Seizure or removal of illegal drugs from a private residence

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.032430

I note you seek access to the following information:

1. What is the normal process or procedural requirement that Officers of the Metropolitan Police are supposed to follow in terms of the seizure or removal of illegal drugs from a private residence when executing a search warrant obtained for the purpose of searching that residence under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Specifically if items believed to be controlled drugs are discovered, but are not seized or removed from the residence during the execution of the search on the first day the search is executed, what normal processes or procedures apply in order to:

• secure those potentially controlled drugs and the property in which they are located after the search is executed?

• secure that those potentially controlled drugs can then be seized and removed from the property at a later time? and;

• what is the maximum period of time those potentially controlled drugs can remain at the property before they are subsequently to be seized and removed by police?

2. Do any special measures or procedures apply when the principal, or only, resident/occupier of the property searched under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, when controlled drugs are found, has not been detained by police, and may return to the property, with, or without, knowledge that a search warrant has been executed where controlled drugs have either:

a) been seized/removed in total from the property, vs.

b) samples have been taken for testing, but potentially controlled drugs remain at the property after police officers have concluded their initial search of the property.

3. Where a search warrant issued under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 has been executed at a private residence, and controlled drugs have been found, but the principal or only occupier of the residence has not been detained by police by the time that the initial search of the property has been completed on the day the warrant was executed, is it permitted, or procedurally allowable, to specifically not seize or remove the controlled drugs found at the property purely, or solely, on the basis that if left in situ as found, there is then the potential that the occupier or resident of the property, may then return to the property, and thereby specifically, or intentionally, allow Police Officers to apprehend the occupier or resident ‘in possession’ of the controlled drugs at the property, rather than seizing and removing the controlled drugs at the time the warrant was executed, and proving the connection between the resident or occupier, and the controlled substances found by other means?

Decision

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

Please find below information pursuant to your request above.

Q1 - What is the normal process or procedural requirement that Officers of the Metropolitan Police are supposed to follow in terms of the seizure or removal of illegal drugs from a private residence when executing a search warrant obtained for the purpose of searching that residence under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

If officers came across what they suspected to be ‘illegal drugs’ during the course of their duties, the drugs would be seized as crime related exhibits. Crime related exhibits are items that are seized by or otherwise come into possession of police during the investigation of a criminal offence, including those found by or handed to police and are thought to have a connection with crime. This would include property or items which (amongst other reasons) it may be an offence to possess or may have evidential value in an investigation. If officers came across suspected ‘illegal drugs’ they would seize them accordingly.

Each seizure and each investigation is different and should be looked at on a case by case basis. If criminal exhibits are discovered by police, and an area is then controlled or seized by police as a crime scene under common law – then the seizure and control of the area could take a matter of minutes, hours or days. For example some crime scenes cover large areas and need to be held for forensic enquiries to be carried out within them and the evidence seized before the scene is released.

\Specifically if items believed to be controlled drugs are discovered, but are not seized or removed from the residence during the execution of the search on the first day the search is executed, what normal processes or procedures apply in order to:

• secure those potentially controlled drugs and the property in which they
are located after the search is executed?

If a crime scene remains in place then this will be kept secure by police officers to ensure the scene remains intact and is not interfered with. The integrity and continutiy of the crime scene will need to remain preserved by police until such time as the crime scene is released.

• secure that those potentially controlled drugs can then be seized and removed from the property at a later time? and;

As above.

• what is the maximum period of time those potentially controlled drugs can remain at the property before they are subsequently to be seized and removed by police?

There is no maximum period of time.

Q2 - Do any special measures or procedures apply when the principal, or only, resident/occupier of the property searched under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, when controlled drugs are found, has not been detained by police, and may return to the property, with, or without, knowledge that a search warrant has been executed where controlled drugs have either:

a) been seized/removed in total from the property, vs.
If a property is searched by police and the resident/occupier is not present then a notice/record/copy/documentation of the search should be left for the occupier by police for them on their return to make them aware that the search has taken place. Subject to any legal order/notice/bail conditions etc. being in place preventing a person from attending the specified location/property there is no reason why they may not return once the crime scene has been released following search and seizure from police.

b) samples have been taken for testing, but potentially controlled drugs remain at the property after police officers have concluded their initial search of the property.

As above.

Q3 - Where a search warrant issued under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 has been executed at a private residence, and controlled drugs have been found, but the principal or only occupier of the residence has not been detained by police by the time that the initial search of the property has been completed on the day the warrant was executed, is it permitted, or procedurally allowable, to specifically not seize or remove the controlled drugs found at the property purely, or solely, on the basis that if left in situ as found, there is then the potential that the occupier or resident of the property, may then return to the property, and thereby specifically, or intentionally, allow Police Officers to apprehend the occupier or resident ‘in possession’ of the controlled drugs at the property, rather than seizing and removing the controlled drugs at the time the warrant was executed, and proving the connection between the resident or occupier, and the controlled substances found by other means?

This questions are seeking information on scenarios where there is no informaiton held.

To explain that further, S84 of FOIA relates to recorded information held by a public authority and that it does not extend to providing explanations unless the answers are already held in a recorded form. "Information is defined in section 84 of the Act as 'information recorded in any form'. The Act therefore only extends to requests for recorded information. It does not require public authorities to answer questions generally; only if they already hold the answers in recorded form. The Act does not extend to requests for information about policies or their implementation, or the merits or demerits of any proposal or action - unless, of course, the answer to any such request is already held in recorded form." (Day vs ICO & DWP – EA/2006/0069 Final Decision)

Please note criminal investigations and their respective strategies are generally bespoke. Investigative decision making and assessment of risk is made on a case by case by basis dependent on the nature of the investigation and circumstances. Decisions are made relative to various factors including threat, risk and harm.