The police actions in relation to searching the hotel

May 20, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom…

Kaieteur News- The case of the 11-year-old child, Adrianne Young, continues to engender debate and interest inside and outside of Guyana. And the police have come in for criticism, not only in relation to the now admitted false statement that the child she may have entered a car that drove off in an easterly direction but also in respect to the comprehensiveness of the search which was conducted at the hotel.

When Adrianne Younge could not be located and after CCTV footage from a building across the road from the hotel did not provide any evidence that she left the hotel compound, there was reportedly a demand for the hotel to be searched. It appears that the family and others were upset with the police for not doing a comprehensive search of the hotel. But the key question to be asked if whether the police had any legal basis to conduct a search of an entire hotel complex, including going into rooms that may have had guests.

The police cannot whimsically and without reasonable suspicion or probable cause undertake such a search? So was there reasonable suspicion or probable cause in this instance? A belief that the child could be inside the hotel would, under the common law, constitute “mere suspicion” – an unsubstantiated belief without factual foundation. The police cannot act on such bare suspicions alone.

For officers to take investigative action, they needed at minimum “reasonable suspicion” – a standard requiring objective, articulable facts that would lead a reasonable person to suspect criminal activity. The existence of such facts would have allowed the threshold of reasonable suspicion to be met.

To conduct a full search of the hotel premises, including rooms in which there were guests, would have needed the higher standard of “probable cause” – sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable person that a crime had occurred and that evidence would be found in the location to be searched. Was there sufficient evidence that a crime may have been committed or was it a case of someone simply believing that the child could only have been in a part of the hotel other than the swimming area? Was there reasonable suspicion or probable cause that she could have been held against her will within the hotel?

English common law has consistently held that police powers must be exercised based on objective facts rather than subjective beliefs. To do otherwise would risk creating a society where anyone’s home or business could be searched based on nothing more than another person’s insistence or gut feelings. The law requires more than good faith or sincere belief; it demands evidence sufficient to justify each level of police intrusion, ensuring neither personal freedoms nor public safety are lightly compromised. In English common law, the principles governing police powers of search and investigation are firmly rooted in the balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual liberties.

There appears to be an assumption, in the public domain, that the police could have lawfully searched the entire hotel based solely on the family’s insistence.  However, under English common law, courts have long held that law enforcement cannot act on hunches alone; there must be “reasonable suspicion”, grounded in objective and justifiable facts.

In Adrianne’s case, the family’s belief that she was in the hotel amounted to mere suspicion. Without corroborating evidence police would have had no legal basis to conduct a full-scale search of the premises.  The key question therefore remains whether there was any indication that the young child was in imminent peril inside the hotel. Or was there probable cause to believe that crime was being committed within the building?

According to what has been said, the police, with the consent of the owner, did conduct some searches but this has been described by commentators as not being sufficient.   However, the law imposes necessary constraints on police powers to prevent arbitrary intrusions into private spaces—even in emotionally charged cases. The critical legal distinction between ‘mere suspicion” (the family’s belief Adrianne was in the hotel) and “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause” could explain the limits of police action. While CCTV footage showing Adrianne may not have exited the hotel compound might have elevated concerns, this alone—without signs of foul play or imminent danger—likely fell short of establishing “probable cause” to justify a full, forcible search of guest rooms. The law rightly demands more than geographic possibility or familial insistence to override individual privacy rights. Had there been additional evidence—such as screams, signs of struggle, or witness accounts of suspicious activity—the balance might have shifted toward exigent action or a warrant.

The police’s partial search, conducted with the owner’s consent, could be interpreted as one that reflected a measured approach: taking reasonable steps within legal boundaries while avoiding overreach. Public frustration is understandable, but the alternative—allowing searches based solely on emotion or unsupported claims—would raise issues of the legality of such searches.

^{(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)}

---

---