Written by: Shelley Gregory, PNLD Legal Adviser
Not reviewed after the date of publication - 25 August 2026
PNLD receive a significant number of queries asking for clarification of the powers available to police officers to search unattended vehicles located in a public place. When confronted with what appears to be evidence of a criminal offence visible within a parked car in the street, of course there is a desire to obtain that evidence immediately, however, this must be done lawfully to avoid the risk of having any evidence obtained being excluded at court. PNLD Legal Adviser, Shelley Gregory, highlights the main options available to search unattended vehicles in a public place.
Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Section 1 – Stop and Search
Section 1 of PACE provides a constable with the power to stop and search any person or vehicle for stolen or prohibited articles, or any article to which subsection (8A) applies, any substance to which subsection (8AA) applies, or any firework to which subsection (8B) applies. A constable must have reasonable grounds to suspect that they will find a such an article or substance on the person or in the vehicle at the time of the stop and search. A constable may exercise this power in any place where the public, or any section of the public, has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission, but not in a dwelling. However, subsection (5) gives exceptions to this in relation to vehicles, in specific circumstances. It states that a vehicle on land that is used for the purposes of a dwelling (for example, a garden or yard), can only be searched using this power if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person in charge of the vehicle does not reside in the dwelling, and that the vehicle is not in the place in question with the express or implied permission of a person who does reside in the dwelling.
All searches conducted under section 1 of PACE are required to comply with section 2 of PACE and PACE Code of Practice A.
The power to use reasonable force when exercising powers under section 1 is provided by section 117 of PACE. The constable involved must be in a position to justify their actions and show that they were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
If such a search is conducted, it must be carried out in accordance with sections 2(6) and (7) of PACE. The requirement to leave a notice inside the vehicle on completion of the search of an unattended vehicle is provided for in subsection (6) unless it is not reasonably practicable to do so without damaging the vehicle (subsection (7)). The notice left by the constable should contain the following information:
- that he has searched the vehicle;
- the name of the police station to which he is attached;
- that an application for compensation for any damage caused by the search may be made to that police station; and
- that a record of the search has been made and the owner of the vehicle, or person in charge of the vehicle at the time of the search, can ask for a copy of the record within 3 months from the day of the search.
Therefore, the provisions of section 1 of PACE can be relied upon to search an unattended vehicle in a public place where the requirements of the legislation can be satisfied and there is no requirement for a person to be present with the vehicle, or suspected themselves of possessing such articles.
Section 18 – entry and search after arrest
Where a suspect is under arrest for an indictable offence, there is nothing preventing an officer from conducting a search of premises relying on the powers contained in section 18(1) of PACE. Please note that the vehicle as premises must be ‘occupied’ or ‘controlled’ by the suspect. The following definitions are provided:
- occupied - in this context refers to premises where the arrested person resides or works and may include occupancy as an owner, tenant or 'squatter'.
- controlled - in this context includes premises in which the arrested person holds some interest – i.e.: he owns, rents, leases or has use of the premises.
It is of the upmost importance that all realistic efforts are made to confirm that the premises are occupied/controlled by the suspect. The legislation gives no leeway for errors and if a mistake is made, even in good faith, it is possible that the Force could be successfully sued, see the case of Khan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 2008.
Additionally, if necessary, it is possible to seize the premises as a whole; the case of Cowan v Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police 1999 confirmed that moveable premises (such as a car) can be seized. In this case, the vehicle, which was parked in the street, was thought to be the place where the crimes (sexual offences against children) had taken place. Officers were searching the home of the suspect under section 18 of PACE and this extended to the car, which was classed as premises, and they were able to lawfully seize the vehicle.
Section 8 – Warrant
Section 8 of PACE provides the grounds and procedure to be followed when applying for a search warrant for an indictable offence. It also provides a power to seize certain items. Therefore, where there are reasonable grounds for believing that an indicatable offence has been committed, that there is material on the premises (which includes a vehicle as per section 23 of PACE) that is likely to be evidence and does not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege, excluded material or special procedure material, an application for a warrant may be made by a constable to search an unattended vehicle in a public place. This can be done on the condition that it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant entry to the premises; that it is practicable to communicate with a person entitled to grant entry to the premises but it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant access to the evidence; that entry to the premises will not be granted unless a warrant is produced; or that the purpose of a search may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless a constable arriving at the premises can secure immediate entry to them.
Sections 15 and 16 of PACE provide for the procedure and safeguards of obtaining a warrant under section 8 of PACE and the procedure to be followed when executing the warrant.
Firearms Act 1968
Section 47 – Stop and Search
Section 47 of the Firearms Act 1968 provides a constable with stop and search powers in respect of firearms. Section 47(5) provides a constable a power of entry to any place for the purpose of exercising a power that is conferred under section 47. The power to stop and search a vehicle is outlined in subsection (4):
‘47(4) If a constable has reasonable cause to suspect that there is a firearm in a vehicle in a public place, or that a vehicle is being or is about to be used in connection with the commission of an offence relevant for the purposes of this section elsewhere than in a public place, he may search the vehicle and for that purpose require the person driving or in control of it to stop it.’
Offences relevant for the purpose of this section are those under sections 18(1) and (2) and 20 of the Act –
‘18(1) It is an offence for a person to have with him a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, or to resist arrest or prevent the arrest of another, in either case while he has the firearm or imitation firearm with him.
18(2) In proceedings for an offence under this section proof that the accused had a firearm or imitation firearm with him and intended to commit an offence, or to resist or prevent arrest, is evidence that he intended to have it with him while doing so.’
‘20(1) A person commits an offence if, while he has a firearm or imitation firearm with him, he enters or is in any building or part of a building as a trespasser and without reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him).
20(2) A person commits an offence if, while he has a firearm or imitation firearm with him, he enters or is on any land as a trespasser and without reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him).’
‘Has With Him’
It can be seen that the relevant offences above require that the person has a firearm or imitation firearm ‘with him’ for the offences to be made out. The term ‘has with him’ is used in a wide range of offences where an offence is committed by an individual physically holding, or having at hand an article of some sort or other (depending on the offence). Where the term is used there is a need to prove:
- a knowledge of the existence of the article; and
- that the article is 'to hand and ready for use'. As well as holding the item, it may, for example,
- be in the offender's pocket or backpack;
- in the offender's car parked on a side road next to a house targeted for a break in; or
- hidden a few feet away under a bush.
It does not always have to be physically on the offender's person, and it will be for a jury to decide if a person had it with them at the time of the offence. There are several cases that relate to this point and may be of assistance.
In the case of R v Kelt 1977, Kelt committed an armed robbery. A short time later the gun and other items used in the robbery were found. Three months later, Kelt was arrested in the kitchen of his home. The dwelling was searched and a 'robbers kit', consisting of a sawn-off shotgun, ammunition, bolt croppers, ammonia, masks and gloves was found. Kelt was charged with the robbery and having with him a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, contrary to section 18 of the Firearms Act 1968, at the time of his arrest. Kelt pleaded guilty to the robbery and was found guilty on the firearms charge. He appealed on the grounds that there was no evidence that he was carrying the gun. Although the appeal was successful due to jury being misdirected, it was stated that in sections 16 to 24 of the Firearms Act 1968, a clear distinction has been drawn between 'possession of' and 'having with him' a firearm. The Crown has to establish more than mere possession, namely that Kelt had a close physical link and immediate control over a firearm.
In the case of R v Pawlicki; R v Swindell 1992 it was held that if a robber had ready access to a firearm when about to commit a robbery he had ‘with him a firearm’ for the purposes of the section 18(1) of the Firearms Act 1968. Pawlicki drove to an auctioneer's showroom, parked outside, locked the car, leaving three sawn-off shotguns inside, and went into the auction house and stood a few feet from Swindell. Police officers, alerted to the possibility of a robbery, arrested them both. Pawlicki and Swindell were convicted, inter alia, of having firearms with intent to commit robbery, contrary to section 18(1) of the Firearms Act 1968. ‘To have with him a firearm’ within the meaning of section 18(1) imported an element of propinquity which was not required for mere possession. The emphasis was on the accessibility of the guns to those embarking on committing an indictable offence rather than on the exact distance between them and the guns. The guns in this case were readily accessible to Pawlicki and Swindell at the time they were about to commit the robbery.
However, please be aware of the case of McVey v Friel [1996] SCCR 768, in which it was held that there was a distinction between having possession of an item and having it with him. Here, the loaded air weapon in the vehicle parked directly outside the defendant’s home was not said to be ‘with him’ for the purposes of section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968 when he was inside his home.
Additionally, in the case of R v Henderson 2016, a conviction of having an article with a blade in a public place contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was not safe where there had been no close geographical, temporal or purposive link between the knife, which had been in a car in a public place, and Henderson, who had been in a private flat. He was not near his car, and there was no evidence that he had been about to return to it. There was also no evidence that the knife was linked to his presence in the flat, or to any criminal enterprise. It could not be said that the knife had been immediately available or readily accessible to Henderson.
Therefore, we believe that this power may be available to search an unattended vehicle, but this would be fact specific to be judged on a case-by-case basis. However, given that there are other police powers that would be available in such circumstances, this may not be the preferred option.
Section 46 – Warrant
Section 46 specifies the conditions under which search warrants may be issued and deals with the powers granted to officers executing them. Such warrants are available for all offences under this Act, except an offence under section 22(3) or an offence relating specifically to air weapons. This option is therefore available for a wider range of offences than the stop and search power under section 47, which only covers offences under sections 18 and 20.
‘46(1) If a justice of the peace (or, in Scotland, the sheriff), is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting -
(a) that an offence relevant for the purposes of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed; or
(b) that, in connection with a firearm or ammunition, there is a danger to the public safety or to the peace,
he may grant a warrant for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2) below.’
Therefore, a search warrant to search an unattended vehicle may be granted where there is reasonable ground for suspecting that, in connection with a firearm or ammunition, there is a danger to public safety or to the peace, or that an offence under the Firearms Act (except for an offence under section 22(3) or an offence specifically relating to air weapons) has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
Crossbows Act 1987
Section 4 of the Crossbows Act 1987 provides a constable with the power of search and seizure where the constable has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence under section 3 has been, or is being, committed.
‘4(1) If a constable suspects with reasonable cause that a person is committing or has committed an offence under section 3, the constable may –
(a) search that person for a crossbow or part of a crossbow;
(b) search any vehicle, or anything in or on a vehicle, in or on which the constable suspects with reasonable cause there is a crossbow, or part of a crossbow, connected with the offence.
The vehicle may be detained for the search in accordance with subsection (2).’
An offence under section 3 is committed when a person under the age of eighteen years has with him a crossbow which is capable of discharging a missile, or parts of a crossbow which together (and without any other parts) can be assembled to form a crossbow capable of discharging a missile. The offence is not committed if the person is under the supervision of a person who is twenty-one years of age or older.
Therefore, should the requirements of the legislation be satisfied, the power to search a vehicle in section 4 of the Crossbows Act 1987 may be relied upon for a police officer to conduct the search of an unattended vehicle in a public place where the officer has reasonable cause to believe that a person has committed an offence under section 3. Consideration would need to be given to the satisfying the term ‘has with him’ as discussed above. Please note that for the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by section 4 a constable may enter on any land other than a dwelling-house.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
This article will not highlight every provision that will not apply to search an unattended vehicle in a public place, but PNLD often gets asked if an unattended vehicle in a public place can be searched under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; in our opinion, this legislation should not be relied upon in such circumstances, due to the fact that under section 23(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 an officer must suspect the occupants of the vehicle, not simply that the vehicle itself has been used in connection with a drug offence.
The power under section 23(2)(b) requires reasonable grounds to suspect that a person possesses controlled drugs, in order to search a vehicle in which the drug may be found, effectively linking the person and the vehicle. This was confirmed in the case of R v Littleford [1978] Crim LR 48, where it was held that an officer must suspect the occupants of the vehicle to be searched, not simply that the vehicle itself has been used in connection with a drug offence. In this case, a police officer reasonably believed that Littleford's car had been involved in drug trafficking. He searched the vehicle and found cannabis resin. It was held that section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 gave police power to search any person or vehicle when they had reasonable grounds to suspect that the person was in possession of a controlled drug. Here the vehicle was suspected, not Littleford. Although the evidence obtained was still admitted in this particular case, it was concluded that it was illegally obtained.
In conclusion, this power should not be used to search an unattended vehicle.
However, consideration could be given to obtaining a warrant under section 23(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, despite the fact that the person in possession of the drugs is, as yet, unidentified. This allows a justice of the peace to grant a warrant to enter and search premises if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that controlled drugs are in the possession of a person on any premises.
Final Word
It can be seen that, where the legislative provisions can be satisfied, the most likely preferred options to search an unattended vehicle in a public place would be under PACE or by obtaining a relevant warrant. It is for each individual officer to determine which power would be available to them in their particular circumstances, and that officer should always be in a position to justify any action they take, to ensure that all evidence is seized lawfully and not deemed inadmissible.
How did you find this edition? Please leave your feedback here!
Want more of this type of content? Check out our range of legal articles here.
