Coventry Police's Unusual Manner of Highlighting Burglary Prevention

R

Ricardodaforce

Self requested ban
Suspended / Banned
Messages
18,340
Edit My Images
No
They find unsecured houses, enter, take a photo of an officer in the house, and tweet it.

Story here.

Seems they may have been acting in a not fully legal manner.
 
Shame there isn't a silent Rottweiler lurking :D
 
I guess ultimately this will raise more awareness through the controversy so they will be happy with that, as I guess should everyone.

I think it's a good way of making a point (seeing if you can get in), but I do think that tweeting photos from inside people's houses is a bit out of order. No-one appears to have complained they say, in which case nothing to be upset about I guess.
 
A lot of burglaries are preventable or could be deterred. Locking away the offenders is a good start :-) but aside from that there are a lot of people that leave windows open, leave doors on houses and cars unlocked, have no alarm/don't maintain it/don't set it, leave no lights on etc. Police are just highlighting it as they are charged not with just catching criminals but preventing crime. With all the current cuts to resources, I guess they have to utilise social media as a way to spread the word and ultimately try to reduce demands on them. I think it's a good tactic to get the message across, but should be completely anonomised.
 
The police have to abide by the laws of the land as well, not break them
 
I can understand why they did it, but consider this,

Scenario 1 burglar enters property, with evil intentions, he comes face to face with a large dog.
Large dog removes a couple of digits, everyone say's good dog!
burglar caught, or at worst thinks twice before entering another house.

Scenario 2 Police officers enter a property, confronted by large dog, large dog removes a couple of digits.
Owner arrested for keeping a "dangerous" dog.
Dog put down owner in prison, or fined heavily.
 
Oh dear oh dear. I suspect some officers will have their knuckles rapped. :D
Prevention or not, the officers have no right whatsoever to even open the doors let alone enter these properties, and the fact that the houses are left unlocked is irrelevant.
Now that the story has hit the Fail, they'll have to do something publicly to assuage the baying t***terbook mob.
 
ecoleman said:
Consider this. The homes were really their own.
Click to expand...
Then they are setting a bad example by leaving their doors open / unlocked :D
 
Cobra said:
Scenario 2 Police officers enter a property, confronted by large dog, large dog removes a couple of digits.
Owner arrested for keeping a "dangerous" dog.
Dog put down owner in prison, or fined heavily.
Click to expand...
unless its on the banned dogs list then doubtful for protecting its own home.

anyway a dog that bites would most likely (bit of a generalisation but hey I'm not the first to make assumptions) bark when hearing anyone entering the property.
 
neil_g said:
unless its on the banned dogs list then doubtful for protecting its own home.
Click to expand...
I personally wouldn't want to test that in a court of law, having just bitten a copper or two. ( the dog not me obviously :D )

neil_g said:
anyway a dog that bites would most likely (bit of a generalisation but hey I'm not the first to make assumptions) bark when hearing anyone entering the property.
Click to expand...
The worse ones are the ones that don't bark ( a warning) first
 
Cobra said:
The worse ones are the ones that don't bark ( a warning) first
Click to expand...

Have experienced this myself, was doing a leaflet drop, no sign or noise from a dog, push leaflet through letter box and munch! That's when I found out there was a dog the other side of the door
 
Keith W said:
Have experienced this myself, was doing a leaflet drop, no sign or noise from a dog, push leaflet through letter box and munch! That's when I found out there was a dog the other side of the door
Click to expand...
I had similar pushing an invoice through a door, paper first, fingers well clear, the dog hit it / grabbed it with such a force it took the letter flap clean off!
Bad dog :D
 
Cobra said:
I had similar pushing an invoice through a door, paper first, fingers well clear, the dog hit it / grabbed it with such a force it took the letter flap clean off!
Bad dog :D
Click to expand...

Bet you never even flinched ;)
 
BruceMo said:
Bet you never even flinched ;)
Click to expand...
Actually I stood there for a moment as it actually sunk in and thought WTF!
Its a good job the paper went through the letter box, and my fingers stayed outside :D
 
Cobra said:
The worse ones are the ones that don't bark ( a warning) first
Click to expand...

Yep I owned one once, no warning at all, leave him alone and he ignored you, those that tried to get close paid for it despite my warnings,
not a dangerous dog as such out and about he was fine, letterbox was ignored too, just don't come into the house uninvited.

As for dogs behind doors, when you put things through letterboxes for a living you learn very fast not to put any appendages through, regardless ;)
 
viv1969 said:
Oh dear oh dear. I suspect some officers will have their knuckles rapped. :D
Prevention or not, the officers have no right whatsoever to even open the doors let alone enter these properties, and the fact that the houses are left unlocked is irrelevant.
Now that the story has hit the Fail, they'll have to do something publicly to assuage the baying t***terbook mob.
Click to expand...
Yes they do, depending on the circumstances they most definitely open and enter a property.
 
dejongj said:
Yes they do, depending on the circumstances they most definitely open and enter a property.
Click to expand...

There are very specific circumstances in which the police may enter a dwelling without either an invite or a warrant.
"Because the door is unlocked" most certainly isn't one of them
 
viv1969 said:
There are very specific circumstances in which the police may enter a dwelling without either an invite or a warrant.
"Because the door is unlocked" most certainly isn't one of them
Click to expand...

Do you know the "totality of circumstances"? ;)
 
Better than a game of ping pong this thread :D
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Rather than just being argumentative, why don't you explain your point of view fully?
Click to expand...

I already did by name. I was asking which laws those police officers have broken. Seems a simple and reasonable question to me. Not sure why that is seen as argumentative.

viv1969 said:
In fact, JP, I do.
Click to expand...

Excellent; didn't know you worked for that police force seams a bit far away from your neck of the woods. But fair do's if you have that insight and know the totality of the circumstances under which they gained access to that property.
 
I'm interested to know on what grounds the police can enter the home to tweet the photos from inside the premises. They are not searching it or seizing evidence, the are not really preventing any threat to life, or pursuing a suspect or anything of that nature nor have they been invited in. If an neighbour reports seeing the window broken of a house and the occupants are on holiday, the police may come and enter because there is a suspected crime, there may be an offender on the premises etc. But, in the case of these tweets they are on a crime prevention initiative trying doors until they find one insecure. They step inside and tweet their image. Most people would be glad of being forwarned that their home was at risk. However, what is the legality of the police entry uninvited?
 
There are no grounds and from what I've seen in the two pictures in the news the 'cops' are actually Police Community Support Officers. They really didn't think this through. I get the idea and honestly the number of burglaries with insecure property is pretty shocking but they have rendered themselves liable to a civil action for trespass but I'd be very surprised if there was any claims.
 
BlackCloud said:
I'm interested to know on what grounds the police can enter the home to tweet the photos from inside the premises. They are not searching it or seizing evidence, the are not really preventing any threat to life, or pursuing a suspect or anything of that nature nor have they been invited in. If an neighbour reports seeing the window broken of a house and the occupants are on holiday, the police may come and enter because there is a suspected crime, there may be an offender on the premises etc. But, in the case of these tweets they are on a crime prevention initiative trying doors until they find one insecure. They step inside and tweet their image. Most people would be glad of being forwarned that their home was at risk. However, what is the legality of the police entry uninvited?
Click to expand...
We, except for Ruth, only know the totality of the circumstances as being reported. But what does "burglary patrol" truly mean. Upon what intelligence were they acting. What was the totality of the circumstances under which they made those decisions. Without knowing that it is impossible to answer the question with certainty.
 
They did not commit an offence.
If the door is unlocked and they get no answer they have every right to check inside to see if an offence in in progress.
You often see police on patrol checking shop and other doors.
 
for f*** sake, the police are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

They are actively doing neighbourhood policing, proactive. Its a brilliant initiative.

As for the police breaking the law, for f*** sake, its not like they are shop lifting, balance that and be f*****g sensible. The f*****g do gooder attitude has caused more bureaucratic s*** in this country, that actually makes policing more difficult.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
They did not commit an offence.
If the door is unlocked and they get no answer they have every right to check inside to see if an offence in in progress.
You often see police on patrol checking shop and other doors.
Click to expand...

The rules which apply to commercial properties don't apply to private dwellings.
"To see if maybe a crime is in progress" is not one of the circumstances under which they may enter a dwelling without warrant or invite.

andyscott said:
for f*** sake, the police are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

They are actively doing neighbourhood policing, proactive. Its a brilliant initiative.

As for the police breaking the law, for f*** sake, its not like they are shop lifting, balance that and be f*****g sensible. The f*****g do gooder attitude has caused more bureaucratic s*** in this country, that actually makes policing more difficult.
Click to expand...

Kiss ya mother with that mouth? :D
 
Personally I think it's a brilliant idea, and it frustrates and infuriates me in equal measure that the police have been lambasted over this, probably by the same kind of people that would also come out with the line of all the police do is give out tickets...he we see a genuine case of police out on the beat and actually looking to prevent crime...good one them they have my full support, and not just because a friend is a police officer in Coventry :P
 
Being a gardener I see a lot of houses with there doors left open in the summer especially old people.
With my regular customers I walk into the house and say "it's a good thing I'm not a opportunist thief" then they reply "we allways leave the door open in the summer.
Back too the story right or wrong the police entering someone house the low life's might see this as an opportunity to impersonate police officers as a way to get in peoples home participle old or venerable people. The other thing that could happen someone spots a police officer out of the corner of there eye thinks it's an intruder and whacks them with something heavy, or if it's were I live shoots them.
 
viv1969 said:
The rules which apply to commercial properties don't apply to private dwellings.
"To see if maybe a crime is in progress" is not one of the circumstances under which they may enter a dwelling without warrant or invite.



Kiss ya mother with that mouth? :D
Click to expand...
That is just not wholly correct, as I've repeatedly highlighted you've got to assess the totality of the circumstances. Each one individually may not be enough, but when they are all assessed together it can be justified. Commercial or Private does not have make a difference and would not invalidate the assessment.
 
dejongj said:
That is just not wholly correct, as I've repeatedly highlighted you've got to assess the totality of the circumstances. Each one individually may not be enough, but when they are all assessed together it can be justified. Commercial or Private does not have make a difference and would not invalidate the assessment.
Click to expand...

I'm not willing to argue with you JP...I like you too much.

There is no "together" assessment with this as there was no evidence that any crime was being committed at any premises entered.

Leaving doors unlocked in an unoccupied residence may be stupid, but it is completely at the discretion of the owner/occupier.

It was an undertaking by a regional force on an individual house by house basis which was deemed a good scheme at the time and is no longer being undertaken.

No criminal offence occurred, but protocol was broken and if any householder makes a complaint then the force in question will face censure rather than any individual officer; and they have left themselves open to civil proceedings.
 
viv1969 said:
I'm not willing to argue with you JP...I like you too much.

There is no "together" assessment with this as there was no evidence that any crime was being committed at any premises entered.

Leaving doors unlocked in an unoccupied residence may be stupid, but it is completely at the discretion of the owner/occupier.

It was an undertaking by a regional force on an individual house by house basis which was deemed a good scheme at the time and is no longer being undertaken.

No criminal offence occurred, but protocol was broken and if any householder makes a complaint then the force in question will face censure rather than any individual officer; and they have left themselves open to civil proceedings.
Click to expand...
Likewise :kiss: I don't think there is a need to see it as argueing. We are coming from this from a different perspective.

I agree that IF it is true and are the only circumstances listed as per the article then it could not be argued it was necessary. My point is that the press wouldn't necessarily know the totality as in ALL of the circumstances under which this was done. And likely wouldn't list it as the story surrounding the photos wouldn't be anywhere near as entertaining.

Unless all the facts are known from all parties directly involved, one can't jump to conclusions that they've broken laws (still don't know which ones? @Keith W ), but yes possibly protocol was broken.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top