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

6. Strip and intimate searches (Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9)

6.1 Questions 6-9 in the consultation asked respondents to consider whether the revised Code offers clear and respectful guidance in relation to conducting strip and intimate searches. Question 6 and 8 are closed questions, while questions 7 and 9 allowed respondents to answer openly and express their views.

Question 6: Does the revised Code provide clear guidance on how strip and intimate searches should be conducted?

Question 7: Please provide any suggestions for how the guidance on strip or intimate searches could be improved or strengthened.

Question 8: Does the revised Code provide clear guidance on establishing the sex of a person for the purposes of a search?

Question 9: Please provide further comments if you think the Code could be strengthened to support consistent and respectful practice.

6.2 The sections below in turn look at the views expressed in response to each of these questions.

Question 6: Does the revised Code provide clear guidance on how strip and intimate searches should be conducted?

6.3 This closed question asked respondents to answer ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘Don’t know’ as to whether the revised Code provides sufficient guidance on how strip and intimate searches should be conducted by officers.

6.4 This question received a total of 27 responses. 63% of the responses to this question were submitted by organisations, while the remaining 37% came from individual respondents. As the below table illustrates, responses to this question were generally positive, with 59% of respondents answering ‘Yes’. Of the remaining respondents, 33% answered ‘No’ and 7% answered ‘Don’t know’. For the respondents who answered ‘Yes’, this was made up of 63% organisations and 38% individuals. For respondents who answered ‘No’ to this question, this was made up of 67% organisations, with 33% individuals. The two remaining respondents who answered ‘Don’t know’, one was an individual and the other was an organisation. Neither respondent offered further information in reply to question 7.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Question 7: Please provide any suggestions for how the guidance on strip or intimate searches could be improved or strengthened.

6.5 This open question granted an opportunity for respondents to offer further feedback on their views on how the Code addresses conducting strip and intimate searches. There was a total of 22 responses to this question, with 68% of responses coming from organisations, and the remaining 32% from individuals.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Safeguarding

6.6 A key theme across responses was the need to strengthen safeguards to ensure that strip and intimate searches are conducted in a manner that fully protects dignity, privacy and human rights. Respondents called for clearer guidance on proportionality and thresholds, with some respondents suggesting that such searches should only be undertaken in exceptional circumstances or where there is a clear and immediate risk. There were also calls from respondents for clearer explanations of the legal basis and decision-making processes underpinning these searches.

6.7 Respondents further highlighted the need for clearer guidance on the practical application of safeguards, including the role of responsible adults and the support available to individuals before, during and after a search. Some respondents also suggested that the distinction between strip and intimate searches could be clarified to avoid confusion.

Sex and gender

6.8 Points relating to sex and gender were a prominent theme in responses. Feedback reflected differing views on how searches should be conducted in practice, particularly in relation to same‑sex searching and the role of gender identity.

6.9 Multiple respondents emphasised the importance of maintaining a clear sex‑based approach to protect dignity and privacy, particularly for searches involving the removal of more than outer clothing. The need for guidance to better reflect the rights of transgender individuals and ensure that searches are conducted in a respectful and lawful manner was also raised.

6.10 Some respondents disagreed with the use of the term ‘gender identity’, arguing that it lacked sufficient legal clarity in this context and that the Code should use terminology more closely aligned with statutory language.

6.11 Respondents also raised questions about the operational clarity and consistency of the relevant provisions, including how decisions should be made in practice and the extent to which discretion should be exercised. Concerns were also expressed about the potential impact on officers, including expectations around participation in sensitive searches and the risks associated with unclear or conflicting guidance. Some respondents also raised concerns about the implications of the guidance for officers conducting sensitive searches, including the need for clear operational expectations questions and suggestions that transgender officers be exempt from particular searches.

Children and young people

6.12 A number of respondents voiced concerns about the use of strip and intimate searches on children and young people. These searches were widely seen as particularly intrusive, with calls for their use to be limited to situations where there is an immediate risk of serious harm.

6.13 Respondents noted that the revised Code provides limited guidance on the specific sensitivities of conducting strip and intimate searches on children and young people. In response, they emphasised the need for stronger, child‑specific safeguards, including clearer requirements around the presence of a responsible adult and more detailed guidance reflecting the additional vulnerabilities and rights of children and young people. There were also calls for clearer distinctions between guidance for adults and for children.

Equalities

6.14 Some respondents raised concerns about potential disparities in the use of strip and intimate searches, including disproportionate impacts on certain groups. This led to calls for improved monitoring, oversight and transparency to better identify and address potential inequalities in practice.

Operational guidance

6.15 A number of responses focused on the need for clearer operational guidance to support consistent practice. This included calls for more detailed direction on the use of body‑worn video during strip and intimate searches, as well as clearer expectations around documentation and review.

Accessibility and communication

6.16 Respondents also highlighted the need to strengthen accessibility and communication. Suggestions included providing clearer guidance on how to support individuals with additional needs, including those with communication barriers, and ensuring that individuals understand their rights and the search process. There were also proposals to provide information in accessible formats, such as British Sign Language.

Question 8: Does the revised Code provide clear guidance on establishing the sex of a person for the purposes of a search?

6.17 This closed question asks respondents to respond ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Don’t know’ as to whether the Code provides clear guidance on establishing the sex of a person for the purposes of a search.

6.18 This response received a total of 25 responses, with 36% of responses from individuals, and the remaining 64% coming from organisations. Respondent feedback on this question was mixed, with 44% answering ‘Yes’, 36% answering ‘No’, and the remaining 20% answering ‘Don’t know’. Of the respondents who answered ‘Yes’, 73% of these were organisations, with the remaining 27% from individuals. From the respondents who answered ‘No’ to this question, 56% of respondents were individuals, with the remaining 44% coming from organisations. A total of 5 respondents answered ‘Don’t know’ to this question (20%), which was made up largely of organisations (80%).

6.19 Of the 25 respondents to this question, 17 answered the following question, which provided an opportunity to expand on their views further.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Question 9: Please provide further comments if you think the Code could be strengthened to support consistent and respectful practice.

6.20 This open question granted an opportunity for respondents to offer further feedback on their views on how the Code could be strengthened to support consistent and respectful practice. There was a total of 17 responses to this question, with 71% of responses coming from organisations, and the remaining 29% from individuals.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Sex and gender

6.21 The most prominent theme in responses related to how sex and gender are defined and applied within the revised Code. Respondents raised concerns about a lack of clarity and consistency in terminology, particularly in relation to the use of ‘sex’ and ‘gender identity’, and how these concepts should be interpreted in operational settings.

6.22 A range of differing views were expressed by respondents. Some called for a clearer, primarily sex-based approach, which they considered would support consistency and compliance with existing legal frameworks, particularly in relation to same-sex searching requirements. Others considered that the revised Code should give greater recognition to the experiences and circumstances of transgender people and people with variations in sex characteristics, and reflect considerations relating to gender identity that were raised in consultation responses.

6.23 Respondents also highlighted challenges in the practical application of the guidance. These included uncertainty about how sex should be established where it is unclear or disputed, and the feasibility of accommodating requests to be searched by a constable of a particular sex or, as some respondents proposed, a particular gender identity. The use of consent in this context was also questioned, with some respondents expressing concern about whether consent can be considered meaningful given the inherent power imbalance in stop and search encounter.

6.24 In addition, respondents raised concerns about the clarity and internal consistency of the relevant provisions. Some considered that aspects of the guidance could be difficult to apply in practice or may expose officers to challenge where expectations and requirements are not clearly defined.

Equalities and human rights

6.25 Some respondents raised broader equalities and human rights considerations, including the need for the revised Code to better reflect cultural and religious sensitivities during searches. There were calls for clearer guidance on how officers should balance operational requirements with individuals’ rights to dignity, privacy and religious expression.

6.26 Respondents also highlighted a need for clearer guidance on key decision‑making principles, such as in relation to determining the sex of a detainee, to support consistent application and reduce the risk of uncertainty in practice.

Children and young people

6.27 A number of respondents raised concerns about the lack of specific guidance relating to children and young people in this area. It was suggested that the revised Code should provide clearer, child‑specific safeguards, particularly in relation to determining sex and the conduct of more intrusive searches. The importance of reflecting children’s rights, including dignity and privacy, and providing clear guidance on appropriate support, such as the involvement of a responsible adult was also emphasised.

Accessibility and communication

6.28 Accessibility feedback was also received, highlighting the need to ensure that individuals understand their rights and the search process. Suggestions included providing information in accessible formats, such as British Sign Language, and ensuring that appropriate support is available where additional needs are identified.