Last weekend, I left the underground station at Piccadilly Circus, pulled out my phone to find the address of a local hotel only to be called to the side by a police officer. “Excuse me sir, you haven’t done anything wrong, but I am going to search you under the Terrorism Act 2000.”
Not having anything to hide, I agreed. I was searched, my name checked against the police computer and asked to produce any form of identity I had on me. I was given a receipt for my troubles and sent on my way. At the time, this was nothing more than a minor inconvenience, but for some reason I haven’t been able to let this rest.
I’ve summarised some of the relevant sections of the act below, but you can find the full version online courtesy of the Office of Public Sector Information.
44(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
- the pedestrian;
- anything carried by him.
44(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.
45(2) A constable may seize and retain an article which he discovers in the course of a search by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.
47(1) A person commits an offence if he—
- fails to stop a vehicle when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of the power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1);
- fails to stop when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of the power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(2);
- wilfully obstructs a constable in the exercise of the power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1) or (2).
47(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—
- imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months,
- a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
- both.
There doesn’t appear to be much doubt, the police can stop and search you if they think it will help to prevent terrorism. That includes acting as a deterrent to others. And should you refuse, well, then you have committed an offence. If I thought this method of countering terrorism worked, I don’t think I’d mind. But, I can’t see how this is an effective deterrent.
I’d still like to know why they chose to stop me.
Who’s to say what is considered as ” expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.”. What if you refuse on the grounds of harrassment/discrimination? What if you asked them why they thought it was “expedient”?
Would either of these be considered an offense?
We have similar laws in Australia, and even one where it is an offense to make fun of the prime minister. It seems ironic that the very laws used to prevent terrorism actually infringe on the rights of freedom in the country we are trying to protect with those laws..
Very interesting… interesting too that what you were doing was enough to draw some suspicion from the officer.
Search laws in the United States are generally quite strongly in favor of the searched, which in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks was seen for a while as a huge problem. There was a lot of noise about “well even Britain does it, why don’t we?!” That noise seems to have died down.
Seems like if you’ve already left the station you’re not much of a suicide bombing suspect, but maybe they’re afraid people will leave a bomb in the station, walk out, and detonate it by mobile phone? It’s often fascinating to work things like this backwards and try to figure out what they’re afraid of.
@John B – Working backwards is probably the only way to understand this. I spent a while wondering what it was that led them to select me. They assured me it was completely random, but I don’t think it is human nature to operate in a random way. Even if it was subconscious, something about me must have caught his eye. The trouble is, I can’t think what made me stand out.
Mobile phones don’t work on the Underground Network in the UK so it is common place to see people leaving the stations and pulling out their phones. Don’t think that was it. But I guess the combination of phone + backpack ticks two of the boxes they look for.
It’s just that, if they stopped everyone using a phone who was wearing a backpack then they’d be stopping a large percentage of the population. There must have been something else.
@light487 – In some ways I like the fact that the wording of the law allows for some self judgement to be used by those charged with the responsibility of upholding the law.
Where it breaks down is when those very same people fail to use any judgement and just follow instructions parrot fashion. The trouble is, if we use our own judgement we are likely to make mistakes. If we follow the instructions of others, we seem to think we can deflect any responsibility for our own actions.