이 연구는 세계적으로 경찰활동의 모범을 보이고 있는 영국의 신원확인제도(stop and account)에 대해 자세히 소개한다. 영국의 신원확인제도는 오랜 역사를 간직하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 오랜 논의를 통해 경찰활동의 실효성과 시민의 자유를 최대한 보장할 수 있는 신원확인규정(stop and account)을 2002년 경찰개혁법(Police Reform Act)을 제정하였다는 점에서 우리나라의 신원확인제도 도입에 대한 논의에 있어 시사하는 바가 크다. 또한, 선행연구에서는 영국의 불심검문제도를 소개함에 있어서 다소 부족한 점도 있고, 정지 및 수색(stop and search)에 치중하고 있어 영국에는 신원확인규정이 없는 것처럼 오해를 불러일으킬 수 있는 부분도 있어 이를 바로잡을 필요성도 있다. 이 연구를 통해 영국의 제도에서 몇 가지 법정책적 시사점을 발견할 수 있었다. 첫째, 신원확인을 위한 법적요건으로 합리적 이유(reasonable suspicion)를 규정하고 있는 미국의 규정(stop and identify statutes)에 비해 낮은 단계인 “혐의가 있다고 믿을만한 이유(reason to believe)”를 법적 요건으로 규정하고 있다는 점과, 경찰관의 신원확인 요청에 불응할 경우 약식재판을 통해 벌금형에 처할 수 있는 처벌규정을 두고 있다는 점에서 미국 보다 강력한 신원확인의 권한을 부여하고 있다. 둘째, 정복 경찰관 뿐만 아니라 보조요원인 공동체지원관(Community Support Officers)에게도 광범위한 신원확인 권한을 부여하고 있다. 셋째, 경찰관에게 신원확인 과정의 기록유지 의무를 부과함으로써 신원확인 권한의 행사과정에서 초래할 수 있는 인권침해 및 인종차별의 우려에 대비하고 인권보장을 담보하고 있다.

This study introduces the police power to stop and account in England and Wales, paying particular attention to the historical development, and current PACE(Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) and PRA(Police Reform Act 2002). It is important to understand police power to stop and account because England and Wales have been regarded as among the most fortunate of states in respect of their police). Especially, the British bobby has been a figure representing poolitical continuity, cultural homogeneity, and moral consensus. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 introduced new procedures and provisions related to the police power to stop and search. Together with its associated codes of practice, it not only provided for the first time a detailed legislative framework for the operation of police powers and rights of suspects, but also set up a framework of rules designed to provide a tighter regulation of police powers and new controls on the treatment of suspects in police stops. PACE is particularly significant in this regard because it contains a code of practice covering the use of such powers. This code of practice outlines the principles governing the use of stop and search, emphasising that such powers must be used fairly, responsibly, with respect and without unlawful discrimination. All encounters must be recorded. PACE Code A makes clear that conversations or exchanges with members of the public do not constitute an encounter. According to the Police Reform Act 2002, “(1) if a constable in uniform has reason to believe that a person has been acting, or is acting, in an anti-social manner(within the meaning of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998), he may require that person to give his name and address to the constable. (2) Any person who (a) fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (1), or (b) gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”This study concluded that the police power to stop and account in England and Wales is much stronger than that of stop and identify statutes of America. It is because the requirement of “reasonable suspicion” in American police power to stop and identify is reduced to that of “reason to believe” in England police power to stop and account and because police power to stop and account is largely controlled by the regulation to records all stops.

Reid technique, behavior analysis, interrogation, criminal investigation, Interview, Behavior Analysis Interview, BAI