As usual, the Police relying on Joe Public's ignorance of the law.....
From memory (can't be bothered to check my criminal law textbooks), by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.25, a constable can arrest any person on reasonable suspicion that they have committed an offence if that offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 5 years (which theft does - max sentence is 14 years i think). Even if they don't believe they have grounds to arrest the owner of the phone there and then, the fact that the call came from his phone should at least trigger a visit to the corresponding address in order to ask the occupant some questions, see if the ID of the suspect matches his description, or even just to see if the car is parked outside his house! DUH! Not exactly the stuff of Sherlock Holmes is it? If there are any lawyers/police officers on here, please feel free to correct me....
An awful lot of policemen I've some across confuse the amount and quality of evidence the CPS need to secure a conviction (a lot), with the amount and quality of evidence they need to arrest a suspect and/or search premises (not very much at all). The cynic in me would suggest that they know full well the difference, but use such excuses when they can't be a***d to investigate what could possibly turn out to be a wild goose chase....
£500 reward. Full details and pics of the bike are on eBay at this link:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...e=STRK:MESE:IT [Edited on 14-4-2005 by zhed44]
[Edited on 15-4-2005 by zhed44]
Hybrid Mode
