I seem to remember from when I was a Police Officer that when specific items are named in the information of a Warrant, once they are found the search must stop.
Laws are made 'complex' and difficult to understand on purpose....the Judicial system predominantly works for the Establishment because it is part of that Establishment.
The law is complex because you’re trying to make rules to cover every possible situation which of course impossible. So when you get an unanticipated situation you then get a ruling and a precedent is made which is effectively added to the rules.
@@technicalvault No Martin. The substantive law yes. Law over all, no. I.e. actual application of law in a court. Not every judge or lawyer, but I will generalise and say: The system is extreme. It is biased. It is designed to work beautifully in theory. If they want it to. If the powers that be want to kill your Right to a Fair Trial, then thatcis very, very easy. And there are a myriad if ways, such as unfair exclusion o evidence, interrupting or preventing witnesses etc. So... Let's say ALL your evidence is suppressed on a technicality. Now it is Prosecution evidence against ... Nothing. Just your word. And they will kill your character, and thus invalidate your parol evidence, and then say that YOU presented NO documentary evidence (actually you did, but the judge refuses to admit it into the hearing...) Then they say "on the AVAILABLE evidence, you are found guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." And then you have a criminal record, no work, etc etc etc. AND... If they want to screw up your argument they will say that they don't understand. It's too complex. Break it down! (But don't refer to the papers!) In reality they fully understand but play stupid, so as to fail you. Likewise, a minor point of hardly any significance, can be used to prevent you getting justice. Simply put. This is the Humpty Dumpty School of Law, and it is pervasive.
If you want an idea of how hard it is to make law, define something simple like Murder, and include every exception, defence, partial defence, and nuance, aggravation, mitigation, minimum sentence, maximum sentence, and then I will find one situation you didn't foresee, maybe assisted suicide or an extremely unusual act and you need to explain how to adapt it, the repeat this for 800 years, add some new laws because of technology and changing social attitudes and quickly you'll see why the law is difficult and complex.
The most interesting thing I heard was that they have to let you examine the warrant. It's quite amazing in how many TV License visit videos that they will not hand over the warrant for examination.
Interesting got any links of this happening? Seen lots of vids over various issues involving the TVL staff not showing their id cards to the satisfaction of the householder but never an outright refusal to show a search. warrant. And search warrant execution is in itself a very rare event. So all very interesting and possibly severe consequences for BBC/TVL/CRAPITA.
If they hand it to you, you have accepted it and what is written on it, therefore you can't stop them. Ask them to read it to you, and as the guy said it has to be signed by a judge or magistrate. Usually capita will have one signed by a justice of the peace (JP) These are members of the public and can't legally sign a warrant.
@@WeAreThePeople1690 Umm, a Magistrate is a JP. The whole point of the lay Magistracy is that low-level law is done by ordinary members of the public from the community who have volunteered and been trained to act as Magistrates.
For anyone else looking to find out ONLY about the signature, just go to 9:45. You're welcome. I had to watch the entire video just to get my answer that the title promised. A bit of click bait just to get a whole lot of info I didn't want.
That was an interesting video. 3 points though: 1. I was told that police officers executing a search warrant _do not_ have to produce the warrant during or just prior to the search. In fact they can leave it back at the station. 2. You can be excluded from observing the search under the (pretense?) of your presence being prejudicial to the search. Or alternatively they can arrest you. 3. Warrants can be authorised by a senior officer and in that case the acceptable standard for the issuance is essentially up to that officer.
Section 16 of PACE would appear to be at odds with your first point: (5)Where the occupier of premises which are to be entered and searched is present at the time when a constable seeks to execute a warrant to enter and search them, the constable- (a)shall identify himself to the occupier and, if not in uniform, shall produce to him documentary evidence that he is a constable; (b)shall produce the warrant to him; and (c)shall supply him with a copy of it. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/16
(This is why it's best to take your legal advice from properly qualified lawyers rather than people you meet in the pub!) Not only MUST you be shown the search warrant you MUST also be given a copy of it - which, when you think about how invasive an act a search of your home is, should be expected in a democratic country.
@@workmad3 Ahh, thanks. I'll have a do a proper readup of PACE at some point. As a kid with a father in the force I vaguely remember there were some unpopular changes when that came in so that might have been one of them.
The long term outcome of that should be interesting. I had a run-in with a WPC from Mansfield who was basically trying to bully me. I then got her to put what she was saying in writing then ripped her a new one by quoting Lord Dyson Master of the Rolls (not the hoover guy) and the Litigant in Person's Handbook issued by HMCTS.
As far as I'm aware, the best way to explain it is to say "they have to be signed*" with the * explaining the legality/validity of the electronic signatures used in modern times.
@@makaismith2071 while I certainly see the merit of your argument, I can't help but feel your anxiety towards electronic documentation is unnecessary. The old method of pen and paper is simply inefficient in most cases with the technological developments we've made, especially considering the recent pandemic and the precautions we've been having to take with regards to the sanitisation of everything, even money in the cashmachine has been getting quarantined for safety and while a warrant is very different from a bank note in its nature I'm almost certain that the same precautions would have been necessary if not for the introduction of an electronic alternative, which would have caused untold chaos in the court system. With regards to ensuring the security of an electronic document, there are multiple software programs that allow for a document to be sent securely and require a "signature" from the recipient in the same way 1st class mail would, only cheaper and instantly. Hopefully this explains a small part of the usefulness of the electronic alternative. Also, HI MAKAI! 😂😂
@@makaismith2071 When I mentioned sanitisation I was referring to the cashmachine example and the prevalence of hyper focus on hygiene within society as a whole rather than as individuals, I should have specified that so I apologise. As for your point in reference to accessibility I can only agree with you as I would only ever support electronic service along with the traditional method of pen and paper service because, as you point out, there are always individuals in situations where a different approach is necessary to ensure fairness and due process.
You say a search warrant requires 'reasonable grounds to believe.....'. Am I right in saying that this is a higher threshold than 'reasonable grounds to suspect'? Perhaps a video on the different thresholds of suspicion and belief, to the different levels of 'standard of proof' required in criminal vs civil courts such as 'beyond reasonable doubt' and 'on the balance of probabilities'. I think this might be interesting.
That's a brilliant recommendation, nice one dude! An explanation of the difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "honest suspicion" would be brilliant, I've encountered police that didn't understand the difference and it never turns out well
There's a good summary by a senior judge, whose name I've forgotten, along the lines of - "suspicion is where you think something MIGHT be the case and 'belief' is where you think it IS the case". So suspicion requires about 20% certainty whereas belief requires more like 80%.
Re: TV licencing.... their site claims the licence is mandatory for receiving live broadcasts of ANY channels, not just the BBC ones. Is that legally correct?
I don’t talk from experience but yesterday I found a document on the web that clearly states a warrant needs to “signature” of a magistrate or a judge or in certain circumstances by the Clerk of the court. Remember people solicitors and barristers can be wrong as well.
Once police seeking a missing person came to my home as the person previously stayed there, they had no warrant but to prove the person was no longer resident I let them in to satisfy them. They said had I not they would have forced entry to ensure the person hadn't come to harm. I was told police can do a “necessitas entry”, presumably from Latin necessitas intrere - necessary entering - to prevent harm, loss of life, investigate whether you're incapacitated or dead, or say you're away & there may be a gas leak.
QUESTION. How are searches of property to be undertaken, if your property was to be searched for whatever reason, what protection is there for the owner of the property to be searched to expect that property to be left in the same state it was in before the search? Surely the searchers have a responsibility to search a premises and respect the belongings of the property owner and cause no mess or damage? Where do people stand on this ?
I think the confusion stems from the 1911 Perjuries Act is it? Also if an old bill knowingly gives false evidence to a judge, what would be the primary offence there? Would it be a misfeasance, a malfeasance or a perjury or could it be both a feasance AND a perjury?
Warrants are applied for on oath. If the applicant knowingly stated a falsehood that would be perjury. However, the word "knowingly" gives quite a lot of wiggle room. Making an honest mistake is not perjury.
The police use their get out of jail card on this by saying that they believe it to be true and there for it doesn't have to be true. Just a belief that it is true.
It staggers me every time I hear someone say it - when did people decide that their consent, permission or agreement is pertinent in any way? Do they really believe that their consent is required? Or that because they don't agree, that somehow negates the search/warrant?
Met police site-All warrants issued by a court will be signed and stamped by the issuing court. Any officers in plain clothes will carry their warrant cards, these can be shown on request to prove the identity of the officers carrying out any search. The officers should also be in possession of the signed warrant, police will also carry a premises search book, which will have sections to fill out and give to occupier, or owners of premises, or vehicles searched.
Something should be made absolutely clear: the police can and will do pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want. All the mumbo jumbo that lawyers will tell you about the law doesn’t apply in most cases for two reasons. 1) the police “grounds” for doing most things falls into a “suspicion of x, y or z”. This is so easy to lie about after the fact or to twist and you will have no leg to stand on; 2) there is virtually no accountability or punishment for any police who do this, very few are sacked or arrested even if they are caught in a tangible way. This is because they can pass off perjury or abuse of power as an “honest mistake”. Your only option in dealing with the police safety is to be luckily enough to never be involved with them. If you are, say nothing and comply and hope you get a good lawyer if it goes to trial.
Did read an article that said 80% of home search warrants are in some way incorrect, to get around this it is generally argued that a proper warrant would be issued so it doesn't matter(not verbatim) and the search was therefore legal. I dare you to try this with at the shop on why you haven't paid for your shopping after all you have the money you just didn't have time to wait.
do you have the article. Its down to the defence to make the case that the warrant should be treated as defective and the Judge to decide. If its something like the postcode was wrong then its not material
Interesting video, you touch on the Address info for a warrant, and as this is a classic issue used in many police/detective stories was wondering if you could clarify what is needed in the way of a correct address. Basically what is a full and correct address? For example: 1 Any Avenue, Sometown, County, PostCode, would assume that if the property name/number is wrong then the warrant is not valid, but what if the street/town/county or postcode are miss-spelt or wrong, Clive Rd rather than Clive St. Peel Place rather than Pearl Place, another example is I live in Roath, Cardiff but I get items addressed to me as Adamsdown Cardiff.
I enjoy ypur videos and you perform a very important public service demystifying these things. Please will you make a video on the legal aspects of the Julian Assange case.
That was interesting, but it would be good to know more about why so many people believe that a wet signature is required. Why are they misinterpreting the law? What is it that they are overlooking?
Cause if it's has a wet signature then it's been seen by a judge/magistrate not printed of on a computer... then it appears to follow protocol and someone higher up had to sign off on it making sure the law was followed.
I think the misconception comes from the difference between criminal and civil warrants. Also with control warrants it is required that the bailiff has a wet ink signature on his enforcement agent certificate but not a wet signature on the actual warrant itself so this could be another misconception regarding the signature.
I have a set top box. My question is, I disconnected it from the ariel the box when I stopped paying my license. Is it legal for me to watch programs I recorded on it before I stop paying my TV license.
Thanks for the info' BBB! We've just had a search made on our home. 5 Search warrants, for house, 3 x cars & our caravan. 14 plain clothes officers. I'm REALLY suspicious about the warrants (which I have), and not just the lack of 'Signature' electronic or otherwise, and there's just a typed "KS' on the bottom line where "insert name" is provided. .. It's very 'general' - basically to search and seize any electronic computers, phones, memory cards etc that can/might be found (not in those exact words). Any help would be gratefully received.
Here's a hypothetical question, could entry be reasonably refused on a warrant issued under the Telecommunications Act unless a valid and current PCR test is produced for reasons of protecting the health of the resident(s) and their families?
Hypothetically, only if the warrant holders refuse to take reasonable measures to minimize risk of infection. i.e. wearing masks/gloves and sanitise before entry of the property. You have to remember that under a "TV Licence" warrant they are only there for TVs and similar equipment and cant just go through the entire house. so asking individuals who might be considered at risk to leave any room they enter is considered reasonable
Simply remove their implied rights of acess to your property via email or letter, you don't have to give your name, just resident at '7 kerry avenue' whatever your address is and state that you don't wish to purchase anything or form any contracts with them and also that the boundary to your private property begins at the gate/end of the drive/steps etc and trespass on your private property comes with a fixed penalty of 5k, you'll get a letter back thanking you and then 2 yrs later you have to send the same letter, it's that easy! I've don't this for 8 years and have a 8-9 meter long drive that is covered by cctv, 1 foot on my drive and I'm taking them to court for trespass & 5k , but I've never had a single visit in 8 years..... also if you grew up when I did you'll remember the TV signal detector van that knew if you had a TV in your property??? (Look for the advert if not) well that's total fiction, no such technology exists, their is no way anybody could tell if you were watching a TV without either looking through your window or entering the property, hence the need for warrants in the 1st place! Don't let these ped0 supporting organisations / racket take a single penny of your hard earned money& do yourself a huge favour and don't watch TV anyway, most programmes are designed to keep you stupid, apathetic , ignorant, sad and fearful, it's all propoganda ALL OF IT!
Case I had on benefit matter client had search warrant at his home for stolen busses ( he had dispute with credit lender) police done full search warrant section 8. Client arrested. After questioning client was released no charge and apology saying buses weren’t stolen. Clearly matter a civil case however client showed me warrant not signed wet or otherwise and no court stamp. I’m curious and said I’d puta post on here for him regarding no signature and no stamp is out valid ?????
My tv was originally installed for receiving live broadcasts ect. Since then I have changed its use to not receiving live broadcasts and iPlayer. So if its original use at installation is not its current use am I breaking the law.
Lol what a surprise the corrupt corporation now using fraudulent electronic warrants.why use due process when you can make it up as you go along only one question does the name of the judge/magistrate have to be printed on the electronic warrant?if not who can you seek redress or remedy from ?
If a warrant does not require a WET signature but still requires a signature, does the name of the signatory need to be printed on the warrant in a readable format?
Are those two swords in the background now illegal to own even in private under the new offence weapons act? Saw something in the news the other day about this and many other items which are now illegal to own in private. Something about a curved sword 50cm plus. Might be catching a lot of people out that are not aware of the new law.
Just enquiring if the police stop someone outside of a property they don't live in, but the resident of the property invites the police to search the defendant in an private area for sake of embarrassment, are the police allowed to search that property even though the resident is nothing to do with suspected crime?
I would like to know if a bailiff or debt collector from a company that has a warrant that has no court stamp or judge signature is it valid and can they enforce it
@@boxfullofneutral8514 depends on the reason for a bayliff. I had one once turn up for an electricity bill one I was given 3 weeks before. How on earth they thought it was okay to come to my door for an electricity bill they hadn't even given me a month to pay is beyond me. As it turns out, I had the cash and just paid at the door. I just dont make my payments until the end of the month (you know, payday) is all. But I can imagine someone who wasnt in my position having a much harder time with this.
@@ElliottParkinson well if they haven't got the money to pay for it don't use it. Too many people think they can have and never pay. That leaves our prices high
@@boxfullofneutral8514 I think you missed the point. It was THREE WEEKS after the bill came in. Its extremely unreasonable to expect a bill to be cleared fully to the point of sending people to the house, less than a month after the bill was sent out. What do they expect the average person to be able to clear large bills in between paydays? I wouldnt have even expected there to be an issue had this guy not came to my door. Id have just paid it at the end of the month and left it at that. Also, this was for electricity. Its kinda not possible to not use electricity unless you like death.
Back after 2 years- A warrant needs a signature and a seal.. Without it there is no validity... A digital copy must be the same as the original full stop..... Anyone who says this is not true must be put into question
Hi BlackBeltBarrister, @8.58 you say the search must be conducted within 3 months (of issue of the warrant). I believe that for a TV License search, the time-frame is limited to 30 days.
This video seems a little misleading; I have queried this but as my previous requests for clarity have failed to produce a reply I'm not holding up any hope. My understanding is that they (the police) can exclude you from a search of your property if they 'believe' your presence might prejudice the search. Or they can just arrest you until it's complete.
@@loc4725 OK, thanks. If he's receiving hundreds of prods he may have to pick out the ones he thinks most important. I'm not legally trained in any way so sifting through laws online I find very complicated, and paying for a lawyer to answer questions becomes way too expensive.
Is there any statistics tucked away anywhere on the success rate of executed warrants? It would be interesting to know about the polices failures where their information is flawed as against their successes which are shown across the media.
I really need some serious advice in a unique case it’s seems because the police thought they didn’t need to show or provide a search warrant they still entered with force what is my next steps
@@squicker true, but its not possible for the person the search is executed agaisnt to validate it in any case. I mean ideally you wouldnt let anyone with a bit of paper just turn up and search your house because the words on the page say so. What we need to rectify this is a way to validate a warrant before the conductor of the search enters the premises.
I have legal advice but the case has been going a year. The police came with a warrant the only thing on the warrant was out address and s32 box ticked. No date or signature. They also searched for an hour before arrest but they deny this. Cant obtain bodycam footage until a charge. Is this warrant legal missing all information and is the search legal before arrest? Thank you
Are police officers allowed to enter rented accommodation without the resident at home, without the occupants permission, and 'seize' personal non criminal items (such as a bible & teddybear) without a warrant...?
BlackBeltBarrister i had my property search by police by search warrant did not had signautere by judge on paper it says it requaiest signature of judge and did not had one and no stamp !
Can someone reply to this question? Is there a way to validate the warrant itself to know that it was issued by a valid authority. Examples: Bank checks have multiple validation methods such as thermochromic ink that changes color with heat. Water marks, etc. Same goes for Medical scripts. So do these search warrants have any counterfeit protection methods that could be used to make sure the warrant is valid?
It's the reported errors such as wrong date, unsigned etc. that interest me, because if there is a process and it isn't being fulfilled and when it is questioned it becomes moot as far as the court and police is concerned why both having a process? If the process fails doesn't the warrant become invaild, and therefore the search and all actions by the police become essentially a home invasion?
I often wondered would that warrant allow them to go through your computer and all your personal files in case you have something in there that is set-up to receive TV, it just seems like an intrusion of privacy.
@@BedsitBob still feels like a massive intrusion of privacy for a private company to pay a private court to write a private warrant to intrude on a private individuals personal devices.
On the issue of whether a computer, laptop or phone is a TV receiver and they see the Iplayer icon or a internet browser icon, what if one says "I only use that when I am at a property that has a TV license, the device is mobile", is that is a reasonable doubt? Anyway does one have to turn on the devices/enter passwords/logon or is that entrapment?
Sir....apparently TV licence officers (goons) now say their warrents are on line when they turn up at your house as they now say this is how its being done. now..is this legal?.......would appreciate a reply
The warrant system doesn't apply to offences committed over the web, or phone. One could simply say why bother with a warrant system, if they aren't routinely used for all offences, not just indictable ones. According to the power powers which contains the section 8 warrant application, the powers also mention how items are seized and recorded by constables or done at a police station. How ever not everything could be recorded, so is simply denied if something is broken or isn't returned. For Malicious communication, anything could be seized, draws looked into, cupboards, or the summary offences like unwanted contact. A search is a search, if something is done via a computer, a computer would be seized, if there are more than one, why would a constable trust a suspect to tell what they use or don't. A person can't use a digital camera or a memory unit for games to send messages or messages that could be threats. There are many examples of where searches aren't done with a warrant, the difference is a warrant is a permission from a court, instead of the seizure section of the police powers, which gives a broad power to seize many items. Warrant or no warrant, that is a dangerous alone due to the fact that property could be damaged or by chance, it malfunctions due to age. It isn't easy this type of subject, one could be storing messages on a number of systems, phones, and storage disks of all sorts, but it seems a bit stupid. And if not, the police as an institution have to deal with possible legal action, or who knows.
If I have sent written complaints to my landlord (local council ) about the anti social behaviour of my neighbour. Do my written complaints constitute evidence or proof against my neighbour , which would be acceptable in a court of law. My council have done nothing to support me.
@@JackSmith-wm3wm That's not a legal answer, but it is an example of arrogance writ large, believing that anyone living in social housing can just upsticks and leave, when they probably can't and shouldn't have to. For all you know, this might be a vulnerable pensioner being bullied. You obviously despise people earning less than the average barrister, but why you should choose to peruse the comments section of help vids like this is beyond me, unless its just to swagger in front of the less fortunates........
Where do you stand with just pretending not to be in because Im under the impression TV licence won't force entry due to bad PR if it turns out you didn't need one. Will it just lapse after the 3 months
Thanks for the info...... I have 2 questions for you:- 1 - Regarding Digital Warrants......do they still need to be on paper? ... I've seen numerous youtube videos of bailiffs/debt collectors claiming their search & seizure warrants are on their phones/ i-pads and will not produce them to the occupiers because there is other sensitive info on the devices.......seems really dodgy to me. 2 - Regarding search warrants - lets say hypothetically for TV licence - does the warrant allow them to force entry to search (whether or not the occupier is present), or must they only search by means of "peaceful entry" ( be allowed across the threashold ) ? .... again, there are numerous videos featuring this, with mixed opinions. Thanks in advance if you can answer these
Question, what do you mean by "forced entry"? If you mean can they break into your premises, then no. However preventing execution of a warrant my lead to your arrest. so refusing access once a warrant has been shown is never recommended and (as said in this video) you should seek legal advice after the warrant has completed to challenge it.
@@richardphillips8260 ok, perhaps I wasn't clear...... Following my hypothetical, Is a warrant issued to a premises, or person, or just legal occupier? To serve it they would have to know the person at the door is named or legal occupier? Regarding forced entry, I know they can't break in, but if they are speaking to a person at the open front door, can they push past the person, thereby forcing entry ?
@@fifthoarsmanoftheacropolis4173 From my personal experience, warrants issued under the telecommunications act are usually issued to both the property and property owner. It's not unusual to have it issued to either, but usually to both. Officially they can't "barge past" a person at an open door. However, like I said in my previous comment, obstructing the execution of a warrant can lead to your arrest. that's why they usually turn up with a police officer to "keep the peace"
I am curious if a search is found to be unlawful due to a defective warrant is the police officers or officials from other agencies conducting the search liable to be prosecuted for trespass? There has been a case here in Australia where a journalist was able to take the Australian Federal Police to court over a search warrant which was found to be defective leading to the police not being able to use the data from her telephone and potentially opening the search party open to being sued for trespass.
What about if it just says by the clerk and no name dose it have to have a name on the warrant so someone takes liability for the warrant or can it not have a name as long as it stamped.
@BlackBeltBarrister got a question for you.... in regards to non molestation orders... if the original was issued in the wrong name.. then a few weeks time another one comes through the door with the original name crossed out in red ink and the correct name written in red ink also put on the order but that order didnt come with the rest of the pages like the original... is it a legal standing order.... in your legal opinion and experience have you ever heard of a judge correcting a order in red ink by crossing out a name and righting in the correct name...
Hi, I’ve just watched a vid on ChilliJonCarne about a meter reading company, Lowry Beck Services, advertising meter reading job vacancies. Part of the job description is “to gain information on TV Licenses! I suspect covertly. What are your thoughts on that little nugget? Love your channel, keep up the great advice
@blackbeltbarrister if you are arrested, at your own premises, and if the police have been invited in, does this then eliminate the need for a search warrant? Are the police then able to search your property, given reasonable cause, and touch/move anything they desire, by that I mean limited to anything that could cause harm or illegal I.e. drugs, weapons etc? Thanks
Question: you say you're entitled to film any searches on your mobile phone. But what if your mobile phone is part of what they're searching for? Can you film them before they take it or would you have to hand it straight over?
That's quite a grey area - Investigator - Please turn on your television for me Sir. Me - Sorry I don't believe the device you are referring to is covered by the warrant as its primary and only purpose is a display monitor for my PC and games console. Investigator - Don't be silly Sir it's a television set please turn it on for me. What happens next if I hold my ground?
Fantastic and educational videos but for goodness sake don't introduce background music into your videos. Carry on good work, you are very good and talented.
Interesting as a search can be carried out without warrant, at the time of arrest or a recent place prior to arrest, or place of arrest, the home address or vehicle to preserve evidence, life or property.
Authenticity of warrants Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.20.014910 I note you seek access to the following information: If I am approached by a plain clothes officer with a warrant to search my vehicle or property, how can I ensure that the warrant issued is genuine, as burglars may use this to gain access to my property/vehicle. Decision I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full. Please find below information pursuant to your request above. All warrants issued by a court will be signed and stamped by the issuing court. Any officers in plain clothes will carry their warrant cards, these can be shown on request to prove the identity of the officers carrying out any search. The officers should also be in possession of the signed warrant, police will also carry a premises search book, which will have sections to fill out and give to occupier, or owners of premises, or vehicles searched.
Question: If you are to observe the full search and can record it, does that mean you can restrict a search to only the room you are occupying, on condition you will move rooms/location as the search of each room/premises is completed?
Is there a way to check that an electronic signaturre is valid ie that it has not just been created by someone and is not actually a issued by a court?
You gave us another superlative stream again Capt. I am glad your better half is a regular member too. A proper team. We make a great and formidable group. Not to be underestimated.
OK thanks for that. A English man home is his castle until every Tom dick or Harry wants to ransack it. We no that judges never see them there just stamped by the Clark of the court who will stamp anything the police put in front of him. I would add a this point that I have never been in trouble for anything other than a camera speed ticket. But I see on TH-cam so many people having to suffer because of liar's. Just look at poor Alex belfield.
@@jackdaw3160 having dealt with fair few warrants and orders (not for TV Licencing), your comment re the Judge (either Crown or DJ depending on act), isnt correct in my experience
No, it doesn't. There you go. All done. Edit: I should add that the validity of the warrant is not necessarily 3 months - it depends on the legislation. Referring back to section 366 of the Communications Act 2003, warrants granted under that provision are valid for one month only. Probably also worth mentioning that section 8(1C) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a warrant can be granted that allows multiple entries to the same premises.
You say about searching the equipment ie TV. Just because a TV can receive BBC, it doesn't mean you are watching it and that is what the licence is for, watching.
@@PeterMaddison2483 no chance he thinks hes harry ferkin potter with his cape and wig to hide his bald cranium it was once a known fact balding men have been inacted into occult traumatised learning AKA a BAD egg
@@PeterMaddison2483 mate its all about the reading the pattern of baldness , stress and anxiety brought about naturally, old age ,alopecia , if the crown goes bald first and the surrounding hair is thick is a 98% dead cert this brain prob child abuse it is a reflection from trauma , but they learn this as 1 of the 33 degrees , well most masons only bother learning 1 degree and love to call themselves eggspurts , but a true master mason learns 33
Whilst I love your videos... In the real world people are held often in handcuffs in a room whilst the police search the property, so they are unable to video it and they are never given a chance to read the search warrant.... THOUSANDS of TH-cam videos show this happening as does the countless TV shows showing the police at work... The Police/CPS does as they wish regardless of the law and VERY FEW lawyers,barristers ever challenge them... But thank you for the videos they are very informative... I would suggest you do a poll of some sort to see how often the police have been observed doing what ever they want regardless of the law for a given situation.....
never given - you mean often never given. All the searches i did the person always got the chance to read the warrant. Re handcuffing people..if the occupant is also being arrested then they might well be handcuffed. More generally depends on type of search. I cant think of any of many i took part in where that happened. Potentially i think on anti terrorist ones etc might happen. There was the murder of a police officer sadly during a search of that kind where only during the search did they realise that one of the occupants was a wanted suspect
@@vanpallandt5799 You sound like you would have been at least a decent member of the a police service.. Shame there are not many like you still servicing.... The reality is far to many seem to forget they have procedures or common sense today... And just make it up as they go along. Whilst the issue I brought up above is one I have not had and no experience in I can recount a least one where a Police constable though he was being clever.. Out in a carpark in the lake district Cutting a length of paracord with a leatherman multitool. Police vehicle pulled in, He gets out and proceeds to tell me I am under arrest for carrying an offensive weapon and places me in handcuffs.. Then searches my vehicle and finds a small axe in a bag with kindling. Just as he is about to empty my Bergan on the floor a police sargeant turns up(proper old school one too) asks the constable what he is doing. Then looks at all my climbing gear, Bergan and wild camping gear and ask the constable why he felt he had a just reason given as he saw it I had a reasonable escuse for both the leatherman and Axe.. I got a compensation payout that allowed me to take me, partner and two children on a two week holiday to Disney world... Things like this are becoming more and more common place, which is sad because there some genuinely good constables out there that bend over backwars to help and use their common sense to resolve issues etc. Including ones like you who would apply procedures when they should be.. Thumbs up too you.. If I met you I'd by you a pint or coffe...
@@hudsonbear5038 thanks...obviously cutting up something in the country with a knife is all about context and yes some ppl have no common sense. Also every conversation here doesnt have to be aggressive but there are ppl on both sides that want it that way. In the past was accused of being fake as i didnt come on threatening ppl. I realise that if someone wants a revolution then of course they just see reasonable policing as being the velvet glove etc as they want like the German Baader Meinhoff terrorists did to cause a reaction so that the state "shows its true colours"..mind you, i doubt many here would have much sympathy for extreme leftist terrorists who allied with PIRA. Even most of those calling for the veterans and the troops to stand with the ppl re these vax protests (on other YT feeds re the Resistance) would i doubt have called for the army and police in Ulster to align with the NICRA during the Troubles.
@@PeterMaddison2483 and they often obtain your details illegally because the Council illegally sells your details from the private register If you are in the public register if voters that is lawful but not the private .It should be a serious criminal offence for any organization -public or private to pass in personal.information provided fir a specific purpose e.g. Council Tax or Motor Road Fund licencing to anyone else Specific examples of abuse are councils releasing your name and address to private companies ; DVLA selling your details to private parking companies -your medical history being passed to pharmaceutical companies etc etc The Data Protection Act is in practice totally useless in protecting your right to privacy of information .
@@ronnieince4568 So, people should start asking questions as to how their details were obtained if they get a parking ticket (private) or a court summons from TVL
@@PeterMaddison2483 tye DVLA give out the information -that should be illegal. My council gave out my details even though I filled in the form saying my details should not appear on the public electoral list .What is the point if asking people if they want their data to be secure and then ignoring their reply. Information should only be released when used for the specific purpose it was given .I give my name and address to the DVLA as a legal requirement for Road Fund , Driving Licence and police use only -not private parking companies .I put my name on the Electoral Register to comply with Electoral Law not for public disclosure by the Council without my authorization -in fact I specifically ticked the privacy box yet they disclose this information to all and sundry .The reality us the law does not protect private data and nobody is held to account .Ask yourself how you get all these scam calls from.callers who know your name when your phone number is ex directory and you never publicly disclose it
@@ronnieince4568 Thats why there are exception clauses one of which is related to investigation and prevention of crime (talking about police and other LE agencies)
Wow! An incredible amount of information. Thanks for all the hard work that went into this. Cracking stuff. Another reference for multiple viewings.
I seem to remember from when I was a Police Officer that when specific items are named in the information of a Warrant, once they are found the search must stop.
Laws are made 'complex' and difficult to understand on purpose....the Judicial system predominantly works for the Establishment because it is part of that Establishment.
Not because the law has nuances is inherently harder to define than is intuitive at all.
The legal system is clearly a union based closed shop. No scab labour allowed!
The law is complex because you’re trying to make rules to cover every possible situation which of course impossible. So when you get an unanticipated situation you then get a ruling and a precedent is made which is effectively added to the rules.
@@technicalvault No Martin. The substantive law yes. Law over all, no. I.e. actual application of law in a court. Not every judge or lawyer, but I will generalise and say: The system is extreme. It is biased. It is designed to work beautifully in theory. If they want it to. If the powers that be want to kill your Right to a Fair Trial, then thatcis very, very easy. And there are a myriad if ways, such as unfair exclusion o evidence, interrupting or preventing witnesses etc. So... Let's say ALL your evidence is suppressed on a technicality. Now it is Prosecution evidence against ... Nothing. Just your word.
And they will kill your character, and thus invalidate your parol evidence, and then say that YOU presented NO documentary evidence (actually you did, but the judge refuses to admit it into the hearing...) Then they say "on the AVAILABLE evidence, you are found guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt."
And then you have a criminal record, no work, etc etc etc.
AND... If they want to screw up your argument they will say that they don't understand. It's too complex. Break it down! (But don't refer to the papers!)
In reality they fully understand but play stupid, so as to fail you.
Likewise, a minor point of hardly any significance, can be used to prevent you getting justice.
Simply put. This is the Humpty Dumpty School of Law, and it is pervasive.
If you want an idea of how hard it is to make law, define something simple like Murder, and include every exception, defence, partial defence, and nuance, aggravation, mitigation, minimum sentence, maximum sentence, and then I will find one situation you didn't foresee, maybe assisted suicide or an extremely unusual act and you need to explain how to adapt it, the repeat this for 800 years, add some new laws because of technology and changing social attitudes and quickly you'll see why the law is difficult and complex.
I'm really loving your content and the education it provides Daniel. Keep up the good work buddy 👍🏻
The most interesting thing I heard was that they have to let you examine the warrant. It's quite amazing in how many TV License visit videos that they will not hand over the warrant for examination.
Interesting got any links of this happening? Seen lots of vids over various issues involving the TVL staff not showing their id cards to the satisfaction of the householder but never an outright refusal to show a search. warrant. And search warrant execution is in itself a very rare event. So all very interesting and possibly severe consequences for BBC/TVL/CRAPITA.
If they hand it to you, you have accepted it and what is written on it, therefore you can't stop them. Ask them to read it to you, and as the guy said it has to be signed by a judge or magistrate. Usually capita will have one signed by a justice of the peace (JP) These are members of the public and can't legally sign a warrant.
@@WeAreThePeople1690 Justice of the Peace is another name for a Magistrate. They’re one and the same.
@@WeAreThePeople1690 Umm, a Magistrate is a JP. The whole point of the lay Magistracy is that low-level law is done by ordinary members of the public from the community who have volunteered and been trained to act as Magistrates.
A lot of general public pay in hundreds if not thousands to get this information.
Thank you Sir I appreciate your time.
For anyone else looking to find out ONLY about the signature, just go to 9:45. You're welcome. I had to watch the entire video just to get my answer that the title promised. A bit of click bait just to get a whole lot of info I didn't want.
So they don’t need to be signed as such…..ALL others do though apparently. Just not this one? 🤷♀️
That was an interesting video. 3 points though:
1. I was told that police officers executing a search warrant _do not_ have to produce the warrant during or just prior to the search. In fact they can leave it back at the station.
2. You can be excluded from observing the search under the (pretense?) of your presence being prejudicial to the search. Or alternatively they can arrest you.
3. Warrants can be authorised by a senior officer and in that case the acceptable standard for the issuance is essentially up to that officer.
Section 16 of PACE would appear to be at odds with your first point:
(5)Where the occupier of premises which are to be entered and searched is present at the time when a constable seeks to execute a warrant to enter and search them, the constable-
(a)shall identify himself to the occupier and, if not in uniform, shall produce to him documentary evidence that he is a constable;
(b)shall produce the warrant to him; and
(c)shall supply him with a copy of it.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/16
(This is why it's best to take your legal advice from properly qualified lawyers rather than people you meet in the pub!) Not only MUST you be shown the search warrant you MUST also be given a copy of it - which, when you think about how invasive an act a search of your home is, should be expected in a democratic country.
@@workmad3 Ahh, thanks. I'll have a do a proper readup of PACE at some point.
As a kid with a father in the force I vaguely remember there were some unpopular changes when that came in so that might have been one of them.
@@vatsmith8759 "you MUST also be given a copy of it"
Except in Scotland.
Nottingham Police allegedly forced entry to Alex Benfield’s house, arrested him, and took his property - not once, but twice without a warrant.
As it is an ongoing case I shall refrain from further comment. Only to say, imo it stinks. The whole pretence.
I love watching and waiting to see what happens 🤗🤗🤗
The long term outcome of that should be interesting. I had a run-in with a WPC from Mansfield who was basically trying to bully me. I then got her to put what she was saying in writing then ripped her a new one by quoting Lord Dyson Master of the Rolls (not the hoover guy) and the Litigant in Person's Handbook issued by HMCTS.
@Fred give Alex B a rest we aren't interested in your political football !
Not all searches require a warrant
This video just answered a list of questions I just wrote, regarding a video of yours. Thank you for clearing that up.
As far as I'm aware, the best way to explain it is to say "they have to be signed*" with the * explaining the legality/validity of the electronic signatures used in modern times.
@@makaismith2071 while I certainly see the merit of your argument, I can't help but feel your anxiety towards electronic documentation is unnecessary.
The old method of pen and paper is simply inefficient in most cases with the technological developments we've made, especially considering the recent pandemic and the precautions we've been having to take with regards to the sanitisation of everything, even money in the cashmachine has been getting quarantined for safety and while a warrant is very different from a bank note in its nature I'm almost certain that the same precautions would have been necessary if not for the introduction of an electronic alternative, which would have caused untold chaos in the court system.
With regards to ensuring the security of an electronic document, there are multiple software programs that allow for a document to be sent securely and require a "signature" from the recipient in the same way 1st class mail would, only cheaper and instantly.
Hopefully this explains a small part of the usefulness of the electronic alternative.
Also, HI MAKAI! 😂😂
@@makaismith2071 When I mentioned sanitisation I was referring to the cashmachine example and the prevalence of hyper focus on hygiene within society as a whole rather than as individuals, I should have specified that so I apologise. As for your point in reference to accessibility I can only agree with you as I would only ever support electronic service along with the traditional method of pen and paper service because, as you point out, there are always individuals in situations where a different approach is necessary to ensure fairness and due process.
@@makaismith2071 I think Jake is correct, Makai.
And how do you know its real and not fake and the people at your door are scammers like happened recently?
You say a search warrant requires 'reasonable grounds to believe.....'.
Am I right in saying that this is a higher threshold than 'reasonable grounds to suspect'?
Perhaps a video on the different thresholds of suspicion and belief, to the different levels of 'standard of proof' required in criminal vs civil courts such as 'beyond reasonable doubt' and 'on the balance of probabilities'.
I think this might be interesting.
That's a brilliant recommendation, nice one dude! An explanation of the difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "honest suspicion" would be brilliant, I've encountered police that didn't understand the difference and it never turns out well
There's a good summary by a senior judge, whose name I've forgotten, along the lines of - "suspicion is where you think something MIGHT be the case and 'belief' is where you think it IS the case". So suspicion requires about 20% certainty whereas belief requires more like 80%.
Just came across your TH-cam videos, and they are brilliant, keep them coming 👍
Glad you like them!
Re: TV licencing.... their site claims the licence is mandatory for receiving live broadcasts of ANY channels, not just the BBC ones. Is that legally correct?
For live broadcasts yes
No live tv at all or use of bbc iPlayer. Easily avoided if you ask me.
I don’t talk from experience but yesterday I found a document on the web that clearly states a warrant needs to “signature” of a magistrate or a judge or in certain circumstances by the Clerk of the court. Remember people solicitors and barristers can be wrong as well.
Once police seeking a missing person came to my home as the person previously stayed there, they had no warrant but to prove the person was no longer resident I let them in to satisfy them. They said had I not they would have forced entry to ensure the person hadn't come to harm. I was told police can do a “necessitas entry”, presumably from Latin necessitas intrere - necessary entering - to prevent harm, loss of life, investigate whether you're incapacitated or dead, or say you're away & there may be a gas leak.
QUESTION. How are searches of property to be undertaken, if your property was to be searched for whatever reason, what protection is there for the owner of the property to be searched to expect that property to be left in the same state it was in before the search? Surely the searchers have a responsibility to search a premises and respect the belongings of the property owner and cause no mess or damage? Where do people stand on this ?
I think the confusion stems from the 1911 Perjuries Act is it? Also if an old bill knowingly gives false evidence to a judge, what would be the primary offence there? Would it be a misfeasance, a malfeasance or a perjury or could it be both a feasance AND a perjury?
Warrants are applied for on oath. If the applicant knowingly stated a falsehood that would be perjury. However, the word "knowingly" gives quite a lot of wiggle room. Making an honest mistake is not perjury.
The police use their get out of jail card on this by saying that they believe it to be true and there for it doesn't have to be true. Just a belief that it is true.
I would be very interested to know how common search warrants are for TV licence
It staggers me every time I hear someone say it - when did people decide that their consent, permission or agreement is pertinent in any way? Do they really believe that their consent is required? Or that because they don't agree, that somehow negates the search/warrant?
Met police site-All warrants issued by a court will be signed and stamped by the issuing court. Any officers in plain clothes will carry their warrant cards, these can be shown on request to prove the identity of the officers carrying out any search. The officers should also be in possession of the signed warrant, police will also carry a premises search book, which will have sections to fill out and give to occupier, or owners of premises, or vehicles searched.
Something should be made absolutely clear: the police can and will do pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want. All the mumbo jumbo that lawyers will tell you about the law doesn’t apply in most cases for two reasons. 1) the police “grounds” for doing most things falls into a “suspicion of x, y or z”. This is so easy to lie about after the fact or to twist and you will have no leg to stand on; 2) there is virtually no accountability or punishment for any police who do this, very few are sacked or arrested even if they are caught in a tangible way. This is because they can pass off perjury or abuse of power as an “honest mistake”.
Your only option in dealing with the police safety is to be luckily enough to never be involved with them. If you are, say nothing and comply and hope you get a good lawyer if it goes to trial.
Did read an article that said 80% of home search warrants are in some way incorrect, to get around this it is generally argued that a proper warrant would be issued so it doesn't matter(not verbatim) and the search was therefore legal. I dare you to try this with at the shop on why you haven't paid for your shopping after all you have the money you just didn't have time to wait.
do you have the article. Its down to the defence to make the case that the warrant should be treated as defective and the Judge to decide. If its something like the postcode was wrong then its not material
Interesting video, you touch on the Address info for a warrant, and as this is a classic issue used in many police/detective stories was wondering if you could clarify what is needed in the way of a correct address. Basically what is a full and correct address? For example: 1 Any Avenue, Sometown, County, PostCode, would assume that if the property name/number is wrong then the warrant is not valid, but what if the street/town/county or postcode are miss-spelt or wrong, Clive Rd rather than Clive St. Peel Place rather than Pearl Place, another example is I live in Roath, Cardiff but I get items addressed to me as Adamsdown Cardiff.
I enjoy ypur videos and you perform a very important public service demystifying these things. Please will you make a video on the legal aspects of the Julian Assange case.
A magistrate should not be allowed to issue search warrants, they are peoole that pretty much just walked in to the court off the street.
That was interesting, but it would be good to know more about why so many people believe that a wet signature is required. Why are they misinterpreting the law? What is it that they are overlooking?
Cause if it's has a wet signature then it's been seen by a judge/magistrate not printed of on a computer... then it appears to follow protocol and someone higher up had to sign off on it making sure the law was followed.
It's a common myth that goes around on internet forums and appeals to those who chose to believe in legal woo.
It's all the Freeman of the land idiots that spread that one! They were trying to find any reason to delay.
I think the misconception comes from the difference between criminal and civil warrants. Also with control warrants it is required that the bailiff has a wet ink signature on his enforcement agent certificate but not a wet signature on the actual warrant itself so this could be another misconception regarding the signature.
I have a set top box. My question is, I disconnected it from the ariel the box when I stopped paying my license. Is it legal for me to watch programs I recorded on it before I stop paying my TV license.
Simple = yes. You may also watch programmes recorded off air at another address where a valid TV licence was in force at the time of the recording.
Thanks for the info' BBB! We've just had a search made on our home. 5 Search warrants, for house, 3 x cars & our caravan. 14 plain clothes officers. I'm REALLY suspicious about the warrants (which I have), and not just the lack of 'Signature' electronic or otherwise, and there's just a typed "KS' on the bottom line where "insert name" is provided. ..
It's very 'general' - basically to search and seize any electronic computers, phones, memory cards etc that can/might be found (not in those exact words). Any help would be gratefully received.
If they are arresting for an indictable offence, they do not need a warrant to enter premises or search.
Here's a hypothetical question, could entry be reasonably refused on a warrant issued under the Telecommunications Act unless a valid and current PCR test is produced for reasons of protecting the health of the resident(s) and their families?
Hypothetically, only if the warrant holders refuse to take reasonable measures to minimize risk of infection. i.e. wearing masks/gloves and sanitise before entry of the property.
You have to remember that under a "TV Licence" warrant they are only there for TVs and similar equipment and cant just go through the entire house. so asking individuals who might be considered at risk to leave any room they enter is considered reasonable
Simply remove their implied rights of acess to your property via email or letter, you don't have to give your name, just resident at '7 kerry avenue' whatever your address is and state that you don't wish to purchase anything or form any contracts with them and also that the boundary to your private property begins at the gate/end of the drive/steps etc and trespass on your private property comes with a fixed penalty of 5k, you'll get a letter back thanking you and then 2 yrs later you have to send the same letter, it's that easy! I've don't this for 8 years and have a 8-9 meter long drive that is covered by cctv, 1 foot on my drive and I'm taking them to court for trespass & 5k , but I've never had a single visit in 8 years..... also if you grew up when I did you'll remember the TV signal detector van that knew if you had a TV in your property??? (Look for the advert if not) well that's total fiction, no such technology exists, their is no way anybody could tell if you were watching a TV without either looking through your window or entering the property, hence the need for warrants in the 1st place! Don't let these ped0 supporting organisations / racket take a single penny of your hard earned money& do yourself a huge favour and don't watch TV anyway, most programmes are designed to keep you stupid, apathetic , ignorant, sad and fearful, it's all propoganda ALL OF IT!
new subscriber here..... trying to get my head around it all.... but it's all good.... cheers BBB
Case I had on benefit matter client had search warrant at his home for stolen busses ( he had dispute with credit lender) police done full search warrant section 8. Client arrested. After questioning client was released no charge and apology saying buses weren’t stolen. Clearly matter a civil case however client showed me warrant not signed wet or otherwise and no court stamp. I’m curious and said I’d puta post on here for him regarding no signature and no stamp is out valid ?????
My tv was originally installed for receiving live broadcasts ect. Since then I have changed its use to not receiving live broadcasts and iPlayer. So if its original use at installation is not its current use am I breaking the law.
Lol what a surprise the corrupt corporation now using fraudulent electronic warrants.why use due process when you can make it up as you go along only one question does the name of the judge/magistrate have to be printed on the electronic warrant?if not who can you seek redress or remedy from ?
If a warrant does not require a WET signature but still requires a signature, does the name of the signatory need to be printed on the warrant in a readable format?
Are those two swords in the background now illegal to own even in private under the new offence weapons act? Saw something in the news the other day about this and many other items which are now illegal to own in private. Something about a curved sword 50cm plus. Might be catching a lot of people out that are not aware of the new law.
Interesting ask the taliban?
Hand-made using traditional methods = legal.
Just enquiring if the police stop someone outside of a property they don't live in, but the resident of the property invites the police to search the defendant in an private area for sake of embarrassment, are the police allowed to search that property even though the resident is nothing to do with suspected crime?
I would like to know if a bailiff or debt collector from a company that has a warrant that has no court stamp or judge signature is it valid and can they enforce it
Just pay your bill, simples
@@boxfullofneutral8514 depends on the reason for a bayliff. I had one once turn up for an electricity bill one I was given 3 weeks before. How on earth they thought it was okay to come to my door for an electricity bill they hadn't even given me a month to pay is beyond me. As it turns out, I had the cash and just paid at the door. I just dont make my payments until the end of the month (you know, payday) is all.
But I can imagine someone who wasnt in my position having a much harder time with this.
@@ElliottParkinson well if they haven't got the money to pay for it don't use it. Too many people think they can have and never pay. That leaves our prices high
@@boxfullofneutral8514 I think you missed the point. It was THREE WEEKS after the bill came in. Its extremely unreasonable to expect a bill to be cleared fully to the point of sending people to the house, less than a month after the bill was sent out.
What do they expect the average person to be able to clear large bills in between paydays? I wouldnt have even expected there to be an issue had this guy not came to my door. Id have just paid it at the end of the month and left it at that.
Also, this was for electricity. Its kinda not possible to not use electricity unless you like death.
Back after 2 years- A warrant needs a signature and a seal.. Without it there is no validity... A digital copy must be the same as the original full stop..... Anyone who says this is not true must be put into question
Nice one. In particular thanks for going into the TV license warrant.
Excellent, clear information- as usual. Many thanks. What swords do you have on the wall behind you?
Hand-forged and folded, Musashi and Katana (legal, of course!)
@@BlackBeltBarrister Very nice!
Hi BlackBeltBarrister, @8.58 you say the search must be conducted within 3 months (of issue of the warrant). I believe that for a TV License search, the time-frame is limited to 30 days.
According to TV Licensing's field operation manual (2014 ed) it is 1 calendar month , 28 days in Scotland, from date of signing.
@@books742 thanks for clarifying.
I know someone who had a house search and they weren't allowed to follow the search. Was that search unlawful, or does it depend on circumstances?
Same here, two property lists too! They also stole money from a wallet, then refused to give goods back as there was no case to answer.
This video seems a little misleading; I have queried this but as my previous requests for clarity have failed to produce a reply I'm not holding up any hope.
My understanding is that they (the police) can exclude you from a search of your property if they 'believe' your presence might prejudice the search. Or they can just arrest you until it's complete.
@@loc4725 Maybe BlackBeltBarrister will revisit this topic to clarify at some time.
@@Electrowave I'd like to think so but I'm not holding up much hope. I'll give him a prod on his other channel and we'll see.
@@loc4725 OK, thanks. If he's receiving hundreds of prods he may have to pick out the ones he thinks most important. I'm not legally trained in any way so sifting through laws online I find very complicated, and paying for a lawyer to answer questions becomes way too expensive.
Is there any statistics tucked away anywhere on the success rate of executed warrants? It would be interesting to know about the polices failures where their information is flawed as against their successes which are shown across the media.
Maybe an FOI would answer this?
They lie and keep things to say its a positive warrant , and steal while there ( Sussex)
I really need some serious advice in a unique case it’s seems because the police thought they didn’t need to show or provide a search warrant they still entered with force what is my next steps
Am looking forward to report as i am confused about this like many others - Going digital warrant leaves the door open for abuse surely?
@@squicker true, but its not possible for the person the search is executed agaisnt to validate it in any case. I mean ideally you wouldnt let anyone with a bit of paper just turn up and search your house because the words on the page say so.
What we need to rectify this is a way to validate a warrant before the conductor of the search enters the premises.
Can you turn the radio or tv off in the background and upload the video again as the noise is louder than you.
I have legal advice but the case has been going a year. The police came with a warrant the only thing on the warrant was out address and s32 box ticked. No date or signature. They also searched for an hour before arrest but they deny this. Cant obtain bodycam footage until a charge. Is this warrant legal missing all information and is the search legal before arrest? Thank you
Are police officers allowed to enter rented accommodation without the resident at home, without the occupants permission, and 'seize' personal non criminal items (such as a bible & teddybear) without a warrant...?
What actually constitutes reasonable grounds and how do they apply it?
BlackBeltBarrister i had my property search by police by search warrant did not had signautere by judge on paper it says it requaiest signature of judge and did not had one and no stamp !
Pace gives police the option to search even if they just fancied searching a random house, or person etc
Can someone reply to this question?
Is there a way to validate the warrant itself to know that it was issued by a valid authority. Examples: Bank checks have multiple validation methods such as thermochromic ink that changes color with heat. Water marks, etc. Same goes for Medical scripts. So do these search warrants have any counterfeit protection methods that could be used to make sure the warrant is valid?
It's the reported errors such as wrong date, unsigned etc. that interest me, because if there is a process and it isn't being fulfilled and when it is questioned it becomes moot as far as the court and police is concerned why both having a process? If the process fails doesn't the warrant become invaild, and therefore the search and all actions by the police become essentially a home invasion?
I often wondered would that warrant allow them to go through your computer and all your personal files in case you have something in there that is set-up to receive TV, it just seems like an intrusion of privacy.
Not if it's password protected.
That would require a Section 49 notice, authorised by NTAC.
@@BedsitBob still feels like a massive intrusion of privacy for a private company to pay a private court to write a private warrant to intrude on a private individuals personal devices.
@@ThatGoth Agreed, it is a massive intrusion of privacy, but that is what the law allows.
Can the tv licence issue a search warrant if there is a satellite dish on a new property? Thanks
Fantastic video as always. :)
Can a search warrant be issued by a justice of the peace and not an actual court run by a magistrate or judge?
On the issue of whether a computer, laptop or phone is a TV receiver and they see the Iplayer icon or a internet browser icon, what if one says "I only use that when I am at a property that has a TV license, the device is mobile", is that is a reasonable doubt? Anyway does one have to turn on the devices/enter passwords/logon or is that entrapment?
Sir....apparently TV licence officers (goons) now say their warrents are on line when they turn up at your house as they now say this is how its being done. now..is this legal?.......would appreciate a reply
Can a member of the public or the person whos property is searched see the warrant and the information?
@@pqrstzxerty1296 S18 PCEA - i have never heard of an emergency warrant
The warrant system doesn't apply to offences committed over the web, or phone. One could simply say why bother with a warrant system, if they aren't routinely used for all offences, not just indictable ones. According to the power powers which contains the section 8 warrant application, the powers also mention how items are seized and recorded by constables or done at a police station. How ever not everything could be recorded, so is simply denied if something is broken or isn't returned. For Malicious communication, anything could be seized, draws looked into, cupboards, or the summary offences like unwanted contact. A search is a search, if something is done via a computer, a computer would be seized, if there are more than one, why would a constable trust a suspect to tell what they use or don't. A person can't use a digital camera or a memory unit for games to send messages or messages that could be threats. There are many examples of where searches aren't done with a warrant, the difference is a warrant is a permission from a court, instead of the seizure section of the police powers, which gives a broad power to seize many items. Warrant or no warrant, that is a dangerous alone due to the fact that property could be damaged or by chance, it malfunctions due to age. It isn't easy this type of subject, one could be storing messages on a number of systems, phones, and storage disks of all sorts, but it seems a bit stupid. And if not, the police as an institution have to deal with possible legal action, or who knows.
If I have sent written complaints to my landlord (local council ) about the anti social behaviour of my neighbour. Do my written complaints constitute evidence or proof against my neighbour , which would be acceptable in a court of law. My council have done nothing to support me.
Move house
@@JackSmith-wm3wm That's not a legal answer, but it is an example of arrogance writ large, believing that anyone living in social housing can just upsticks and leave, when they probably can't and shouldn't have to. For all you know, this might be a vulnerable pensioner being bullied. You obviously despise people earning less than the average barrister, but why you should choose to peruse the comments section of help vids like this is beyond me, unless its just to swagger in front of the less fortunates........
@@artrandy spot on mate I just like to laugh at your lack of swagger
Where do you stand with just pretending not to be in because Im under the impression TV licence won't force entry due to bad PR if it turns out you didn't need one. Will it just lapse after the 3 months
Thanks for the info...... I have 2 questions for you:-
1 - Regarding Digital Warrants......do they still need to be on paper? ... I've seen numerous youtube videos of bailiffs/debt collectors claiming their search & seizure warrants are on their phones/ i-pads and will not produce them to the occupiers because there is other sensitive info on the devices.......seems really dodgy to me.
2 - Regarding search warrants - lets say hypothetically for TV licence - does the warrant allow them to force entry to search (whether or not the occupier is present), or must they only search by means of "peaceful entry" ( be allowed across the threashold ) ? .... again, there are numerous videos featuring this, with mixed opinions.
Thanks in advance if you can answer these
Digital warrants on an electronic device are fine, but they must be shown.
Question, what do you mean by "forced entry"? If you mean can they break into your premises, then no. However preventing execution of a warrant my lead to your arrest. so refusing access once a warrant has been shown is never recommended and (as said in this video) you should seek legal advice after the warrant has completed to challenge it.
@@richardphillips8260 ok, perhaps I wasn't clear...... Following my hypothetical, Is a warrant issued to a premises, or person, or just legal occupier? To serve it they would have to know the person at the door is named or legal occupier?
Regarding forced entry, I know they can't break in, but if they are speaking to a person at the open front door, can they push past the person, thereby forcing entry ?
@@fifthoarsmanoftheacropolis4173 From my personal experience, warrants issued under the telecommunications act are usually issued to both the property and property owner. It's not unusual to have it issued to either, but usually to both.
Officially they can't "barge past" a person at an open door. However, like I said in my previous comment, obstructing the execution of a warrant can lead to your arrest. that's why they usually turn up with a police officer to "keep the peace"
I am curious if a search is found to be unlawful due to a defective warrant is the police officers or officials from other agencies conducting the search liable to be prosecuted for trespass? There has been a case here in Australia where a journalist was able to take the Australian Federal Police to court over a search warrant which was found to be defective leading to the police not being able to use the data from her telephone and potentially opening the search party open to being sued for trespass.
I thought that Acts have to be consensual
I have never consented to PACE so why do I have to abide by it??
What about if it just says by the clerk and no name dose it have to have a name on the warrant so someone takes liability for the warrant or can it not have a name as long as it stamped.
@BlackBeltBarrister got a question for you.... in regards to non molestation orders... if the original was issued in the wrong name.. then a few weeks time another one comes through the door with the original name crossed out in red ink and the correct name written in red ink also put on the order but that order didnt come with the rest of the pages like the original... is it a legal standing order.... in your legal opinion and experience have you ever heard of a judge correcting a order in red ink by crossing out a name and righting in the correct name...
Hi, I’ve just watched a vid on ChilliJonCarne about a meter reading company, Lowry Beck Services, advertising meter reading job vacancies. Part of the job description is “to gain information on TV Licenses! I suspect covertly. What are your thoughts on that little nugget? Love your channel, keep up the great advice
@blackbeltbarrister if you are arrested, at your own premises, and if the police have been invited in, does this then eliminate the need for a search warrant? Are the police then able to search your property, given reasonable cause, and touch/move anything they desire, by that I mean limited to anything that could cause harm or illegal I.e. drugs, weapons etc? Thanks
I'm no lawyer. But once the police are inside your house they are next to impossible to get rid of, so I'm told at least.
Question: you say you're entitled to film any searches on your mobile phone. But what if your mobile phone is part of what they're searching for? Can you film them before they take it or would you have to hand it straight over?
No
Many thanks for that cryptic answer.
@@elbubsio4947 if your phone is the subject of the warrant then the police will not let you even touch it if they see it. Hope that clears it up
It does, thanks.
We dont have Pace in Scotland so whats the sections of law for us
That's quite a grey area - Investigator - Please turn on your television for me Sir. Me - Sorry I don't believe the device you are referring to is covered by the warrant as its primary and only purpose is a display monitor for my PC and games console. Investigator - Don't be silly Sir it's a television set please turn it on for me.
What happens next if I hold my ground?
What about the Northampton bulk centre pretending to be a court?
Fantastic and educational videos but for goodness sake don't introduce background music into your videos. Carry on good work, you are very good and talented.
Thanks once again, all the best to you...
Thanks Daniel, very interesting.
Interesting as a search can be carried out without warrant, at the time of arrest or a recent place prior to arrest, or place of arrest, the home address or vehicle to preserve evidence, life or property.
PACE my friend
Authenticity of warrants
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.20.014910
I note you seek access to the following information:
If I am approached by a plain clothes officer with a warrant to search my vehicle or property, how can I ensure that the warrant issued is genuine, as burglars may use this to gain access to my property/vehicle.
Decision
I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.
Please find below information pursuant to your request above.
All warrants issued by a court will be signed and stamped by the issuing court. Any officers in plain clothes will carry their warrant cards, these can be shown on request to prove the identity of the officers carrying out any search. The officers should also be in possession of the signed warrant, police will also carry a premises search book, which will have sections to fill out and give to occupier, or owners of premises, or vehicles searched.
If a search warrant in Texas is "signed" with a check mark (no signature at all), is this valid or legal? Can this be challenged?
Question: If you are to observe the full search and can record it, does that mean you can restrict a search to only the room you are occupying, on condition you will move rooms/location as the search of each room/premises is completed?
By the time that's been completed, the arrest clock has been run down.
Yeah, of course you can dictate to the Police how they will conduct their search of your home ...
Is there a way to check that an electronic signaturre is valid ie that it has not just been created by someone and is not actually a issued by a court?
Do you ever use a fountain pen, or quill? Or stamped wax seals.
You gave us another superlative stream again Capt. I am glad your better half is a regular member too. A proper team. We make a great and formidable group. Not to be underestimated.
i had a warrant on my house but they put the incorrect town how dose that stand? is it void
yep not your house
Can the police search your car
Just because they claim they smell weed?
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Why do I always feel non the wiser after listening to these videos ?
You say that digital warrants are generated. But you don't say if a warrant has to have a wet signature by law
I thought I did - it doesn’t
OK thanks for that. A English man home is his castle until every Tom dick or Harry wants to ransack it. We no that judges never see them there just stamped by the Clark of the court who will stamp anything the police put in front of him. I would add a this point that I have never been in trouble for anything other than a camera speed ticket. But I see on TH-cam so many people having to suffer because of liar's. Just look at poor Alex belfield.
@@jackdaw3160 having dealt with fair few warrants and orders (not for TV Licencing), your comment re the Judge (either Crown or DJ depending on act), isnt correct in my experience
Could they ask to see inside my Safe if I had a Safe?
No, it doesn't. There you go. All done.
Edit: I should add that the validity of the warrant is not necessarily 3 months - it depends on the legislation. Referring back to section 366 of the Communications Act 2003, warrants granted under that provision are valid for one month only. Probably also worth mentioning that section 8(1C) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a warrant can be granted that allows multiple entries to the same premises.
So are you saying that the police cannot enter my home without a search warrent?
Not necessarily, there are some instances they can - look out for another video
I would like to hear your views on swearing in public (& at the police) and freedom of speech etc. Cheers
good one.
Tv warrants are very rarely handed out
Are the swords in the background authentic Katana swords, and is your black belt discipline Kendo?
Hand-made using traditional methods.
Taekwon-Do, Shaolin, and CQCS
Is there a law that allows for a digital signature or merely a court stamp and no signature?
You say about searching the equipment ie TV. Just because a TV can receive BBC, it doesn't mean you are watching it and that is what the licence is for, watching.
Hey mr blackbelt great vid , could one REQUEST a video on Cestui Que Vic Trusts as if one truly is a blackbelt this should be easy , thanks
Personaly i dont think you got gumption .
I too would love to see a video on this subject.
@@PeterMaddison2483 no chance he thinks hes harry ferkin potter with his cape and wig to hide his bald cranium it was once a known fact balding men have been inacted into occult traumatised learning AKA a BAD egg
@@DJ-Brownie-UK Shit, I'm bald too. I'm going into hiding, lol
@@PeterMaddison2483 mate its all about the reading the pattern of baldness , stress and anxiety brought about naturally, old age ,alopecia , if the crown goes bald first and the surrounding hair is thick is a 98% dead cert this brain prob child abuse it is a reflection from trauma , but they learn this as 1 of the 33 degrees , well most masons only bother learning 1 degree and love to call themselves eggspurts , but a true master mason learns 33
Whilst I love your videos... In the real world people are held often in handcuffs in a room whilst the police search the property, so they are unable to video it and they are never given a chance to read the search warrant.... THOUSANDS of TH-cam videos show this happening as does the countless TV shows showing the police at work... The Police/CPS does as they wish regardless of the law and VERY FEW lawyers,barristers ever challenge them... But thank you for the videos they are very informative... I would suggest you do a poll of some sort to see how often the police have been observed doing what ever they want regardless of the law for a given situation.....
never given - you mean often never given. All the searches i did the person always got the chance to read the warrant. Re handcuffing people..if the occupant is also being arrested then they might well be handcuffed. More generally depends on type of search. I cant think of any of many i took part in where that happened. Potentially i think on anti terrorist ones etc might happen. There was the murder of a police officer sadly during a search of that kind where only during the search did they realise that one of the occupants was a wanted suspect
@@vanpallandt5799 You sound like you would have been at least a decent member of the a police service.. Shame there are not many like you still servicing.... The reality is far to many seem to forget they have procedures or common sense today... And just make it up as they go along. Whilst the issue I brought up above is one I have not had and no experience in I can recount a least one where a Police constable though he was being clever.. Out in a carpark in the lake district Cutting a length of paracord with a leatherman multitool. Police vehicle pulled in, He gets out and proceeds to tell me I am under arrest for carrying an offensive weapon and places me in handcuffs.. Then searches my vehicle and finds a small axe in a bag with kindling. Just as he is about to empty my Bergan on the floor a police sargeant turns up(proper old school one too) asks the constable what he is doing. Then looks at all my climbing gear, Bergan and wild camping gear and ask the constable why he felt he had a just reason given as he saw it I had a reasonable escuse for both the leatherman and Axe.. I got a compensation payout that allowed me to take me, partner and two children on a two week holiday to Disney world... Things like this are becoming more and more common place, which is sad because there some genuinely good constables out there that bend over backwars to help and use their common sense to resolve issues etc. Including ones like you who would apply procedures when they should be.. Thumbs up too you.. If I met you I'd by you a pint or coffe...
@@hudsonbear5038 thanks...obviously cutting up something in the country with a knife is all about context and yes some ppl have no common sense. Also every conversation here doesnt have to be aggressive but there are ppl on both sides that want it that way. In the past was accused of being fake as i didnt come on threatening ppl. I realise that if someone wants a revolution then of course they just see reasonable policing as being the velvet glove etc as they want like the German Baader Meinhoff terrorists did to cause a reaction so that the state "shows its true colours"..mind you, i doubt many here would have much sympathy for extreme leftist terrorists who allied with PIRA. Even most of those calling for the veterans and the troops to stand with the ppl re these vax protests (on other YT feeds re the Resistance) would i doubt have called for the army and police in Ulster to align with the NICRA during the Troubles.
So, as long as they don't know the name of the subject(s) then they cannot obtain a search warrant?
Just like TV Licensing, they go fishing for a name to obtain a warrant.
@@PeterMaddison2483 and they often obtain your details illegally because the Council illegally sells your details from the private register If you are in the public register if voters that is lawful but not the private .It should be a serious criminal offence for any organization -public or private to pass in personal.information provided fir a specific purpose e.g. Council Tax or Motor Road Fund licencing to anyone else Specific examples of abuse are councils releasing your name and address to private companies ; DVLA selling your details to private parking companies -your medical history being passed to pharmaceutical companies etc etc The Data Protection Act is in practice totally useless in protecting your right to privacy of information .
@@ronnieince4568 So, people should start asking questions as to how their details were obtained if they get a parking ticket (private) or a court summons from TVL
@@PeterMaddison2483 tye DVLA give out the information -that should be illegal. My council gave out my details even though I filled in the form saying my details should not appear on the public electoral list .What is the point if asking people if they want their data to be secure and then ignoring their reply. Information should only be released when used for the specific purpose it was given .I give my name and address to the DVLA as a legal requirement for Road Fund , Driving Licence and police use only -not private parking companies .I put my name on the Electoral Register to comply with Electoral Law not for public disclosure by the Council without my authorization -in fact I specifically ticked the privacy box yet they disclose this information to all and sundry .The reality us the law does not protect private data and nobody is held to account .Ask yourself how you get all these scam calls from.callers who know your name when your phone number is ex directory and you never publicly disclose it
@@ronnieince4568 Thats why there are exception clauses one of which is related to investigation and prevention of crime (talking about police and other LE agencies)