Facetious, helpful!. What does the uniform of a patrol biker consist of?? Black leathers and black boots, none of which will say police directly on them. The uniform element is only obligatory if using the section 59 power. The officer hasn't used the power. He has used another RTA Power to stop the vehicle and issued a warning.
I'm pretty certain the OP said he was issued with a Section 59 warning. How is that not related to s59 then? I'll remind you of the relevant section, as it seems you've forgotten this part:- Only a uniformed Police Officer or PCSO can issue a Section 59 or seize a vehicle under the Section 59 rules. If a plain clothes Police Officer issues you a Section 59 or attempts to seize your vehicle, it is unlawful
You missed the bit about plain bike then. But yes the leathers are plain black. Hardly likely to be wearing the day Glo on a plain bike.
Stop being a prat. The Act is even more explicit:- Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance (1)Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which— (a)contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and (b)is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public, he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3). (2)A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).
No need to be abusive. It stays by saying a constable in uniform may..... Then details the power of seizure. Explain to me how the constable has USED the power if he hasn't seized the bike? The constable has other powers to stop a motorist besides that which is conferred by this act.
So if he's issued a Section 59 notice he's not used Section 59? For your benefit I've decided that you're trolling, because no one can be that stupid and be able to breathe unaided.
I'm no lawyer, but my interpretation is that the uniform point seems highly relevant: 1. The OP says he was issued a S59 warning (indicating the officer may have stated this, otherwise how would he know) 2. The officer appears to have used the powers under S59 to stop the vehicle (para 3(a)). He does not need to (in fact cannot) seize the vehicle unless a prior warning has been given, so the powers under the Act have been used, without seizure. 3. The Act clearly states "constable in uniform"
At the risk of being called a Troll for daring to disagree with Lord Kwacky. Most officers will say they used their power under 163/164/165 Road traffic act to stop and check the authorisation of the driver for the vehicle. This also says that the officer should be in uniform; however through stated cases, it has become common law that "Case law states that under common law police do have the power to stop and detain a vehicle in plain clothes as long as it is not simply a ‘routine stop’. The stop must be beyond the 'reasonable suspicion' threshold." So effectively just because an officer wasn't in uniform does not make the stop unlawful automatically. As for the uniform well that has been cleared up: Police Officer 'in uniform' is someone who by the general appearance of their uniform is descernable as a Police Officer. - If you saw the flashing lights and pulled over as a result and saw a person in black leathers who said he was a police officer and you remained with him; you have accepted that they are discernible as a police officer. As for the S59 power 59Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance (1)Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which— (a)contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and (b)is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public, he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3). (3)Those powers are— (a)power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle; (b)power to seize and remove the motor vehicle; (c)power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be; (d)power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to ©. There is no 'power' used to issue a warning. So if an officer stops you using his RTA powers and requires your details as he is considering a prosecution for due care or similar but then chooses to fill out a force pad and then give you a verbal warning that your riding might lead to your vehicle being seized, how has he used the power of S59?? Doesn't sound like trolling to me.
So he's issued a Section 59 notice under Section 59 as he perceives the rider to have breached Section 59 and the police officer has warned the rider about the effect of the Section 59 notice but he's not used Section 59? Right. If you're going out in the sun today, be sure to wear a hat.
Indeed - he's only been given a warning, not an actual Section 59. The warning doesn't have to correspond to the Section 59 rules because it isn't a Section 59, merely a warning. There really isn't a lot of point in arguing it any further in my view. This also wasn't filtering, it was overtaking. I agree with Steffy - it's because he was pulling into a line of traffic where there wasn't a sufficient gap to do so, thus causing the other vehicles to brake etc. If you were in a car and another car overtakes you and forces their way into the traffic in front of you so you have to brake, you'd be pretty pissed off I'm sure and want the Police to take action.
