Smug UK Cops Just Handed Over The EASIEST Lawsuit Ever!

Añadido: 2026-05-19

[00:00:00]use my pard of pace to put you uh in handcuffs just so I can control you.

[00:00:03]What we're doing, we're going to carry out a section one pay search here. Okay.

[00:00:06]>> Legal detainment.

[00:00:06]>> It's not a detainment.

[00:00:08]>> Welcome to the audit assessor. Over here, we break down encounters between the public and the police. We examine the law, the conduct, and the context so you know your rights, their responsibilities, and where the line is drawn. Thanks to Cops Get Owned for letting us cover and break down this police audit. Make sure to subscribe to his channel and like his videos. His link is in the description below. In this new episode, CGO is simply walking through his own neighborhood when West Midland's officers swoop in and immediately subject him to an aggressive street search. Rather than investigating a genuine crime, it becomes instantly transparent that the officers are abusing their search powers as a fraudulent shortcut to strip away his anonymity and force his identification.

[00:00:48]This entire high-handed ambush completely backfires on the force, culminating in CGO dragging these officers into a courtroom to face accountability for their blatant overreach.

[00:00:58]Say it again so I can record it for IPCC.

[00:01:00]>> I've stopped you >> for the purpose of a suspicious male trying handles of houses.

[00:01:06]>> You are matching the description. You're in the area.

[00:01:08]>> So I'm illegal for trying me own door.

[00:01:10]>> I don't know if it's your own door.

[00:01:11]That's why I need your details to establish and confirm who you are.

[00:01:14]>> We're going to carry out a section one pay search here. Okay.

[00:01:16]>> Pay search.

[00:01:17]>> Yeah, pay the no problem.

[00:01:19]>> On what grounds?

[00:01:20]>> Right. The grounds are I've been called to a male matching description.

[00:01:23]>> So another illegal search.

[00:01:24]>> Not illegal search. Okay. Can you hand out your pocket for us please, mate?

[00:01:26]self check.

[00:01:27]>> Well, not really, mate, because you're coming closer to me.

[00:01:30]>> Use my pard of pace to put you uh in handcuffs just so I can >> so I can't record it. Then >> we carrying out.

[00:01:35]>> So, this is an illegal detainment.

[00:01:36]>> It's not a detainment. Please come evidence.

[00:01:39]>> Do you mind not touch me?

[00:01:40]>> That's your name.

[00:01:42]>> What we want to do is eliminate you from our inquiries cuz if somebody is doing something bad, we want to catch those people.

[00:01:46]>> If it's not you, that's fine. You'll be on your way. Where'd you live, mate?

[00:01:50]>> This is 371 m.

[00:01:52]>> Fantastic. That's great. If you live there, it's your house. That's brilliant.

[00:01:54]>> What are these in?

[00:01:55]>> These are handcuffs. Yeah. So, they're illegally detaining.

[00:01:57]>> They're not illegally detaining. I'm carrying out a section one pay search, mate.

[00:02:00]>> Yeah. Without any paperwork.

[00:02:02]>> We'll give you paper.

[00:02:03]>> You're not telling me your name. I don't know who you >> The officer opens the interaction claiming CGO matches a description, yet completely disregards the immediate logical explanation that CGO was simply accessing his own property. Instead of conducting a proper investigation, they launch into a section one pace search based entirely on the flimsy ground that someone called, failing the strict legal threshold of independent reasonable suspicion required by PACE code A. Then the officer slaps handcuffs on a completely compliant citizen, citing a vague need for control under section 24 of PACE and the college of policing guidelines, which forbid using restraints on peaceful individuals. When CGO rightly identifies this as an unlawful detainment, the officer nonsensically denies that he is proving a terrifying ignorance of the fact that physically restricting someone's liberty and cuffs is by definition a detention.

[00:02:53]>> Now you're looking through your wallet.

[00:02:54]>> I am. I'm trying to identify just in case you steal anything.

[00:02:57]>> Not illegal to swear. Judge Bean also said it's not illegal to swear. And if you want to keep if you want to keep doing this, mate, I'll get you done for harassment of protection from harassment.

[00:03:04]>> Well, swearing isn't for the quarter effect, isn't it?

[00:03:06]>> Well, it's not. What happens to freedom?

[00:03:08]What happens to freedom of speech?

[00:03:09]>> We want to make this out. We want to make the country safe, don't we?

[00:03:12]>> Just step back a bit, please. Cuz you put him under alarm and distress. You've got me in cuss. I'm not going to do now.

[00:03:16]>> Okay. I don't know.

[00:03:17]>> So, out of respect, can you just move back a bit, please?

[00:03:18]>> Okie dokie. All right. I'll go give you respect. Give me respect. What's your name, please, mate? There you go. What's your name? War, Samuel, turn around for >> Yeah, cuz I don't find it funny to Nick.

[00:03:28]>> What you doing around here then?

[00:03:30]>> I live around here. I've told you numerous times I live around here.

[00:03:33]>> Have a break the law then, Samuel.

[00:03:34]>> Oh, you have?

[00:03:35]>> Because you put cuffs on me without no reason. Yeah. No, you're making a public inquiry.

[00:03:40]>> What I'm doing is I'm >> No, you're making a No, you're making >> I don't know who you are. You're not.

[00:03:43]>> So, I'm on suspicion of I've been charged with a crime on suspicion of a crime.

[00:03:47]You're making a public inquiry which states which states No, listen. Let me speak. You're public servant from our inquiries. You're a crown servant. Not public servant.

[00:03:55]>> No, you're a public servant.

[00:03:56]>> The illegalities escalate further as the officers aggressively rifle through CGO's wallet, openly admitting their objective is to identify him. a move that fundamentally violates section one of PACE, which restricts search parameters strictly to stolen or prohibited items and explicitly forbids searching for identification. When a frustrated CGO predictably swears at this blatant violation, the officers instantly bring up the Public Order Act 1986, falsely claiming his language constitutes an offense while completely ignoring established high court precedent, which confirms that swearing out of mere annoyance at the police does not meet the criminal threshold for a public order charge. These officers proved they were entirely uninterested in the boundaries of their statutory powers.

[00:04:40]>> A sergeant here.

[00:04:40]>> Well, you got absolutely no chance of getting a sergeant here.

[00:04:42]>> Yeah. So, that's another refusal. Okay.

[00:04:44]Why do you want a sergeant here? And what powers gives you the right to get a sergeant?

[00:04:47]>> What powers, mate? I pay your wages.

[00:04:49]>> You pay wages.

[00:04:50]>> You're a servant to the public.

[00:04:51]>> No, I'm a crown sergeant.

[00:04:52]>> Can you step back for me, please?

[00:04:54]>> Can you step back for me, please? Cuz you put them under alarm and stress, mate. If you come any closer, put your hands on me again, mate. I'll get you done for assault >> and I will use reasonable force to restrain you as well.

[00:05:02]>> You'll be under arrest for assault.

[00:05:03]>> And why don't you shut up and let me speak. Why don't you stop using degrading treatment as well?

[00:05:06]>> Degrading treatment? What's your degrading? I'm >> talking to a [ __ ] idiot.

[00:05:08]>> Like you're an idiot. I don't know. Are you an idiot? Why is you making an assumption? Are you making assumption? I am making assumption. Why don't you just back away from me? Thanks.

[00:05:17]>> I don't care, mate. You're public servants, mate. I don't want to. Did I ask you to come out? No. So, just [ __ ] off, will you?

[00:05:22]>> You swear one more time. I'm going to arrest you for public order. Do >> you understand?

[00:05:26]>> No, you've already put me across illegally. So, what you >> Whitehead? I'm not sure your name.

[00:05:31]>> I need to know. You got my number.

[00:05:33]>> No, I need to know your name. Yeah, I do, mate. You serve the P. So, how come your office here has the respect to actually show is No, because you're not a proper officer, are you? You're corrupt like the rest of them. You're not. You got my column number. That's all you need.

[00:05:42]>> No, I didn't.

[00:05:43]>> So, what about if I need to use this for IPCC? So, I'm free to go then, aren't I?

[00:05:47]No.

[00:05:47]>> Do you want the say no? I'm not, mate.

[00:05:49]>> The officer's dismissive claim that CGO has no chance of getting a supervisor present exposes a fundamental disdain for accountability, completely violating pace code A, which mandates that supervisors should attend if requested to handle immediate grievances on the street. By stubbornly invading CGO's personal space and refusing to step back, this officer actively incited the very frustration he then tried to criminalize. His empty threat of a section 5 public order act arrest for swearing is a textbook abuse of power.

[00:06:17]High court president in Harvey versus DPP explicitly rules that police officers cannot simply claim to be harassed, alarmed, or distressed, especially when no member of the public is present to complain. These officers demonstrated that they weren't executing a lawful duty. who you are. I don't know what your properties are. I don't know whether you got any weapons, whether you're trying to break into any cars.

[00:06:37]We've explained to you so I'm really going to do that.

[00:06:40]>> I don't know.

[00:06:40]>> When he's coming over to me, say, "You give me your detail. I'm going to arrest you." It's not illegal not to give me your details. I have a right not to give you my personal details.

[00:06:46]>> This is me and you speaking now, isn't it?

[00:06:48]>> But am I am I incorrect?

[00:06:51]>> I have I don't have to give you my details. I'm not working for a company.

[00:06:53]Under the company policies, I don't have if I was working, I'd have to show you me ID because company policies state that. If I'm walking around work doing freedom of movement, I don't have to give you my name.

[00:07:02]>> Okay. But okay, that's your side. Now, this is what we get told. Remember the public rings up and says, "There's a male acting suspiciously." Yeah. Okay.

[00:07:08]So, we come out and we speak to you. You refuse to give us all our details. We deal with Hang Hang on. Hang on. We deal with lots of people who do do things very suspiciously and don't use the details because they're wanted or they're known by the police. Okay.

[00:07:20]>> So, that's where something comes on to.

[00:07:22]If you've got your ID, I just say, "My name's Samuel."

[00:07:24]>> Yeah. But I don't like being threatened to say, "If you don't put if you don't give me a detail, I'm arresting you."

[00:07:27]Well, you got no foot to standing because you can't arrest me for not giving me details. That's that's my right.

[00:07:32]>> I've not committed a crime. I'm not suspicion of crime. You're making a public inquiry because a member of the public has phoned in. That's a public inquiry. I've not done anything suspicious. I've walked but listen I've walked from my house on to where I've been all day. The officer's broken record defense that he doesn't know who CGO is completely dismantles his own case as a lack of knowledge is the exact opposite of objective suspicion and can never legally justify street search.

[00:07:57]Proving this entire interaction was born of lazy guesswork rather than lawful policing. By launching an invasive detention based solely on a third party phone call with zero corroborating evidence, these officers did not conduct a proper preliminary assessment. The person who called in the report acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

[00:08:15]They committed the criminal offense of wasting police time under section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 or even a public nuisance offense. Yet rather than investigating the source of this malicious or incompetent report, the officers chose to victimize an innocent resident. This links perfectly to what I'm about to share is called underw.

[00:08:34]Because whether people like it or not, the legal landscape in this country is changing. Powers abroad, enforcement is active, new laws are coming quickly, and most people only realize what they don't know when they're already in the situation. Under what is built, so you understand the system you live under at all times. Inside the platform are over 100 fully interactive legal guides. Not just reading, you make decisions and see how those decisions affect your legal safety, escalation risk, and evidence position. Stopbot is built directly into the platform, a policing focused AI designed specifically around UK law. It breaks down powers and thresholds clearly, and in guide mode, it works like a teacher, expanding on the guides and reinforcing your understanding so you're not secondguessing yourself.

[00:09:15]There's also a daily UK policing news feed focused on real activity, incidents, operational shifts, and crime, including exclusive deep dive articles breaking down police misconduct cases, upcoming legislation, and what it all actually means. And then there are the protection tools, a live drone safety map with NOTM awareness, a civil claim checker to assess potential liability, a police complaint generator, a SAR request builder, and more rolling out. This isn't built around outrage.

[00:09:42]It's built because policing in the UK is at an all-time low, and people need to stay informed, prepared, and protected.

[00:09:49]It launches soon at an affordable monthly price. If you want to see it properly when it goes live, the Underwatch channel is linked down below in the description. A member of the public rang up saying they're trying doors and they're trying car handles.

[00:10:01]Okay, >> hang on. Hang on. Right.

[00:10:04]>> Where's the doors on here?

[00:10:04]>> Right. I didn't ring up. Somebody rang me up. I am a crown servant. I've got to come out on the front.

[00:10:09]>> I've got to come out and I've got to investigate this. Okay. So, we come out and find out who you are.

[00:10:13]>> So, if I stood outside my house, why don't you pull me over then instead of driving around in loops?

[00:10:17]>> What's it? What's the issue? Because you pull me. No, you've put me in cuff for no reason. I didn't do anything. I wasn't acting out of order. I wasn't literally raising me fist here. Okay.

[00:10:24]Right. So, you put me in cuss for no reason. No, I put you in cuffs for a reason because I don't know whether now we know that you've got no weapons on you. That you've got nothing that could harm me that could harm you. You've got nothing that can be used for a weapon to break into a house. I don't know these things to begin with and you clearly don't like the police. That's your prerogative.

[00:10:39]>> I didn't like the way your officer refused to give his name cuz he's meant to.

[00:10:42]>> Okay. Right. What they don't understand he hasn't had.

[00:10:44]>> So, if I say to him, if I say to him now, show me your warrant card. Is he going to refuse?

[00:10:48]>> He doesn't need to show you now.

[00:10:49]>> Well, he does.

[00:10:50]>> I can show you my warrant card. In fact, here you go. There's my warrant card.

[00:10:52]>> So, how do I know he's real?

[00:10:54]>> Because I'm the one that carried out the pay search. That's me.

[00:10:56]>> Okay.

[00:10:57]>> Y >> Right.

[00:11:00]>> Just to let people know, it's an update on the case uh against West Midland's police. I took them to a criminal court and a civil court.

[00:11:08]>> The officer's defense that he was merely duty bound to investigate the emergency call is entirely contradicted by his immediate aggressive transition into a physical search. Investigation requires a sequential objective assessment of facts, interviewing the subject, analyzing the surroundings, and probing the validity of the report. By substituting an immediate, invasive search for an actual investigation, they turned a routine verification check into an unlawful fishing expedition, proving they were never seeking the truth, but rather looking to force instant compliance. The assertion that CGO was handcuffed because he clearly doesn't like the police is perhaps the most damning indictment of this entire encounter, exposing their motivation.

[00:11:48]Personal distaste for authority is a protected exercise of free speech, not a statutory trigger for physical restraint. By openly using handcuffs to punish a citizen's verbal resistance and bruised ego, this officer crossed the line from a public servant into an abusive aggressor. Because of these compounding unlawful acts, CGO possessed rocksolid grounds to drag these officers into both civil and criminal court. CGO could hold the individual officers personally liable for misconduct, ensuring that when the badge is deliberately used to bypass the judiciary, the courts will step in to strip away their immunity and deliver justice. If you found value in this breakdown, make sure you like the video, share it, and subscribe to support the channel and help keep this kind of accountability in the spotlight. I'm the audit cessor. This was episode 39.