M police officer. >> Huh? >> Stop there. Police officer. >> Don't touch me. >> I'll touch you if I want to. >> Don't touch me, mate. >> Stay there. >> Don't touch me. >> I ain't touching you. >> I'm a police officer. So is he. >> What you doing with the cars? >> Looking into the cars. >> This is the police station. >> No one's touching you. >> Well, he's trying to He's detaining you. >> I'm detaining? >> Oh, I'm detained. >> Yeah. Okay. So, what are you doing here? >> Why are you detained me for? >> Because you are looking into the cars. These are police cars. So, why did you say me for? >> I'm detaining you to find out who you are. I'm a police officer. >> Okay. >> Okay. And you're looking into the cars, which I think is suspicious. >> So, what you're doing here? >> Are you actually detaining me? >> Yeah, you're detained. >> That's That's who I am. >> Okay. I'm going to search you in a minute. >> Are you 1722? >> So, yeah, that's me. Jason King, >> search me. Hang on. Can I just ask you? >> Seen you looking into three cars. >> You saw me looking. >> Saw you looking into three cars. >> Okay. >> That are parked on private property. That's suspicious. >> The video kicks off with two detectives approaching the auditor in the parking lot instead of engaging in any basic conversation. They immediately move to detain him. Their justification, they claim he's acting suspiciously by looking at vehicles. However, rather than ask questions or try to understand what's actually going on, they jump straight into action, physically restraining him without providing any legal explanation. This response ignores key principles of reasonable policing. When someone is filming in a public space, the proper course of action is to interact, ask questions, and seek clarification. Just assuming guilt based on suspicion alone is not enough, especially when the activity being questioned. Filming in public is completely lawful. That gives grounds to detain search. >> You see that woman over there? >> Sorry. You see that woman over there? >> I can see a reflection of a woman over there. >> She just looked in that car as well. Yeah, but you she wasn't encroaching on private property. >> She was >> and she wasn't she wasn't doing it in the manner that you were doing it which was highly suspicious looking through the the shadow. >> Can I just speak to the detaining officer? >> Can you just tell me which power you use to detain me? >> Detaining you on section one of pace police and criminal evidence. >> Great. Can I ask you the reasonable ground for me being detained right now? why I've gone through that already, which is the fact that you're on one private property and you were looking >> right up against the glass on three different cars. That that in itself provides >> So that gives you ground to detain me like this. >> Yeah. And it gives you grants to infringe on my freedoms right now. >> Yes, it does. Yeah. >> For looking into a car. >> Yeah. In the manner that you're doing, which is highly suspicious. >> Oh, it's the manner that was doing it. Okay. >> Yeah. I appreciate cuz I know you can look into cars from a distance. >> Oh, so yeah, if you know that, why am I being detained? The officer justifies it attention by pointing to how the auditor was looking into cars, but then contradicts himself by admitting, "I know you can look into cars from a distance." This admission completely undermines the reason for detaining him. If the officer acknowledges that simply looking at cars, even closely, isn't illegal. Then he's already conceded that no offense occurred. The manner in which someone looks at cars doesn't provide lawful grounds for a stop and search under section one of PACE unless it's part of specific observable behavior that gives reasonable suspicion the person is carrying stolen or prohibited items. Looking a certain way or from a specific angle doesn't meet that threshold especially when the officer himself admits the activity is legal. >> Just twice. You can either listen or you don't need to listen. I'll explain to >> I don't think you can just detain people whenever you feel like it. No, we we don't do it on the basis. >> You can whenever you feel like it. >> Not when we feel like it. When there are reasonable grounds. >> Get some uniform police. >> On the reasonable grounds? Uh, >> which I've gone through already. >> Okay. I'm going to get some >> I know you don't agree with me, but you don't have to agree. >> You need to reassure. >> I thought you are a police officer. >> Yeah, I am a police officer. Going to get some uniform police officers here to reassure you. >> Are you an auditor? >> I don't know. I'm detained. That's what I know. >> Okay. >> I don't I don't know why detain me. >> Okay. Ste because Oh, watch. Watch. What? He looked into a car. Look, look. >> Okay. >> I swear he just looked. Excuse me. You can't look into cars. I saw YOU LOOKING INTO A CAR. Come here. We need to detain you. Come. Come. >> This moment highlights the uneven application of police authority. People often look into cars. It's a natural everyday action, particularly in a parking lot. The only thing that sets this situation apart is that the auditor was carrying a camera. The officers aren't detaining ordinary passes by because they know they have no legal grounds to do so. This reveals how weak their original justification was. By calling out right then and there, the auditor does more than make a point. He reveals a truth. He wasn't attained because of his actions, but because of who he was, a member of the public holding a camera near a police station. This made the officers uncomfortable, leading to an unnecessary escalation. That's not policing rooted in law. >> It's not a good day. We've got to get some free. >> I think you should run after him. Seriously, let's start running. He stays with me. You get You get run in. >> What's your name? >> Uh, I don't need to give you my name. >> I'd like to know what I'm dealing with. >> I'd like to know why I'm being detained. >> You've been detained on section one of >> So, looking into your car? >> Yes. Because we think you're acting suspiciously. >> You think I'm acting suspicious, right? You think I'm acting suspicious? Okay. >> You may have been looking looking in the motor vehicles for the person. >> That doesn't give you enough ground to detain me. >> It does. No, it doesn't. Cuz you are detained. >> I know I'm detained. This is why you don't see me moving. You know, when you stopped here, I was I was walking. Yeah. I was about to leave. >> Thank you. >> The moment you said detain, it's like I haven't moved, have I? >> Right. So, you going to earn your colors today? >> Yes. >> Right. >> Own what? >> Own your colors. It's just a phrase. Don't worry about it. >> Probably an older. >> That comment isn't just inappropriate. It's downright unprofessional. It frames the search as if it's some kind of test or initiation, as though unlawfully searching a member of the public is a right of passage instead of serious and responsible use of police authority. Stop and search is a legal tool, not a badge of honor. It should be based on solid, objective grounds, not treated like a game or a way for junior officers to prove themselves. This kind of language reflects a troubling mindset. It trivializes a process that directly affects people's rights and dignity. Rather than focusing on whether the search is lawful, proportional, or necessary, the emphasis becomes about impressing colleagues, showing loyalty, or gaining status. This undermines a various safeguards built into pace. It also sends a wrong message to the less experienced officers, suggesting the goal isn't to assess the situation fairly, but to fall in line and carry out decisions made by senior officers regardless of the law. Such peer pressure within policing is dangerous because it discourages officers from thinking critically and independently when exercising such significant powers. >> Okay. Fellow passing your hands. You're being detained on the section of police. >> Okay. I'm PC Jones police station. >> Okay. >> Why? >> I'm explaining why. So you've been spotted, mate. Do you mind putting the camera down for a minute? >> Put your phone down for a minute. I'll put it down over here. Sorry. >> Whoa, you guys are jokers, man. Bloody hell. >> Sir, can I just ask? >> Why are you so nervous to me? Back off. Back off. Back off. >> Okay, >> back off. You jokers. >> Make it so you're not willing to provide Shut up for the uh search form. >> Would you like a record of it? >> I want a record. Yeah. Now, >> can we have your details then? >> I just want a record. >> Okay. >> Okay. Still need your details. >> I want a record. Just don't talk to me, man. You put me under a lot of stress. Just get me a record. >> But I need your name. I need you to give me a record. You don't need nothing. >> I need your details. >> I need you to do me a record. Listen to what I'm saying. I need you to do me a record. >> I'll give you a detail. I'll give you that record. >> That's it. >> Okay. But I still need your details in order to >> No, you will do me the record. >> Under Pace Code A, which governs stop and search procedures in England and Wales. Officers are legally obligated to provide a record of the search regardless of whether the person being searched gives their name or address. Personal details are not a condition for receiving this record. The record must include the officer's name. The grounds for the search, the legal power used, and what was found. All essential for accountability. The entire purpose of this requirement is to protect the public and ensure transparency, especially in situations where the search might later be challenged. If an officer claims they need personal details to issue the record, they are either misinformed or deliberately misleading, which is unacceptable. Refusing to provide the record without ID is a clear breach of procedure and undermines the safeguards designed to prevent abuse of power. >> No, you will do me the record. >> Search record. Refuse details. That's fine. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay. Good boy. >> Do what the inspector says. >> Okay. Okay. But >> do the record. >> Thank you, sir. Have a lovely day. >> Excuse me. my record. >> We need your details to give you that record. We can't bring >> I need I'm entitled to a record. >> Listen, I'll talk to my >> No, no, no. I'm happy talking. I'm happy talking here. I need a record from him. >> The record you put on. >> Yeah. >> Cony's going to be putting that on. You can collect it from the police station in up to 3 weeks, but he has to complete it first. >> Can I have it now? He He's got the form. >> He's got to finish it. >> No. No. Usually you do them online. If you don't have the form on you, he has the form. He can do it. >> I know the form on there. >> I saw the form. You were ready to take my details of my notebook. >> So I need something. I need the reference number. Anything. I need something to to the record. >> I still need to complete. >> So you're searching me but without giving me the record which is I'm entitled to >> complete a record and I've told you a way you can obtain that record as well. So I'm going to put it on and you come. >> So I saw you walking off >> because you details. >> I don't need to give you details here. Are you an idiot or something? I can shut. >> Okay. >> I can shout about no worries. >> If you continue shouting, it comes under some sort of public order. >> What? What's that? >> Warning. It's a public should probably call if the coins. >> Because I'm shouting. >> Yeah, if you do. I'm saying if you if it escalates. >> If it escalates. Yeah. Does it look like Are you going to escalate it? Are you >> Am I? >> So you search me. You put me in cuffs. Look at my hands and you think I'm going to talk to you like, "Oh, hi. How are you?" Do you think that's how I'm going to talk? >> Okay. Well, if you're >> Are you Are you stupid or what? >> Don't talk to me. >> I can talk to you whichever I want. You put me in cuffs. I've asked you many times to not put me in cuffs. So I can I can call you an idiot. I can call you anything I like. Pretty much. >> Pretty much. >> Pretty much. >> You sure? >> Yeah. You name anything that you want me to call you that I can call you. >> If you use any language. >> What? What? What are you going to do now? There's no What? What public is that? Do we see a public here? >> Oh, a minute ago you said we private place domain now. Is it a minute ago was in private? Oh, no. It's public domain. You picking. >> The auditor rightly points out that he's just been handcuffed and searched without proper grounds. And yet, they now expect him to be polite. It's a perfectly valid observation. Respect isn't something that should be taken for granted. It's earned. When someone's rights are violated, any frustration or firm tone and response is not only justified, it's expected. The officer's comments serve one clear purpose, to escalate the situation. When they can't justify the stop, they shift focus to policing behavior and attitude, hoping the individual becomes emotional enough to give them something to act on. Trying to provoke someone into losing their composure after unlawfully detaining them isn't just unprofessional, it's manipulative. >> You're an idiot. Off you go. All right. >> Not what? >> You can come to hell and get your record when the police station is here. >> Three times. Yes, it is. That's where you are. >> So, can I come in now? >> No, you can't come in now cuz I don't want yet. So, I've explained to you. >> So, how long is it going to take? >> He's so quickly to pull cuffs on me. But now, you know, you know, we need to give you my my search record. >> I'm going to do it as quick as I possibly can. >> Okay. So I I'm here. >> Okay. >> I'm happy to wait. >> Okay. No worries. We can quickly be asking details and be >> Oh, once I finish looking looking into every single car, >> the officer's just gone in to get your paper search record. If you if you're happy to wait another couple of minutes. So she's gone in. So why did they tell him they're not going to do it? >> Well, he didn't know that. >> He is an idiot. Why would you allow him to search me, man, from the first place? He clearly looks like an idiot. Look at the state of this guy. >> We just work. >> No, because you infringe on my right. Inspector, I know you keep laughing. Just moments earlier before the search, they were treating him like a potential threat. But once the search is over and nothing is found, they're relaxed, even laughing amongst themselves. As if the entire ordeal was some kind of joke. When police powers are used, especially something as serious as stop and search, they must be backed by clear reasoning, professionalism, and restraint. smiling and laughing afterward while the person they just searched is still standing there completely undermines any claim that the search was genuinely necessary. It comes across as smug, self-satisfied, and frankly disrespectful. >> Next, understand where I'm coming from. >> I was stopped. >> Yeah. >> I was put in handcuffs. >> Yes. >> At the front, then at the back. I cannot be calm. I cannot be happy, friendly, chappy. Now, do you understand that? Do you understand why I'm frustrated? Do you say when you infringe on somebody's right, that person can get really, really angry. Do you understand? >> Can I? >> You can't just go along, you fidget on people's right and expect people to love you. What the hell? >> Are you going to arrest me now for saying that? For saying people to love you? Are you going to arrest me? Public order offense? >> What do you mean? I want to No. No. You put me in cuffs. You have put me in cuffs. >> Well, do one then. Get lost. >> I'll do what I want. No, just get lost. You don't do what you want. You're on You're on the clock. You're on the clock right now. What do you mean you do what you want? Are you on the clock? Yes or no? Are you working? >> Okay. Should we go? >> Are you on the public's money's wages right now? So, you don't do what you want. You do as your superior tells you. Get lost. >> Are you okay? >> You do as your superior tells you. Get lost. Do you understand? So, move. Start moving. >> Come on. Get lost. >> We'll go in a second. >> Get lost. You will go. Trust me. Before me. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Do you not have a job to fix? >> This is my job. >> This is your job. >> Yes. The classic line often used to dismiss auditors. Do you not have a job to go to is a tire jab meant not to address the situation but to belittle and undermine auditing when done lawfully plays a vital role in testing transparency, accountability, and police conduct in real time. Whether someone has a traditional job or not is irrelevant. The underlying message in the question is that the auditor's presence is either illegitimate or a nuisance. But in reality, the only thing being exposed here is how poorly some officers respond to lawful scrutiny. If an officer feels a need to resort a personal jab to maintain control, it shows they've already lost control of what truly matters, their duty to uphold the law with impartiality and respect. >> What we got? We got a paper record for you now. >> Great. That's all I wanted to That's all I wanted. Yes. But because that's the paper record that I'm going to use to make the claim against all of you. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Looking forward to that. >> You've been looking forward to that. You don't really care, do you? Because it doesn't come out of your wages. I know you don't really care. You've been laughing all the way through. You can't just go along and infringe on people's rights. And at one point, you knew I was an auditor. He said it. And you knew that. You were laughing all the time. But guess what? You went ahead with it. You put me in cuffs. This guy just comes along and just he doesn't care. He just does it anyway. >> Okay. So, we don't have the hard copies. They're only available at Watford Police Station. We don't have those. My colleagues are going to fill out an online form. However, this is the reference number. This is mine, my colleagues, and this colleagueu's warrant numbers if you need them. >> So, this is tell you, this is who? >> The opposite of what's his name? What can you spell gun? >> Gen Louise Jones. This guy. >> Jones. >> And these two? >> Yeah. If you were >> I think I've got them anyway, but I still have them. >> Do you want to know why I was looking in cars now? Oh, yeah. >> You do? >> Yeah. Why not? >> All right. Okay. Uh, sometimes when you walk past police stations, >> what police officers tend to do, they leave like documents on display. >> And I'm here to catch it to see if they breaking GDPR basically. Yeah. >> So, if I tell you then you kind of might tell everybody then you kind of ruin you ruin the whole thing. >> All right. I understand. >> So, I could have No, no, no. >> I understand. Inspector, I could have a million reason why I was looking into cars, but you can't just go ahead and do this to me. >> Public scrutiny of how police handle personal information, especially in plain view, is a valid form of accountability. Auditors have previously uncovered instances of sensitive materials being left exposed on dashboards or seats. Highlighting these situations isn't just lawful, it serves the public interest. The auditor takes this even further, rightly asserting that no matter his reasons for looking, it doesn't change the fact that the officers had no lawful grounds to detain and search him. That's the core issue. Intent doesn't trump legal process. Even if the officers disagreed with his presence or found it inconvenient, they still needed reasonable grounds under section one of pace before taking action. >> You're going to understand, you know, >> no, absolutely not. I can look into >> understand. Thank you for taking the time to >> It's a little too late now. I didn't have to explain to you. >> No, it's too late. You did this. >> Do you know what you just did today? Sorry. >> Do you know what you just did? >> What? >> You infringed on my human rights. >> There's your reference number. If you'd like anything else, you can call up and report. >> So, which station I can go to get it? >> No. So, the online copy, we don't have hard copies. We don't give them out anymore. If you would like a hard copy sent straight to you, my colleague needs your phone number or email address, and we'd be more than happy to send you one. >> Uh, I could give him my email address yet. >> More than happy to give you an email. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's not the correct uh flag of Britain, by the way. Okay. >> Yeah. >> For those who might not know, wearing a modified version of the Union Jack with that blue stripe is highly controversial. It's not an official flag and altering the national symbol in this way carries significant connotations. Critics argue that the symbol now represents a us versus a mentality. One where police loyalty to each other takes precedence over accountability to the public. It's been used in counterprotest against movements calling for justice and transparency. And increasingly it's seen as a symbol of shutting down criticism rather than fostering trust. >> Don't smell Britain. Obviously, you're not going to know the flag >> again. So, if you'd like a hard copy >> Oh, that's not the correct flag of Britain as well. >> Again, so if you like a hard copy, you can pick it up from Steven or Watford. Okay. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> I thought he's going to send it to me. No. >> Yeah, online. We have to go and fill out the form. He's still got the online document in his hand. >> But I can go to these stations and collect one. >> Yeah, after he's filled it out. Okay. >> Okay then. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. >> Yeah, you too, Tate. >> Thanks for your time anyway. >> Nah, that's not good, man. >> Yeah, >> I didn't give you my time. My time is not free. So you cannot thank me for it. I will charge you for that. >> As the interaction finally concludes, the officer hands the auditor a reference number for the stop and search record along with the names of everyone involved. But what lingers long after is a clear demonstration of how easily police powers can be misused and how quickly suspicion can overshadow procedure. This entire encounter wasn't driven by evidence or genuine concern, but by assumptions and discomfort. From the very beginning, the detectives approached the auditor with a confrontational attitude, opting for detention without even asking a single question. Their justification, he was looking into cars, a practice the lead detective himself later admitted was perfectly legal. The subsequent search was not only unnecessary, but conducted on shaky grounds. framed more as a training exercise for a junior officer than a legitimate use of police authority. The mocking comment, "Earn your colors today," revealed how casually some officers treat serious powers like stop and search. Throughout it all, the auditor remained calm, questioning inconsistencies, highlighting bias, and pointing out the clear double standard by comparing his behavior to that of a typical passerby. His claim that he was checking for potential GDPR breaches was not only reasonable but rooted in genuine accountability efforts. Meanwhile, the officer shifted the focus to his attitude, even taking personal jabs, revealing more concern with their own egos and upholding the law. This situation isn't just about one stop and search. It's about how unchecked authority, lack of solid reasoning, and unprofessional behavior can quickly erode public trust. The camera didn't just capture a search. It captured poor judgment, deflection, and a failure to meet the standard expected of policing in a democratic society. That's it for today's video. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe. It really helps me keep going with independent coverage. Also, check out Auditing Britain. His channel is linked in the description. Show him some love. Thanks for watching. This was rate the audit and I'll see you in the next one. >> Two detectives are seen approaching the auditor in the parking lot at the beginning of the footage. Rather than participating in any simple talk, they take action to apprehend him right away. They justify this by saying that he is acting suspiciously by glancing at cars. But instead of trying to find out what's truly happening or asking inquiries, they act immediately, physically restraining him without offering a justification. Important tenants of responsible policing are disregarded in this approach. It is okay to engage, inquire, and seek clarification when someone is filming in a public area. It is insufficient to merely assume guilt based on suspicion, particularly when the behavior in question is at issue. It is totally legal to film in public. This provides justification for a detainer search. Do you see that woman there? I apologize. Do you see that woman there? Over there, I see a woman's reflection. She also had a quick look inside that vehicle. Yes, but she wasn't invading someone's personal space. She was she wasn't things as quite suspicious that she wasn't doing things the way you were. Peering into the darkness. Can I just talk to the cop who was holding me? Could you please let me know whatever power you are using to hold me? Keeping you in custody for police and criminal evidence under section 1. Fantastic. Could you please tell me the justification for my current detention? You're on private land and you were staring directly at the windows of three different cars. I've already experienced that. That in and of itself offers thus. You have permission to hold me in this manner. Yes. And to cease. It gives you permission to currently violate my liberties. It does indeed. Yes. For investigating a vehicle. Yes. The way you're acting is quite suspect. Yes. It's the way I was doing it. All right. Yes. I am grateful since I am aware that you can examine autos from a distance. Yes, if you are aware of that, why am I being found? The officer uses the auditor's automobile inspection as justification for the detention, but he later contradicts himself by saying, I know you can look into cars from a distance. The justification for his detention is totally undermined by this disclosure. The officer has already admitted that there was no crime committed if he admits that merely observing cars, even up close, is not prohibited. Under section one of PACE, the way someone looks at a car does not constitute legal justification for a stop in search unless it is a component of specific observable behavior that raises a reasonable suspicion that the individual is transporting illegal or stolen goods. That barrier is not met by looking in a particular direction or at a certain angle. Particularly when the officer acknowledges that the behavior is lawful.