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

8. Searches of vulnerable people (Q12, Q13)

8.1 This chapter outlines responses received in relation to questions 12 and 13 of the consultation questionnaire, which aimed to gather feedback on whether the Code provides sufficient guidance and protections for vulnerable people during a stop and search encounter.

Question 12: Does the revised Code provide sufficient guidance on how police should identify and interact with people who may be vulnerable or need extra support?

Question 13: Please provide further comments if you think the revised Code could include additional measures or safeguards to ensure vulnerable people are adequately protected during a stop and search.

8.2 The sections below look in turn at the feedback provided in response to each of these questions.

Question 12: Does the revised Code provide sufficient guidance on how police should identify and interact with people who may be vulnerable or need extra support?

8.3 This closed question asked respondents to answer ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘Don’t know’ as to whether or not the code provides sufficient guidance as to how police identify and interact with vulnerable people, or those in need of extra support, during a stop and search encounter.

8.4 This question received 25 responses in total, 64% of responses to this question came from organisations, with the remaining 36% from individuals. The table below shows that responses were split, 48% of respondents answered ‘Yes’, 44% of respondents answered ‘No’, and the remaining respondents answered ‘Don’t know’ (8%). Of those respondents who answered ‘Yes’, it was 58% individuals and 42% organisations. While those who answered ‘No’ to this question, were largely made up of organisations (82%). The two remaining respondents who answered ‘Don’t know’ were both organisations, of which both made further comments under question 13.

8.5 In total, of the 25 respondents who answered question 12, 20 respondents answered the next question asking for further comments on this subject.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Question 13: Please provide further comments if you think the revised Code could include additional measures or safeguards to ensure vulnerable people are adequately protected during a stop and search.

8.6 This open question provided an opportunity for respondents to expand on their answer to the previous question, and a chance to express their views on where they believe the revised Code could provide additional measures or safeguards to ensure vulnerable people are adequately protected during stop and search encounters. Of the 20 respondents to this question, 65% of them came from organisations, with the remaining 35% from individuals.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

8.7 Respondents generally highlighted the need for clearer and more consistent guidance on identifying vulnerability and applying appropriate safeguards in practice. While the revised Code was seen to provide a general framework, many felt that additional clarity and more practical guidance would support more consistent and effective implementation.

Defining and identifying vulnerability

8.8 A key theme across responses was concern around how vulnerability is defined and identified within the revised Code. Respondents expressed differing views on whether the current definition is sufficiently clear, with some suggesting it is too broad and risks encompassing a wide range of individuals, while others felt it is too narrow and does not fully reflect the range of circumstances in which a person may be at increased risk. Respondents also highlighted that vulnerability may be situational and not immediately visible and that the Code should avoid treating vulnerability as a fixed category.

8.9 In particular, the need for a more nuanced and practically applicable definition that reflects different types and levels of vulnerability was highlighted. This included greater recognition of factors such as mental health conditions, neurodivergence, communication needs, substance use, and experiences of trauma, exploitation or external pressures. It was also suggested that vulnerability may be situational and not always immediately visible, requiring a more flexible and context‑sensitive approach.

8.10 A number of respondents emphasised the importance of how vulnerability is identified in practice, noting that reliance on officers to recognise vulnerability may lead to inconsistencies, particularly where needs are not externally apparent. As a result, there were calls for clearer guidance on proactive identification, including encouraging officers to ask individuals about their support needs rather than relying solely on observation or judgement.

8.11 Related to this, some respondents raised concerns about the language used within the revised Code, suggesting that the term “vulnerable” may be overly generalised or risk reinforcing stigma. There were calls for clearer, more person‑centred and strengths‑based language, as well as for alignment with approaches such as the social model of disability.

8.12 A small number of responses made broader points relating to equalities and consistency, including suggestions to improve monitoring and ensure that vulnerability is considered alongside other protected characteristics.

Accessibility

8.13 Respondents emphasised the importance of ensuring that individuals understand their rights and the search process. Feedback highlighted the need for clearer guidance on communication, particularly where disabilities or additional needs may not be immediately visible.

8.14 Suggestions included providing more detailed guidance on adapting communication styles and search procedures, as well as ensuring that officers consider the environment in which a search is conducted. There were also calls for greater recognition of accessibility needs, including the use of assistive equipment and support animals.

Safeguarding

8.15 Safeguarding was a key area where respondents felt the Code could be strengthened. This included calls for clearer guidance on referral pathways and multi‑agency working, to ensure that individuals receive appropriate support where vulnerabilities are identified.

8.16 It was also suggested that provisions relating to children and young people could be applied more consistently to vulnerable adults, including guidance on communication and safeguarding measures. There were also calls for clearer recognition of the role of carers, including unpaid carers, in supporting individuals during stop and search encounters.

Sex and gender

8.17 Some respondents expressed the view that any search requiring the removal of more than outer clothing should only be carried out by a constable of the same sex.