Consultation on the review of the Stop and Search of Persons in Scotland Code of Practice for Constables: analysis of responses

4. Circumstances/procedures to be followed (Q1, Q2, Q3)

4.1 Questions 1, 2, and 3 in this consultation allowed respondents to feedback on whether the revised Code clearly sets out the circumstances in which a stop and search encounter can take place, and the procedures which are to be followed. Question 1 and 2 are closed questions, while question 3 is an open question which allowed respondents to expand on their views on this matter.

Question 1: Does the revised Code clearly set out the circumstances in which a search of a person may be carried out when the person is not in police custody?

Question 2: Does the revised Code clearly set out the procedures to be followed in carrying out a search of a person who is not in police custody?

Question 3: Please suggest any areas that could be made clearer or more detailed, or any other improvements that would support better understanding.

4.2 The following sections look at the responses to the above questions in turn.

Question 1: Does the revised Code clearly set out the circumstances in which a search of a person may be carried out when the person is not in police custody?

4.3 This closed question asked respondents to consider whether the Code clearly sets out the circumstances in which a person may be searched when not in police custody, and required the respondent to answer ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Don’t know’.

4.4 This question received a total of 25 responses, of which 16 (64%) of responses were from organisational respondents, while the remaining and 9 (36%) were from individuals. Responses to this question were largely positive, with 21 respondents (84%) answering ‘Yes’, 3 (12%) answering ‘No’ and 1 (4%) answering ‘Don’t know’. Among organisational respondents, 88% answered 'Yes', compared with 78% of individual respondents (Table 4.1). From the respondents who answered ‘Yes’, 67% of these came from organisations, the remainder from individual respondents. Of the respondents who answered ‘No’, 67% of these were individual responses and the remainder came from organisations. The singular respondent who answered ‘Don’t know’ came from an organisational respondent.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Question 2: Does the revised Code clearly set out the procedures to be followed in carrying out a search of a person who is not in police custody?

4.5 This is also a closed question which required the respondents to answer using ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Don’t know’ on whether they believe the revised Code clearly set out procedures to be following when carrying out a search on a person who is not in custody.

4.6 This question received a total of 25 responses, 64% of respondents were on behalf of an organisation, with the remaining responses coming from individual responses. Responses were largely positive, with 72% of respondents answering ‘Yes’, 20% of respondents answered ‘No’, and 8% answered ‘Don’t know’. Of the respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question, 61% of respondents were organisations, and the remaining 39% were individual respondents. Those who answered ‘No’ to this question were made up of 60% organisations and 40% individual respondents. Two organisational respondents answered ‘Don’t know’ to this question, both of which offered further commentary in reply to the next question.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Question 3: Please suggest any areas that could be made clearer or more detailed, or any other improvements that would support better understanding.

4.7 This open question offered respondents an opportunity to offer further feedback on their views on how the Code could be made clearer, more detailed, or improved to support better understanding. There was a total of 20 responses to this question, with 65% of responses coming from organisations, and the remaining 35% from individuals.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

4.8 Overall, feedback highlighted a desire for greater clarity, consistency and practical guidance across a number of areas. While respondents recognised that the revised Code provides a general framework, many suggested that additional detail, clearer definitions and more operational examples would support more consistent understanding and application in practice.

Children and young people

4.9 A number of respondents called for stronger and more specific guidance in relation to children and young people. This included clearer thresholds for searches, particularly in relation to strip and intimate searches, as well as greater emphasis on safeguarding, the use of force and the potential impact of stop and search on children. The importance of ensuring children fully understand the process was also highlighted, including the use of interpreters where necessary, and clearer requirements around the definition of a responsible adult. There was also suggestion to reinstate or expand provisions from the 2017 Code and to strengthen alignment with UNCRC principles. Additionally, it was suggested that separate sections be included for children and for young people up to the age of 25, to reflect differing developmental stages and needs.

Equalities and human rights

4.10 Respondents emphasised the need for clearer and more practical guidance on equality and human rights. This included calls for stronger recognition of implicit bias and discrimination, as well as clearer articulation of what a human rights‑based approach looks like in operational practice.

4.11 Some respondents also suggested that the revised Code could be strengthened through improved guidance on culturally sensitive searches and the inclusion of more trauma‑informed principles, as well as monitoring and review processes aimed at tackling unconscious bias. Reference was made to the 2017 Code which contained guidance on the removal of headgear and hair searches, and it was suggested that something similar be reinstated, with updated language.

Operational guidance and use of powers

4.12 Some respondents sought clearer guidance on thresholds such as reasonable suspicion. Others asked for clearer guidance on specific search powers under Section 66 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, and the potential ramifications for non-compliance with this Code. Respondents suggested inclusion of practical examples to support consistent decision‑making.

4.13 Provisions on the use of Body Worn Video (BWV) were also highlighted, with reference made to the current relevant College of Policing guidance. Respondents note that the revised Code states that, where the technology is available, all use of stop and search powers must be recorded, unless there are exceptional and justifiable circumstances not to do so. Some respondents sought greater clarity around accountability and oversight where recording does not take place.

Accessibility and communication

4.14 Feedback also called for more accessible and inclusive communication. Respondents requested clearer guidance on how officers can ensure individuals understand their rights and the search process, particularly where communication needs or disabilities may not be externally apparent. There was also suggestion to improve the accessibility of supporting materials, including the use of alternative formats such as British Sign Language.

Sex and gender

4.15 Points were also raised relating to sex and gender, including how provisions should be applied in practice and the need for clearer guidance in this area. This included views on how searches should be conducted in relation to sex, as well as protections for officers conducting searches and the clarity and consistency of the relevant provisions within the revised Code.