Stoppoed by CPO

PCSOs have powers designated by local Chief Constables. Here is a matrix of powers designated for each force (it was from 2007 but unlikely to have changed much)

 http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/community-policing/PCSOs_Audit_Table_May_2007_1.pdf?view=Binary

Notts PCSOs appear to have been given the power to require names and addresses when they think you have committed a relevant crime

 http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8212

The link to the PRA above is to the original one ie unamended, here is the link to the legislation that introduced the power to require a name and address

 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050015_en_27

So in your case I don't see how they could have argued that they thought you had committed a crime so had no power to require your name and address. Certainly a complaint is justified, maybe even an action for unlawful detention?

If you refuse to give your name and address and they have cause then it is an offence and you can be fined. My thoughts are therefore at the very least they should be prepared to tell you what crime they think you've committed, if they refuse I think you're entitled to conclude that they're winging it.

And its only a 'relevant offence too', from PRA sch 4 again

'(6) In this paragraph “relevant offence”, in relation to a person to whom this paragraph applies, means any offence which is—

(a) a relevant fixed penalty offence for the purposes of the application of paragraph 1 to that person; or

(b) an offence the commission of which appears to that person to have caused—

(i) injury, alarm or distress to any other person; or

(ii) the loss of, or any damage to, any other person’s property;

but a designation applying this paragraph to any person may provide that an offence is not to be treated as a relevant offence by virtue of paragraph (b) unless it satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in the designation.'

The above answer is correct, I am a serving PCSO and have the authority to require a person's name and address if I suspect they have comitted one of the relevant offences, acted antisocially, breached a by-law, breached a traffic offence or comitted an offence I can issue a fixed penalty notice for. I am also allowed to search people for various things

IF that person refuses details I am allowed to detain them using force if necessary.

The people who stopped you, were they POLICE community support or COMMUNITY PROTECTION (council wardens)?

If they were the latter they have ZERO powers of detention, and very limited powers of stop and account and ZERO powers of search.

If they were PCSO's they used their powers correctly, ie they suspected you of theft and required your name and address, although they SHOULD have let you go once confirming your story but they didn't have to.
If they were council wardens then they acted well outside their powers and remit.

A PCSO can stop you and ask for details if they think you have comitted an offence (ie they suspected you of theft), or if you are acting antisocially, breaching a traffic law, comitting an offence we can issue a PND for or if we need to search you and you refuse. In these circumstances, IF they had been PCSO's they would have been correct to do so, at the end of the day they would have only had your word that the records weren't stolen, and again your word that the guy you've taken them back to isn't your mate.

A PCSO, if given false details or no details is allowed to detain you using force until a PC gets there.

However you WEREN'T stopped by POLICE community support officers, you were stopped by council wardens.

Council wardens do NOT have the power to require you to wait, and they certainly do NOT have a power to detain you using force or otherwise.

If it were me I'd make a complaint about them as they are clearly acting well outside their remit and powers

" they SHOULD have let you go once confirming your story but they didn't have to."

So, on what basis could they now require a name and address?

Agree that it is very important to distinguish between PCSOs and community wardens. Mind you, for the life of me I can't imagine a CW to be so daft to claim to have PCSO powers as it would be an instant sacking and presumably a criminal offence.

However, disagree that the PCSOs would still be able to require a name and address when they no longer have any reason to suspect the person to have committed a crime. The power is entirely dependent on there being reasonable suspicion, once that suspicion goes the power lapses.

I said earlier "should have let them go, but didn't have to". The PCSO's/PC would only have had your word, and the word of your friend as to your identity, and who the records belonged to. Nothing stopping you taking them to your mate's house who happens to be the local fence and getting them to spin the officers a yarn.

But, common sense dictates that this wouldn't realistically happen, although it can and does.

It is a criminal offence for a PCSO or accredited person (warden) to state that they have more powers than they actually have.

PCSO's in Nottingham have virtually all the powers that can be designated in law, the most significant being the power to detain using force, and various powers of search, and they can issue fixed penalty notices for section 5, drinking in a designated area, purchasing alcohol for kids by adults, throwing fireworks e.t.c..
Wardens have NONE of these, despite their misleading appearance, ie they look more like cops, than cops.
Wardens have powers to require name and address, and issue some environmental fixed penalties, nothing more.

Firstly, its hardly arguable that just because somebody is carrying some property while walking along the street is grounds for suspicion of a crime in any case. I regularly walk along the street with about £1k worth of camera gear and if anybody of the police type persuasion comes up to me and demands my details because they claim that is a basis for suspecting me to have stolen mys gear then the second word they will hear from me is 'off'. In the OP's case this suspicion is weakened further by the fact that he could lead the PCSOs to the original owner to verify the story. It would be luck beyond credibility for him to be a tea leaf but have a mate who happens to be the local fence living on the same street who wouldn't mind the rozzers being led to his front door.

Now if the PCSOs had a report that similar property had ben stolen then they would have been on stronger ground, not least because they would have known where the property had been stolen from and if the OP hadn't led them to that particular address that would probably have been sufficient suspicion to justify detaining him until the police had arrived who could have made further enquiries. Its no ustification for their actions to come up with increasingly outlandish suggestions for what the OP 'might' have been up to, he can't prove a negative.

More importantly, the PCSOs only detained him until he gave his name and address and once he did so they let him go with the goods. Doesn't really suggest that they had a very strong suspicion of him having committed a buglary does it? If they had they would have been very keen to detain him until the proper rozzers turned up. They were just throwing their weight around.

In short it was just another example of day to day police harassment and you do yourself and your office no favours trying to defend it regardless of evidence and common sense. Some of us think the police would catch a few more real criminals if they didn't dick about with these silly games. They would also enoy greater public support as well.

To the OP, I strongly recommend that you make a complaint at the very least. If you can access a free half hour at a solicitors I would also strongly recommend that you check out the possibility of a damages case.

Andy, i do agree with you, they should have let things lie once they went to the house, all I was pointing out that the law says they didn't have to, although common sense would dictate, as you said the chances that they'd caught a real criminal was actually quite slim.

However, if they had been right, if the OP had actually been a thief then we wouldn't be having this conversation now. Whilst unlikely, it isn't impossible.

The most we can complain about here is that they were perhaps a bit too eager to exert their authority.

Despite that, the most important point is that they weren't PCSO's. They were council wardens stating they had more powers than they actually had, something which is a criminal offence.

"Andy, i do agree with you, they should have let things lie once they went to the house, all I was pointing out that the law says they didn't have to, although common sense would dictate, as you said the chances that they'd caught a real criminal was actually quite slim."

They had no evidence that the property was stolen. Despite this, the original poster took them to a house and his account of where the property came from was verified. If the records had been stolen, taking his name and address and letting him leave with the property would have meant the disappearance of the 'evidence' - so, as Andy pointed out, if they had 'reasonable grounds', then they would have wanted to detain him til the 'proper' coppers arrived.

One tale I heard recently at Climate Camp - where the true face of British policing was openly on display is a copper who threatened to arrest a camper if he couldn't prove that the T-shirt he was wearing was his own property. It is those with the mindset of this CPSO who are cheerleading the march towards a state where grunts in uniform will expect us to identify ourselves on a whim - their whim.

Personally, I would have gone for the calling the cops, the arrest, the complaint and the damages.

:-/

"Andy, i do agree with you, they should have let things lie once they went to the house, all I was pointing out that the law says they didn't have to"

My point is the exact opposite. The law says they did have to let the OP go once any reasonable suspicion had ended. Their own actions proved they no longer had any suspicion that he had committed an offence so no reason to require N+A ergo no reason to detain. End of.

To PSCO
they were PSCO's not wardens, I have a PSCO number on my stop sheet.

to everyone else, thanks for you help an advice. I have logged a complaint.

"Personally, I would have gone for the calling the cops, the arrest, the complaint and the damages."

God how I wanted to, and would have. but I couldn't face leaving my dog unattended for so long.

Jus so you're aware, CPOs have numbers on their shoulders as well as PCSO's and Police officers.