## Video Summary The video discusses a controversial incident where police reportedly visited a family's home regarding social media posts involving a child. The speaker expresses concern about the legitimacy of the officers' actions, particularly their entry into the home without a warrant and the seizure of a phone, which may constitute an abuse of power. The speaker emphasises the rights individuals have to film police interactions in their own homes and the legal frameworks that govern police conduct and authority regarding arrests, searches, and seizure of evidence. They also express a desire to take on this case pro bono, highlighting the broader implications of police overreach in similar situations. ## Transcript Okay, so it appears that we have the social media police doorstepping somebody for social media posts. This seems to be in relation to a child and involves visiting them at their own home, both of which aggravate the situation from my perspective. I would be very interested for the lady who filmed this video to contact me because I would like to see what the police have to say about this, obviously pro bono. So if anyone watching this knows who they are, please send them a message and get them to contact me. My details are below. For that matter, I'd like to spend a lot more of my time doing pro bono work on cases like these. So, if you could do me the favour of subscribing to my channels, it’s free. There’s a big subscribe button below. I'll link my other channels below as well. I’d like to dedicate my time to this because these situations are absolutely ridiculous. However, I do have a couple of caveats to this video as I know lots of you have asked about it via email and social media. Firstly, this appears to be a real video, not AI generated. I reserve the right to change this if it turns out to be AI generated, but I don't think it is. Secondly, there appear to be bits that are clipped out of this video, which means it doesn’t necessarily provide 100% of the facts, so I’m going on what I see generally as the law applies here. Finally, this is not intended to be legal advice either to the people in this video or anyone in a similar situation, as I cannot give you legal advice without sitting down with you and having all the facts. That should be clear by now, over two and a half thousand videos, but I say it nonetheless. With that in mind, let’s take a look at this video. I will stop it partway along the way because there are things that I don’t agree with, obviously. Okay. What was it? Sorry, I don’t like the camera. You can have my body cam; I can exhibit that for you. So, the officer says, “I’m sorry, I don’t like the camera. You can have my body cam. I will exhibit that for you.” Let’s break that down. First of all, she says, “I don’t like the camera.” Well, tough. You can film the police, especially if you’re in your own home. There is absolutely no reason you cannot film this interaction, not least of which is it serves as a contemporaneous record of what happened, what was said, and exactly how it unfolded. This is also why I made the caveat about there being bits that are snipped out, which might involve privacy concerns. But filming it is generally not a problem unless you’re outside filming some event that could cause privacy issues, which is a completely different story. This is not the case; if a person is in their own home, they are perfectly entitled to film. Secondly, the officer says, “You can have my body cam. I can exhibit that for you.” Well, first of all, you’re entitled to a copy of that video by making a subject access request, as you have the right to access data that captures you. If an officer films you with their body-worn camera, you can absolutely file a subject access request and obtain a copy of that video. There are unlikely to be any third parties involved in this video, so privacy concerns should not be an issue. Therefore, saying “exhibit it” is mixing her words. Exhibit it to what? There is no court case so far as we understand it. This would just be a simple request for the video, and they should hand it over. So, the officer is wrong for not liking the filming and also wrong in that it’s not an exhibit to anything. You’re entitled to a copy of the body camera footage. Let’s move on. Okay. Well, I’m doing this because this is my own house, and I am telling you why I’m doing this. So, I just need to know why—why is she basically viewing a post that is not an arrestable offence? They viewed a post that happened in May, and you’re completely fine. The only thing is we need to seize the phone at this current moment. So, there are little bits that appear to be snipped out. I couldn’t find the original full version of the video if there is one. All I can determine is that something about the child viewing a social media post led the officers to want to seize the phone. Dealing with those in turn, unless the post relates to terrorism or downloading materials for terrorism, which would be an indictable offence, they could force entry for the purposes of arrest and have a general power to seize something. But I don’t think we’re quite there with that. Let’s watch on regardless; I’ll come to the law in just a minute. If we don’t get the phone, we will escalate this further, but with a voluntary interview. So, have you seized anyone else? Is she the only child you’re picking on? Voluntary interview. You’ll be able to come. Have you spoken to anyone else? No. We’ll come to the station now. Do you mind letting her finish her sentence? Yes. It does have to get escalated, unfortunately. That’s fine. We’ll come to the station now. So, we see it’s not really clear what’s being said here due to bits being snipped out. The officers are saying something about a voluntary interview, but that part gets cut off. The lady says we will come to the station, and they seem to say, “No, you don’t understand.” It’s hard to say, but it broadly seems like the officers don’t understand. If they’re inviting them for a voluntary interview, then fine, arrange the voluntary interview, and it would need to be a PACE compliant interview, meaning you have the right to free legal advice and to examine the PACE codes and so on. It would have to be a fully PACE compliant interview even if it’s voluntary. However, it appears that they are leveraging the threat of an interview and escalation to seize the phone, which it appears they have no real power to do. But I’m going to come back to that in a moment. As you may have realised from the news recently, there’s an alarming increase in the number of people looking to find or even steal private information or online activity about another person with malicious intent. They want to use this against them. There’s also an increase in scam and hack attempts across various devices, with software being updated virtually every week. That is why I can wholeheartedly recommend NordVPN, which can help not only to keep you anonymous but also to protect your devices from hack and scam attempts when you use them online. NordVPN will protect all your devices by scanning for malicious websites and downloads while providing you with a dedicated anonymous IP address and scanning the internet for any data breaches that you might need to be aware of. As they are a partner to my channels, I can offer you a great discount—4 months extra free with a 30-day money-back guarantee using the code BBB on screen and in the description below. Click the link, download, and install it to keep yourself safer in today’s dangerous online world. We’re not able to get the phone. We have to escalate this further, which means your daughter will be arrested. You see there, if we don’t get the phone, we’ll escalate this further, and your daughter will get arrested. This sounds to me like it’s starting to be an abuse of power because this should not be used as a threat of any kind. There is either an offence for which they want to arrest someone, and if so, they should be obtaining further evidence for it. But it seems to be an escalation of language designed to threaten this lady into compliance, which I think she does in the end, agreeing to give up the phone, which is all a bit strange. If there’s an offence for which they would be arresting somebody, then that’s really what they should be here for. Let’s watch the rest of it, regardless. You in a social media post, is that— I need to go with that in order to— No, absolutely not. What should we do to prevent destruction of evidence? I’m sorry. That’s fine; I’d like you to leave now. I’d like you to leave. So, it appears they’ve forced their way in without a warrant, which I’ll come back to. It seems that everyone’s upset about it, and they’ve managed to seize the phone while their body-worn cameras are still filming. As guidance to anyone watching this, I would absolutely want to obtain the body-worn footage for both of these officers, not least to prove everything that was said from both their perspectives, not just relying on personal filming of it. Okay, I have nothing more to say to you. A social media post. I’ve got nothing more to say. I’d like you to leave. You’ve harassed this child enough. I’d like you to leave. So, that’s all we have. You can see why I say there’s a little bit of missing context. We don’t know what was said in the middle, whether it was of any relevance or whether it was just privacy that the person filming doesn’t want us to see. Nonetheless, let’s deal with these issues in turn. Let’s address the entry first of all because I think that is quite possibly the most severe here. If it is not upheld as a lawful power, then they’ve unlawfully entered the premises. The officers can enter a property under various scenarios. The most obvious way is if there is a warrant to enter the property issued by a magistrate for the purposes of a search. There would need to be reasonable grounds for an indictable offence or that they would find material of substantial value for investigating such an offence. That warrant is usually valid for three months and is for non-urgent searches that they need to apply for. On the face of this video, vague social media claims would usually not meet that threshold unless it’s related to viewing or downloading terrorist materials, which could make it an indictable offence. There is a general power of entry under section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. But even then, this is the power of entry for the purposes of arrest. A constable may enter and search any premises for executing a warrant or arresting a person for an indictable offence or various other provisions. Without a warrant and without the purpose of arresting someone for an indictable offence, they have no power to enter the premises. At the moment, it appears to be just viewing a social media post, which is vague. Section 18 only applies after arrest. A person arrested for an indictable offence, with reasonable grounds that they’ll find evidence inside, grants them a power of entry for a search after the arrest. Section 32 applies similarly; a constable may search an arrested person and, in the case of an indictable offence, may enter and search any premises where they were when arrested or immediately before being arrested for evidence related to the offence. So again, all powers of entry to search are related to a warrant or a power of entry for evidence of an indictable offence. Now let’s consider the power to seize the device, which is also in question here. Section 19 of PACE provides a broad general power of seizure. However, there’s a caveat: these powers can only be exercised by a constable who is lawfully on any premises. Now, from the video, although there are clipped sections, it seems that the lady reluctantly allowed them into the premises, which means they may have had her permission. But if they abused their power to enter, making her feel oppressed and threatened, that could mean they were trespassing. If she did not give them permission voluntarily, they are not lawfully on the premises. If they are not lawfully on the premises, then they cannot seize the phone. And unless they’ve arrested someone for an indictable offence—leading to the power to enter, search, and seize—then they simply cannot seize the device. In short, based on what I see in the video, I don’t think there was a power of entry, I don’t think there’s a power of seizure, and I don’t think there’s any real power to do anything else. If there was a reasonable ground to arrest somebody for a specific offence, they should be doing so. If it’s less serious, as they indicated, they should invite for a voluntary interview, but not force entry to the house by threat of escalation. I think those are potentially both abuse of power and unlawful here. I would be very interested for the lady who filmed this video to contact me, as I would like to see what the police have to say about this, obviously pro bono. I would want to request copies of their body-worn footage and understand their justification for their power of entry, power of seizure, and all the rest of it. I think there’s quite likely a valid claim against the police here. If anyone watching knows who they are, please send them a message to contact me. I think this is outrageous. This is the sort of case I would like to do pro bono because it is now getting out of hand. Based on the video, I find it absolutely ridiculous. Karma says we have free speech, yet we have police doorstepping to seize a child’s phone because they merely viewed a social media post. If it’s more serious than that, I will stand corrected, but as it stands, I think it’s ridiculous. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you in the next one.