Security - Stop and Search Policy

I would suggest a witness to ensure no false allegations are made, such as discriminatory or sexual....I think it would be seriously unwise to search on your own.

hi can you search someone on your own or do you need 2 people
i know if they ask for a witness you have to get 1 but do you need 2 people all the time

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

HI
has the model stop and search policy been published on here yet ?

many thanks

Mel

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

Hi Sally, I tend to agree with Justin on this, but would like to add.

You say that you are a "third part haulier" , Maybe you could check with whoever you are contracted to, to see whether they have been informed of these checks.

I have been involved with courier work in the past as a taxi boss; a major defence company used the services of a Courier company, who in turn used our courier service for small packages and sensitive mail.

To have this contract we had to submit information about the specific vehicles and drivers that were engaged in this work.
And here's the point; The defence company only informed the courier, and the courier then forwarded all necessary forms to us to complete, as it was them that had the direct contract, in effect we were acting on their behalf.

That did mean a stop and search policy, (even including such things as underfloor scans, and when it was code amber, they used dogs, x-ray machines, and would search everywhere, it could even mean a strip search of the driver despite being under constant guard and not being permitted to leave the vehicle - although to my knowledge that has never happened)

When we originally got the contract, the Courier company told us that "we have a legal obligation to inform you..." that this policy existed.

I wonder if whoever you are contracted to has failed to inform you that a policy like this exists at some of the premises of companies that they sell to.

Hi Sally. To view it from the point of view of the retailer, they have a lot of high value 'pocket sized' items, e.g. ipods, digital cameras, and it is recognised by retailers that theft and losses involving staff is frequently greater than theft by shop lifting. Sometimes losses via staff can involve using third parties. The way to reduce these thefts is strict policies and procedures such as searching.

I would suggest first discussing the issues with your drivers - hopefully they will see and understand the aims of the retailer and also recognise the searches are part of a larger policy and not a personal attack. You could even see if the retailer would provide information and statistics or even send their security manager.

If it is still an issue with your drivers, discuss their concerns with the retailer. Make it clear that you understand their requirements and do not wish to diminish their security measures, but look at alternatives to the searching, especially of personal belongings in the cab.

Thanks for the reply Justin. The company in question is a high street electrical retailer, we are a white goods manufacturer and the driver does not leave his cab during the delivery except to undo the security tag on his back door! It is all unloaded using fork lift

By entering their premises you have agreed to their clearly signposted terms. If they have this strict search policy, I assume that it is because there is high value products on site and a real risk of them being stolen. Searching a vehicle would be pointless if you excluded personal bags, if the items at risk of being stolen are small enough to fit in a bag.

Without knowing what is produced on site, the components and the risk of theft, I can not judge whether the policy is justified. To use extremes, if the company makes jewellrey and handles precious metals and stones, it is reasonable; if it is a timber merchant selling 8 foot planks of wood, checking bags is pointless.

You could raise your concerns with the company, and if there is a significant risk, agree to your driver being escorted through the site or to be offloaded at the entrance. If you consider the company to be being unreasonable, you could refuse any contracts which include deliveries to those premises, but that does mean refusing work!

Could someone explain whether this is correct or not?

A company we deliver to as a third party haulier has signs on entering that they have thr right to search vehicles on the way out. One of ours was stopped and not only was teh cabe searched but all of the drivers personal bags and cupboard space where he keeps his possessions, on return to base he was duly upset at this procedure, can we complain to this company about this as checking the vehicle is one thing but going through a mans personal stiff seems a bit heavy handed?

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

I work for a recruitment agency, and one of my clients has asked me to put a stop and search policy in place, Anyone know where I can download one from? I had an incident of pilfering with this customer. My staff are all happy to be searched but I need to get the DOCS in place.... Any Ideas???

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

Hello David

The complaint fromAnthony was that the security officers could not random search everybody leaving site and as we all know stop and search is a complete minefield.
But what is clear is that it should all or nothing if bias is to be avoided.

Just my two pennyworth.

Barry

Hi Barry,
It should be either, but not something in the middle which sends the wrong message to all parties. Not that everyone has to be searched as it could be done on a random basis - as long as all parties are dealt with in the same way, with a similar proprtion of each being searched to demonstrate impartiality.

Hello

Are you suggesting all people should be searched or none at all.

Barry

Definitely discriminatory and shows a particularly shortsighted management who appear to believe that their own people are totally above any form of criminal act! How belittling for those contractors, automatically under suspicion from day one.
It's a strange and unhealthy relationship with a client when unethical practice can't be pointed out clearly to them. ("Oh by the way Mr Service Provider, we want every fourth person from that contractor given a full strip search and DNA check..." - next step, perhaps?)

Is the group of targeted staff of a different ethnic background to the majority of the rest of the staff? If so, the company (and potentially you personally) are liable to action.

I am a Security Officer who feels the search policy of the Company I am employed with needs to be revaluated. We are not allowed to random search the employees of the company, only contract staff, and because of where the searches are carried out, it mainly only applies to one section of contractors, as they are the only ones who have to exit the building where the search area has been designated.
I have made my concerns know that I feel the searches are discriminatory, unlawful, and intrusive because even though contractual consent was signed with the company, the area of search is not isolated to save any embarrassment. My immediate managers have ignored my concerns as they say the client requires searches be carried out.
Can somebody give me any advise on how I stand as I, as an individual, and my company are open to litigation charges over which I feel are a number of procedural irregularities.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

I will be happy if I can have a stop and search policy send to my email address
khethmv@unisa.ac.za

I work in a distribution centre as a security guard. Every time the workforce goes on their breaktimes I have to stand on the door and observe the employee's going out after the men lift their tops up and their trousers also I do car, locker,pocket and bag searches throughout the time I'm there. The problem is sometimes the security staff get told to wear headcams on all the searches and I think that people's human rights are infringed on using the headcam.

Mark, Stop and serach and pat down searches can be non-intrusive if carried out correctly and proffesionally. In this day and age, unfortunatly some companies have no alternative but to use this method of checking staff, visitors etc. However, if you read through the thread above you will see that there is plenty of advice about your right to refuse such a search, but be aware of the consequencies with regards to your contract and any disciplinary action that may be taken.

With regards to the cameras in vehicles, this may be breaching your human rights and Data protection, as this is definitly intrusive monitoring of an individual and would fall under the use of CCTV systems, albiet, mobile in a vehicle. I would check out the CCTV Best Practice Guide and Use of CCTV to monitor the workplace documents you can find on the Information Commisioner's website, link below.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Hope this helps

Vaughan

The company that I have worked for during the last 5 years has just announced a change of contract for all employees and is introducing a range of, what many of us consider to be, harsh conditions and policies.
One such policy is the introduction of what they describe as being "light body searches" which we are told are to be carried out at random and that prior to the searches we must sign a consent form.
I have serious reservations about the integrity of certain members of my management team which extend upto senior management at head office. Being of honest character and understanding the concerns relating to possible theft or concealment I would have no objection to turning out my pockets, emptying the contents of my bag or even removing items from my car for visual inspection. However, given past experience of the malicious practices and accompanying ill-will of these individuals I would not be at all surprised if they were to conduct a search enabling them to plant evidence and would not feel comfortable with them touching my person.
The company has also introduced a camera system which monitors the manor in which our drivers behave on the road. Initially we were verbally told that this was for motor insurance reasons but it has since transpired that the company uses a company in the US who watch the video footage and other data in order to pass on information about minor/major road traffic offences, eating, drinking, smoking in the cab (fair enough) and so the list goes on. It has also hit a raw nerve that the system has a very clear audio recording with which private conversations during breaks can also be monitored. The system was introduced without warning or an explaination of how the data would be processed, stored or destroyed. I could go on to mention other areas where morale has been driven down but the list would be far to long for a single thread. Also ironic that these sweeping changes have been announced along with the suggestion that the company may well float in early 2010!