united-kingdom police search-and-seizure use-of-force
Can the police make it a crime to put your hands in your pockets?
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/20/met-handcuff-peaceful-anti-bolsonaro-protester-to-delight-of-brazils-far-right" rel="nofollow noreferrer">It is in the news</a> that the police handcuffed a woman claiming she &quot;reached&quot; towards her pockets after being told not to.  <a href="https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Looking at the government</a> and <a href="https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/st-s/stop-and-search/stop-and-search-process/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Metropolitan Police</a> web pages there is no mention of any requirement to not reach towards ones pockets.</p>
<p>If one is stopped and searched is one required to follow orders, such as not &quot;reaching towards&quot; ones pockets?  Is there any specific legislation that gives the police the right to use force in such a situation?</p>
<p>Report of what happened from the media:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Rocha, who was a friend of Dom Phillips, the British journalist murdered in the Amazon in June with Indigenous expert Bruno Pereira, said she was approached by police shortly after reaching the street on which Bolsonaro was staying.</p>
<p>“They came straight at me … [One male officer] grabbed me by the arm and just started taking me to this corner and while he was talking to me he was holding both my wrists really strong. He was hurting my wrists. I was asking him: ‘Why are you holding me? Let me go.’”</p>
<p>“He kept saying: ‘We’ve received some intel that someone in a red T-shirt was going to commit criminal damage … so I’m going to search you and you are detained,” added Rocha, who was wearing a red T-shirt at the time.</p>
<p>Soon after the officer “got the handcuffs out and turned me around and handcuffed me with my hands behind my back”.</p>
<p>“I was in a state of shock … we knew the police were on high alert because of the funeral and all the state leaders that were here but we never expected anything like that.”</p>
<p>Footage of the incident seen by the Guardian shows a male officer searching Rocha’s pockets before handcuffing her and saying: “I told you, ‘Don’t go reaching towards your pockets again – and you reached’ … It’s not my fault you chose not to listen.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Only Parliament has the power to define crimes in law (well, also in the UK there are common law crimes, where ages ago the courts defined punishable wrongs). The police have the power to enforce existing law, but not the power to create new crimes. Part of police power is the power to use force to enforce laws. If a person is trying to kill another (which is a crime), the police can use force to stop the person from committing this crime.</p>
<p>Police power can be statutorily encoded (Parliament passes a law saying what police can and cannot do), or it could be part of common law. As for laws regulating a suspect, there may be a specific statutory prohibition – &quot;you may not reach into your pocket&quot; – or there is a common law inference to be made, that if the police have the power to order you to not reach into your pocket you may be forced to comply.</p>
<p>The subtle distinction here is that if it is a crime to reach into your pocket when told not to, you can be prosecuted and imprisoned. If there is no such crime, you just have the consequence that you can be roughed up to some extent for disobeying the police order.</p>
<p>One act of Parliament is the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/38" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Offences against the Person Act 1861</a> §38 which says</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whosoever . . . shall assault any person with intent to resist or
prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of himself or of any other
person for any offence, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being
convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to
be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years,</p>
</blockquote>
<p>NB &quot;assault&quot; does not require physical contact: creating apprehension suffices. Another law is the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/89" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Police Act 1996</a> §89 which says</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the
execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the
execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on
summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month
or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These laws do not exhaustively list all of the things that are forbidden (e.g. they do not say &quot;may not bite. nor scratch, nor kick...&quot;), instead, the prohibitions fall under the general rubric of assault and resisting.</p>
<p>Under the circumstances, it is possible that the person could be criminally prosecuted, but even in lieu of a prosecution, it is strongly probable that the police use of force in this instance was lawful. One would have to await the outcome of investigations and litigation to know for sure.</p>

<p>Police have the right to use &quot;reasonable force&quot; during a stop. This is intentionaly vague.</p>
<p>Reaching towards one's pockets in a confrontation can be seen as hostile. The reasoning behind this it's possible the suspect is doing so to retrieve a weapon, especially if the suspect has been told not to.</p>
<p>The stop and search may have been for fabricated reasons but the use of force will likely be considered reasonable.</p>

<p>A police officer in England and Wales has powers to 'stop and search' you if they have 'reasonable grounds' to suspect you're carrying something that could be used to commit a crime.</p>
<p>A 'search' is not an 'arrest'. A search is not voluntary. If necessary they may use 'reasonable force' to search you.</p>
<p><strong>The law providing for those police powers doesn't say you must comply with the instruction, it provides for their use of force if you make an obstruction.</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Officers must seek the cooperation of those they are searching but they may
use reasonable force as a “last resort”.<sup>101</sup> This means that they can handcuff
people to conduct a search in some circumstances. However, they should not
routinely handcuff those they search.<sup>102</sup> Automatically handcuffing someone
without seeking their compliance with a search would be a breach of PACE
Code A.<sup>103</sup></p>
<p>...</p>
<p><sup>101</sup> s117, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; Home Office, PACE Code A, paragraph 3.2</p>
<p><sup>102</sup> College of Policing, Stop and search: legal application, [last accessed 7 August 2019]</p>
<p><sup>103</sup> IOPC, The Learning Lesson: Stop and Search, Issue 33, November 2018, p22</p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03878/SN03878.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Police Powers: Stop and Search, House of Commons Library Research Briefing</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Other answers mention the possibility that within the pockets there is a weapon or item that could be used as a weapon.</p>
<p>There is also the possibility that there is evidence in the pockets the person might try to dispose of.</p>
<p>Also there is the possibility your hands in your pockets obstruct the search of your pockets.</p>
<p>In the Guardian article:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A Metropolitan police spokesperson confirmed that shortly after 1.10pm on Sunday police stopped two women “who they had reason to suspect may have been in possession of items to commit criminal damage”.</p>
<p>“Both women were searched. One of the women was initially placed in handcuffs to safely facilitate the search after she repeatedly ignored instructions not to place her hands in her pockets. The handcuffs were subsequently removed,” the spokesperson added.</p>
<p>“No items of concern were found on the two women who were stopped and they were allowed to continue on their way without any further action.”</p>
</blockquote>
