Dear Editor,
The recent judgement by His Lordship Mr Justice David Batts has been generating a healthy debate on the issues of the powers of the police to stop motor vehicles and search them as well as the drivers and passengers of motor vehicles. These matters have always been contentious, primarily because there are several instances in which the police abuse their power to search citizens.
The right to search citizens, which is borne by the police, is not done for their own benefit, but as part of a scheme that is established in just about every country for the security of citizens. This right to search citizens should therefore be exercised in a restricted way and in absolute compliance with the legal principles on which that right came
into existence.
The principle of which I speak is that a police officer should only stop and search a motor vehicle when he has reasonable grounds to suspect that the motor vehicle and/or its occupants are involved in the commission of a crime, or that the occupants are about to commit
a crime. This includes a reasonable suspicion that the motor vehicle is conveying illegal drugs or stolen property, including stolen animals.
What Justice Batts did in his judgement was to emphasise that well-established principle. We must therefore be clear in our minds that Justice Batts has not promulgated any new law or laid down any new principle. What he has done is to remind the police of the basis on which they can stop and search motor vehicles. He has also reminded them that it is wrong to arbitrarily stop and search motor vehicles. That is to say, without having any reasonable suspicion that the motor vehicles are involved in any wrongdoing. Persons who are now claiming that the learned judge has barred the police from stop and search are mistaken, as he did no such thing.
It must be appreciated, however, that the vast majority of Jamaicans are extremely uncomfortable with the way in which police officers carry out their duties on the roadways. There is no doubt that members of the police force discriminate against owners and drivers of station-wagon "deportees", some of which are called "skettels". Whenever these vehicles are seen with more than two persons they are almost routinely stopped and the driver accused of operating "robot taxi".
In the absence of any other observation to support such a change, this is an act of profiling and a vicious discrimination against the less wealthy members
of our society.
I find that the judgement is a refreshing revisit to the issue of the basis on which the police are entitled to interfere with a citizen's freedom of movement and right to privacy.
The Commissioner of Police should embrace it as such and seize the opportunity to inform and educate members of the force on the importance of acknowledging, protecting and defending the rights of citizens, no matter how difficult the situation.
Linton P Gordon
lpgordon@cwjamaica.com
The recent judgement by His Lordship Mr Justice David Batts has been generating a healthy debate on the issues of the powers of the police to stop motor vehicles and search them as well as the drivers and passengers of motor vehicles. These matters have always been contentious, primarily because there are several instances in which the police abuse their power to search citizens.
The right to search citizens, which is borne by the police, is not done for their own benefit, but as part of a scheme that is established in just about every country for the security of citizens. This right to search citizens should therefore be exercised in a restricted way and in absolute compliance with the legal principles on which that right came
into existence.
The principle of which I speak is that a police officer should only stop and search a motor vehicle when he has reasonable grounds to suspect that the motor vehicle and/or its occupants are involved in the commission of a crime, or that the occupants are about to commit
a crime. This includes a reasonable suspicion that the motor vehicle is conveying illegal drugs or stolen property, including stolen animals.
What Justice Batts did in his judgement was to emphasise that well-established principle. We must therefore be clear in our minds that Justice Batts has not promulgated any new law or laid down any new principle. What he has done is to remind the police of the basis on which they can stop and search motor vehicles. He has also reminded them that it is wrong to arbitrarily stop and search motor vehicles. That is to say, without having any reasonable suspicion that the motor vehicles are involved in any wrongdoing. Persons who are now claiming that the learned judge has barred the police from stop and search are mistaken, as he did no such thing.
It must be appreciated, however, that the vast majority of Jamaicans are extremely uncomfortable with the way in which police officers carry out their duties on the roadways. There is no doubt that members of the police force discriminate against owners and drivers of station-wagon "deportees", some of which are called "skettels". Whenever these vehicles are seen with more than two persons they are almost routinely stopped and the driver accused of operating "robot taxi".
In the absence of any other observation to support such a change, this is an act of profiling and a vicious discrimination against the less wealthy members
of our society.
I find that the judgement is a refreshing revisit to the issue of the basis on which the police are entitled to interfere with a citizen's freedom of movement and right to privacy.
The Commissioner of Police should embrace it as such and seize the opportunity to inform and educate members of the force on the importance of acknowledging, protecting and defending the rights of citizens, no matter how difficult the situation.
Linton P Gordon
lpgordon@cwjamaica.com