Serious matter, need help from someone who knows law

[NoddyHolder]

How does data protection have any relevance here?

Because her business is just that ..her business and not for every tom dick and harry to search through when shes not there ,Christs sake whats up with you all this person by their own admittance has been going through his flat mates property without her consent and in her absence,the question of trust comes into the equation for a start.I would be asking him what he was doing going through her property on the first place.

[NoddyHolder]

They wouldn't need a search warrant if they have the evidence. On what basis do you think the police apply for a search warrant?

The evidence,if any,would be supplied by someone who obtained it illegally i.e a illegal search of someone's property

[NoddyHolder]

The police cannot deliberately search for evidence without a warrant, correct.

 

However this firstly does not apply to things that are in plain view, and it only applies to investigating authorities. They can also do it without a warrant if there is reason to suspect that the evidence is in the process of being destroyed.

So this career criminal who the OP fears is that much of a criminal she will top him has left evidence in plain view...rubbish

[kered9]

Imagine living with a housemate who listens in on your phonecalls, goes through your filing and talks about your imaginary criminal activities on the sheffield forum... I have moved house for less.

 

OP is freaking out about an activity which even if it is actually happening isnt such an enourmous criminal activity as to get yourself worked up into a frenzy about. Your housemate could be hiding bodies, selling babies, holding stolen goods till they cool down or selling drugs, and your flipping out that she is carrying out some minor fraud? It doesnt affect you, relax a bit.

[boyfriday]

The difference with the Gary glitter scenario is he took his computer to a third party and left it on their premises with authority to use it

 

The fact is he didn't consent to them accessing photographs on his pc that implicated him.

[Cyclone]

I beg to differ,even the police cant obtain evidence like this without a search warrant it would be thrown straight out of court...Data protection anyone ?

 

Don't be daft. The police are severely restricted in how they can gather evidence, and rightly so. But there's nothing in law to stop you reporting a suspicion however you came to it and nothing to then stop the police investigating. If the situation warranted it, they'd get a warrant to search the premises as part of the investigation.

Data protection laws apply to organisations that hold your data, not to individuals in shared flats.

[NoddyHolder]

Don't be daft. The police are severely restricted in how they can gather evidence, and rightly so. But there's nothing in law to stop you reporting a suspicion however you came to it and nothing to then stop the police investigating. If the situation warranted it, they'd get a warrant to search the premises as part of the investigation.

Data protection laws apply to organisations that hold your data, not to individuals in shared flats.

Of course but again you are hitting on the same thing...they need a search warrant to ensure a follow up,anything not obtained by legal means is inadmissible in a court of law ,they could find a gun that has killed a dozen people but without a search warrant it is inadmissible as evidence.

[Cyclone]

Of course but again you are hitting on the same thing...they need a search warrant to ensure a follow up,anything not obtained by legal means is inadmissible in a court of law ,they could find a gun that has killed a dozen people but without a search warrant it is inadmissible as evidence.

 

The police need a search warrant. Individuals do not (indeed they can't get one).

The police can act on information from any source, it could even be someone that has broken into a place and then reports something suspicious, that doesn't stop the police investigating and it doesn't invalidate any evidence they obtain. It might make them an unreliable witness in the eyes of a court, but that's not what you were claiming.

[skinz]

And again, the person who saw the documents DOES NOT NEED A SEARCH WARRANT. They saw the document and (if they follow through) have reported it to the police, who can then obtain a warrant. There has been no illegal evidence gathering whatsoever. I think you are possibly thinking of certain american laws, but you would still have it wrong, though they are in places closer to how you appear to think they work over here.

 

I did get a feeling from some of the wording that noddy does watch a lot of US cop shows.

 

 

ey up. Freeeeez! mf'r

[NoddyHolder]

And again, the person who saw the documents DOES NOT NEED A SEARCH WARRANT. They saw the document and (if they follow through) have reported it to the police, who can then obtain a warrant. There has been no illegal evidence gathering whatsoever. I think you are possibly thinking of certain american laws, but you would still have it wrong, though they are in places closer to how you appear to think they work over here.

You have fallen into the same trap as the others the police still need a search warrant to proceed with the case..your own admission in bold.....by the way I dont watch TV all that much especially American cop shows and American Humour