Stop-and-search powers ruled illegal by European court

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

The use by police of terror laws to stop and search people without grounds for suspicion are illegal, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

The Strasbourg court has been hearing a case involving two protesters stopped near an arms fair in London in 2003.

It said Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton's right to respect for a private and family life had been violated.

>

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the home secretary to authorise police to make random searches in certain circumstances.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8453878.stm

[midnight]

1. Can you imagine following the law? Glad to hear it...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Its the law here in the US for all practical purposes

[No Elephants]

5. The law here is the 4th Amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That is still the very highest law of the land. We've allowed it to be watered down and watered down because of apathy, inertia, and, since 911, our knee jerk fear. Apparently, we are willing to give up everything for an illusion of being slightly safer. Privacy in communications of all kinds-gone. Ability to wander about unnoticed--gone. (Though that is as much the fault of Google Earth as it is anyone else's.) Privacy of our private parts. Scanned. Privacy of our body cavities-probed. Yet, the terrorist wannabes get through anyway.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. I wish it were so...

Terry was the last major step in the erosion of our rights in that area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio)

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. It's horribly abused; they used it on Walter Wolfgang at the 2005 Labour conference

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jan/19/terrorism-act

He was one of more than 600 on one day there: http://news.scotsman.com/terrorismintheuk/Over-600-held-under-terror.2666380.jp

Before Section 44, the police could only stop and search individuals if they had 'reasonable grounds' for suspicion and certain criteria were met. That is no longer necessary, and we have seen Section 44 powers used against anti-war, anti-weapons and anti-capitalist protestors.

The power to stop and search under anti-terrorism powers should only be used when there is evidence of a specific terrorist threat. It should not be simply an addition to the day to day powers of officers policing protests.

Ministry of Justice statistics showed that in 2008 there was a three-fold increase in the use of the power, but fewer than 0.1% of those stopped were arrested for terrorism offences (let alone charged or convicted).

Even more worryingly, the statistics also reveal that if you are black or Asian, you are around four times more likely to be stopped than if you are white. It is not difficult to see how this level of misuse is undermining public trust in the police

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/6-free-speech/s44-terrorism-act/index.shtml

[customerserviceguy]

3. It just means that you have to have a bogus reason

I'm sure Europolice will look to their American counterparts for guidance in this area.

[demoleft]

6. British police anti-terror searches condemned (by european court of human rights)

Source: ap

STRASBOURG (AFP) – The European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday condemned British anti-terror legislation allowing people to be searched by police without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

A case brought by Kevin Gillan, 32, and Pennie Quinton, 38, challenged the searches under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

In a unanimous ruling, seven judges said the searches could cause "humiliation and embarrassment" and breached the complainants' right to respect for their private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the statement said.

Reacting to the ruling, London's Metropolitan Police said that, as the British government is seeking to appeal the ruling, Section 44 "remains in force in specified locations across London".


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100112/wl_uk_afp/britaineuropecourtrights

---

totally agreed with the decision.