as a quiz.

I suggest the important thing is what's happened and that's not clear to me. If something like this has happened and you remain unsure of the ID of the person involved, report it to the police pronto. If you are confident that this was a police officer, it seems to me that they have at the very least displayed a certain lack of judgment, whether or not they were acting in good faith. There is a very good reason why public officials such as the police wear uniform in circumstances where they are likely to have to take action involving the public. OTOH, in circumstances where action needs to be taken, somebody in plain clothes may still have to take that action. This may, of course, have been an off duty police officer, in which case they really should be satisfied that they need to act before doing so. Nowadays, with the almost universal availability of mobile phones, it seems reasonable to me that an off-duty police officer should phone a local police station - no problem with endless queing because they should have the direct-dial. A bit different if somebody from the other end of the country decides they need to act.

In my experience, children, including my own, never report the circumstances to parents in a neutral light. For a number of years the police have stressed - some feel exaggerated - so-called "stranger danger." They cannot be surprised if you are concerned when a stranger, no matter how well-intentioned and no matter how official their capacity acts like this towards a child. So, even if you are confident that this was a police officer, I'd raise the issue as a concern with the police. In that case I'd try to stand aside from any feelings of indignation that your own parenting skills have been criticised in the converstaion with the child, although it's something that's worth mentioning. So long as you are certain that this is a police officer, I'd write a carefully thought out letter to the chief constable raising your concerns. Incidentally, I've just googled police stranger danger and many police forces have a hit on the web. Check your own. It may give you some raw material.

While traditionally the greatest threat is seen as being to girls from men, around here at least, we've not forgotten that Myra Hindley was a woman and Keith Bennett was a boy.

[meic]

It did happen and of course everybody is fine, now I cant really give away what did happen because when the Scout was put in the situation they did not know what would happen.

I dont want to judge the Scout's action with hindsight, I want to know what people think a Scout should do in that circumstance. I happen to think it is a very difficult decision for a twelve year old and would like to hear what a few more experienced people think.

So I would like some decisions without the benefit of hindsight first, then all will be revealed.
Until then rest assured that things turned out OK.

[thirdcrank]

Then the only possible advice is to decline politely, suggesting the adult should call the police. If that request did not work, then the child should refuse to comply, run to a nearby house if there is one and bang on the door, if no house nearby, attract the attention of passing drivers or anybody within earshot.

I'd not criticise any child who did not have the self-confidence to act like this, but I would talk it through and suggest that it would be the best course in future.

[PW]

Stop or answer questions for an officer in uniform. Plain clothes keep going.

[thirdcrank]

meic

I think you are in Dyfedd Powys police area. This is from their website - but not specifically addressed to children:

Don’t hitch-hike or take lifts from strangers
If a car stops and you are threatened, scream and shout and set off your personal attack alarm if you have one. Get away as quickly as you can. This will gain you vital seconds and make it more difficult for the car driver to follow. If you can, make a mental note of the number and description of the car. Write down details as soon as possible afterwards.

I suppose it's a matter of how you interpret threatened.

PS I see the Dyfedd Powys non-urgent telephone line is out of order. These public spending cuts.

[meic]

Stop or answer questions for an officer in uniform. Plain clothes keep going.

This is something which i would like to know abit more about.
Obviously a plain clothes person can arrest you, can they then take you down to the station (or so you think) in their car or do they need to call a uniform to do that bit.

Our youth are caught in a trap here.

Rule 1 Just say no
Rule 2 Obey the Police

When those two rules clash, what are your rights?
Can you insist on a uniform or some other proof of ID or must you accept a warrant card even if you dont know what one is?

[gaz]

I agree that this would be a very confusing situation for a child.

I would not expect a child to know what a warrant card is never mind what it looks like.

I would expect a police officer to realise both of these facts.

[mw3230]

Stop or answer questions for an officer in uniform. Plain clothes keep going.

This is something which i would like to know abit more about.
Obviously a plain clothes person can arrest you, can they then take you down to the station (or so you think) in their car or do they need to call a uniform to do that bit.

Our youth are caught in a trap here.

Rule 1 Just say no
Rule 2 Obey the Police

When those two rules clash, what are your rights?
Can you insist on a uniform or some other proof of ID or must you accept a warrant card even if you dont know what one is?

We are told by all sorts of agencies to insist on being shown ID. If the person of whom the request is made shows what appears to be official ID then what are we to do, ask for his passport also?

A plain clothes police officer has exactly the same ID as a uniformed colleague - except that he doesn't have a uniform and perhaps a marked police vehicle. In all cases, police officers will be able to go further to corroborate their status - perhaps by summoning a colleague of the requisirte gender to accompany the minor who they wished to transport, or perhaps by allowing the person being spoken to to telephone a control room - but they may not volunteer or be willing to do so.

Except in cases of an arrest where the option is being removed from the member of the public, there is no lawful requirement to get into a police vehicle although most officers these days seem to expect that we will get into their vehicles for their comfort and convenience

In the case in point, it would have been a simple matter to telephone a parent of the child, or other responsible person and explain the situation. The parent would then have been aware and would have had the option of agreeing or disagreeing with the officers planned course of action vis a vis the young person. In any case, the police officer would/could have informed his control of what he was doing and that he had a potetnially vulnerable person in his car. If he felt there was a danger the obvious thing was to wait for assistance

[thirdcrank]

Anything like this has to be a matter of judgment. A constable's powers of arrest are not usually curtailed by any requirement that they should be in uniform or even on duty. This is partly because some powers of arrest empower "any person." The age of the alleged offender is not normally relevant to a power of arrest. I mention police powers because it is only by excercising powers that that the police can normally compel anybody to do anything. Obviously, it's always best if the police can achieve their purpose by consent.

If a police officer finds a child or young person in danger they should act to ensure their safety. If they are at risk of significant danger, they should excercise their power - their duty even, under the Children Act 1989 and take them into police protection.

The police should not interview juveniles except in the presence of an "appropriate adult," normally a parent, but that is always a question of degree; if you cannot ask somebody for their name and address, you cannot even take them home to a parent.

Since Blunkett and his ASBO's there has been an increasing level of police attention to juveniles. On another thread (ASLs in West Mids) I linked to my local police priorities. The "recent news" included a couple of cases of PCSOs searching teenagers for booze and cigarettes. It's what a lot of the public want, except when their own kids come under scrutiny.

In any event, it seems to me that a lone officer in plain clothes expecting a child to get into their car is asking for trouble. Warrant cards are pretty much useless because most law-abiding people have never seen one and anybody could cobble together something convincing, especially with desk top publishing and a laminator.

At the same time, before anybody can really give an opinion on a specific incident, it's important to know everything - not just an edited version - so what I've witten is only general comment. As I mentioned earlier, it's my experience that children tend to give their version in a form that will please their parents.

[PW]

If the police want to arrest me they can send for uniform, otherwise I'll resist purely because I don't know if the ID's genuine.

[meic]

What did happen is that the boyscout did get into the female officer's car and was given a free lift home to the door. The Policewoman carried on without talking to the parents.

My initial reaction was purely one of desperation that the world has got to such a state that if a 12 year old walks home it is considered so out of the ordinary as to prompt a Police Officer to feel obliged to do something about it.

I have no problems with them stopping and asking a few questions, though why are you a suspect, just for being a pedestrian?
I am not particularily concerned or worried that he got into the car. However I cant help but notice that despite all of the constant "Just say no and Stranger danger" that they (mostly the Police) have been ramming down his throat at school. The first time a stranger asks him to get in a car, in he leaps.

Previous to leaving the house, he was issued with a phone and instructions that if he got into anybody's car that he phoned the answer machine and left their name/ car regsn.
Which he also failed to do.
So thanks to the Police Officer for pointing out that 12 year olds are quite incapable of following simple instructions more often than not.

However the thing which really annoys and depresses me is that. He was supposed to be WALKING that is the whole point of it. Is it such a crime, so unacceptable for a kid to walk on the pavement.
The question was asked "Why arent you in a car?"

Non stop lectures on the media about obese kids, let one out of the house to get some exercise and Society is rescuing them from the dangers of being NOT IN A CAR.

[thirdcrank]

If the driver did not stop to talk to the parents, how does anybody know who was involved? (Incidentally, I'm not suggesting they were not bona fide.)

From what's been said so far, we don't really know what attracted the police attention if no explanation was given to the parents. Let's suppose that this was started by a report from a member of the public - child / children doing something dangerous - possibly only dangerous in the sense that it was a main road. Police decide that walking along the road is "perfectly legal" and do not intervene. Child run over.

(To anybody feeling this is hypothetical, have a look back at the Marie Vesco thread.)

As is so often the case, these things are a grey area and open to different views. I'd have to say I'm surprised that a police officer would drop a juvenile off at home without explaining what had happened to the parents.

[irc]

What did happen is that the boyscout did get into the female officer's car and was given a free lift home to the door. The Policewoman carried on without talking to the parents.

If the police have cause (justified or not) to take a 12 year old child home then they should speak to the parents to explain why they took the action they did. IMO just dropping the child of was unprofessional and showed a lack of courtesy and common sense.

It seems very odd to me. I've heard of kids found wandering the streets after midnight being returned home or kids that had been drinking and so on. I've never heard of a child walking along at 8am being returned home. After all we expect children that age to make their way to an from school etc. At 15, not much older, I was going away hillwalking with my friends for days at a time.