Some police colleagues in the United States viewed with trepidation the news that the “Brits” were going soft on the possession of cannabis. You may recall that the drug had been declassified. In 2004, guidelines were introduced that developed the concept of “Street Warnings” for the possession of cannabis. However, in January 2006, the Home Secretary, having taken advice from the Advisory Counsel on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), decided to keep cannabis as a Class C Drug. Police officers became confused, and as a result the top police chiefs commissioned their professional organization, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), to write updated guidelines for police officers dealing with cases of cannabis possession. They did so. The guidelines were published and implemented on January 17, 2007.
The aims of the ACPO guidelines are as follows:
* To give a justifiable and proportionate response in dealing with persons found in possession of cannabis which can be seen to be ethical and non-discriminatory by the public and therefore gain trust in the Criminal Justice system from all members of the community;
* To enable the police service to give greater focus and resources to organizational and community policing priorities by dealing with offenders found in possession of cannabis in a manner which saves time and is less bureaucratic;
* To maintain an enforcement and prosecution strategy that delivers the national message that cannabis is harmful and remains illegal.
ACPO had found through consultation that the wording contained in previous guidelines was ambiguous, and some officers interpreted it as being a warning that could only be given on the street. In reality, the fact was that the warning could be given anywhere. The new guidelines change the term to “Cannabis Warning”.
So what are the new guidelines? ACPO states, “As a general guide, when police find a person in possession of a small amount of cannabis, they should:
* Investigate the circumstances surrounding the alleged possession, including any lawful excuse.
* Eliminate any suspicion of a more serious offence, such as possession with intent to supply. (The amount of cannabis in possession of the offender is irrelevant if there is other evidence of intent to supply.)
* Seize cannabis and secure evidence according to local procedure. There must be compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) and its Codes. If an officer is not experienced in handling cannabis or has any doubt as to the nature of the substance, she or he should call for the assistance of an officer who has the relevant experience.
* Complete contemporaneous notes of the incident, that are PACE compliant and cover the points to prove for the offence, in line with local procedures.
* Complete local recording systems, such as stop/search forms, property seized logs, and criminal intelligence reports.
* Ensure a record is made of the crime within local crime recording procedures. Under Home Office counting rules this will be treated as a sanctioned detection, providing the correct procedures have been followed”.1
The officer then uses her or his discretion on whether or not a warning is the most appropriate action. First, the offender has to admit possession. Second, there has to be no evidence that there was intent to supply to other people. Third, the officer has to decide that the appropriate course is to proceed with a “cannabis warning.” The officer warns the offender that a record of the investigation will be recorded by the police; that this record will show the offence of possession by them, and, for statistical purposes, it will be recorded as a detected crime. One thing the receipt of a warning will not do is create the equivalent of a criminal record against the person found in possession. If the offender disputes the possession of cannabis or will not comply with the procedure then the offender can be arrested.
The guidelines seem to be good common sense. An offender may still be arrested, for example, if he or she is so intoxicated that they would not be able to understand the warning procedure, or it is necessary to prevent the offender suffering physical injury, or causing someone else injury. And there are special provisions for young offenders, especially those under the age of ten. The latter are considered “at risk” and this will prompt referrals to other agencies.
Many in the United States may view this as a liberalization of the lower end of the drug problem, but others would see it as a genuine attempt to keep people out of the criminal justice system. In turn, this could have the effect of improving police/community relations, and freeing up police time. Could this work in the United States – be your own judge – read the guidelines and the FAQs at http://www/acpo.police.uk/policies.asp.
Notes
1. See “Guidance on Policing Cannabis – Use of Cannabis Warnings” ACPO (2006:p4; 2.3.2.) London, UK.
David Webb was formerly Chief Superintendent of Police in the United Kingdom with a career spanning over 30 years.
The aims of the ACPO guidelines are as follows:
* To give a justifiable and proportionate response in dealing with persons found in possession of cannabis which can be seen to be ethical and non-discriminatory by the public and therefore gain trust in the Criminal Justice system from all members of the community;
* To enable the police service to give greater focus and resources to organizational and community policing priorities by dealing with offenders found in possession of cannabis in a manner which saves time and is less bureaucratic;
* To maintain an enforcement and prosecution strategy that delivers the national message that cannabis is harmful and remains illegal.
ACPO had found through consultation that the wording contained in previous guidelines was ambiguous, and some officers interpreted it as being a warning that could only be given on the street. In reality, the fact was that the warning could be given anywhere. The new guidelines change the term to “Cannabis Warning”.
So what are the new guidelines? ACPO states, “As a general guide, when police find a person in possession of a small amount of cannabis, they should:
* Investigate the circumstances surrounding the alleged possession, including any lawful excuse.
* Eliminate any suspicion of a more serious offence, such as possession with intent to supply. (The amount of cannabis in possession of the offender is irrelevant if there is other evidence of intent to supply.)
* Seize cannabis and secure evidence according to local procedure. There must be compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) and its Codes. If an officer is not experienced in handling cannabis or has any doubt as to the nature of the substance, she or he should call for the assistance of an officer who has the relevant experience.
* Complete contemporaneous notes of the incident, that are PACE compliant and cover the points to prove for the offence, in line with local procedures.
* Complete local recording systems, such as stop/search forms, property seized logs, and criminal intelligence reports.
* Ensure a record is made of the crime within local crime recording procedures. Under Home Office counting rules this will be treated as a sanctioned detection, providing the correct procedures have been followed”.1
The officer then uses her or his discretion on whether or not a warning is the most appropriate action. First, the offender has to admit possession. Second, there has to be no evidence that there was intent to supply to other people. Third, the officer has to decide that the appropriate course is to proceed with a “cannabis warning.” The officer warns the offender that a record of the investigation will be recorded by the police; that this record will show the offence of possession by them, and, for statistical purposes, it will be recorded as a detected crime. One thing the receipt of a warning will not do is create the equivalent of a criminal record against the person found in possession. If the offender disputes the possession of cannabis or will not comply with the procedure then the offender can be arrested.
The guidelines seem to be good common sense. An offender may still be arrested, for example, if he or she is so intoxicated that they would not be able to understand the warning procedure, or it is necessary to prevent the offender suffering physical injury, or causing someone else injury. And there are special provisions for young offenders, especially those under the age of ten. The latter are considered “at risk” and this will prompt referrals to other agencies.
Many in the United States may view this as a liberalization of the lower end of the drug problem, but others would see it as a genuine attempt to keep people out of the criminal justice system. In turn, this could have the effect of improving police/community relations, and freeing up police time. Could this work in the United States – be your own judge – read the guidelines and the FAQs at http://www/acpo.police.uk/policies.asp.
Notes
1. See “Guidance on Policing Cannabis – Use of Cannabis Warnings” ACPO (2006:p4; 2.3.2.) London, UK.
David Webb was formerly Chief Superintendent of Police in the United Kingdom with a career spanning over 30 years.
Comments
Post a Comment