With all due respect, you are talking rubbish.Originally Posted by Squashed_Fly
There are basically three occasions when the police can enter your home and seize evidence. Firstly where a warrant has been issued by a magistrate[/quote]
I'm aware of your job, but I'm pretty sure, it's not beyond the wit of a police office to gain a warrant to search for evidence in a crime, if they have a picture of the defendant, and have a plate ID with his address? Obviously they can't 'just enter', but if they get a warrant then they can?[/quote]
My apologies if I didn't make it clear in my post regarding police powers of entry to seize evidence......you are very correct, it is not beyond the wit of a police office to gain a warrant to search for evidence in a crime, even me, however even the best officers cannot obtain a warrant if the legislation does not exist for them to do so. I'll try to explain it again.
The obtaining of a warrant is governed by Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) and sets out a number of criteria that have to be met before a magistrate will grant a warrant. The relevant criteria in relation to this discussion is that a police officer has to have reasonable grounds to believe that an indictable offence has been committed. The offence of driving with excess speed is classed as a summary only offence. Therefore a police officer cannot obtain a warrant if the offence that is being investigated is one of excess speed. Hopefully that clears that one up.
In relation to the two articles, i'm not going to go into huge detail as its going off topic, but on the first one I note that the rider was also charged with perverting the course of justice as a result of lying about selling the bike. I suspect that he was arrested for that offence and that would have given the officers the power to search his house and seize evidence as perverting the course of justice is an indictable offence. He has provided a defence/alibi and it is the duty of the police to prove/disprove that alibi. The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. If they had gone to court without checking out the alibi any decent defence solicitor would have had a field day ripping the investigation to shreds. The second article makes no mention of a warrant or evidence being seized and all the matching up/identification of the leathers was done once he was eventually stopped on the street, and he was interviewed at the same time. It has nothing to do with being pissed off, someone being gobby, etc etc and is just gathering evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt.......i.e an investigation.
Sorry for going off topic.
