The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is investigating the handling of alleged child sexual abuse material seized from Andrew Tate’s home in 2015. The inquiry focuses on whether Hertfordshire Constabulary complied with national standards in processing evidence related to child sex exploitation found on devices during a police raid.

Andrew Tate, a British-American former kickboxer and social media personality, is currently being held in a Miami jail following his arrest in July. He was detained after the United States acted on a UK extradition request. British authorities have charged Tate with 42 counts, including rape, human trafficking, and the creation and distribution of child abuse images. Tate has denied all allegations.

According to court documents filed on October 5, police discovered 168 indecent images and videos of a child on computers and mobile phones taken from Tate’s residence in Hitchin, Hertfordshire, during the 2015 search. The material reportedly included one sexualized video involving Tate and the child. Prosecutors allege that Tate was aware the girl was 17 years old at the time and that she had traveled to the United Kingdom to participate in his sex trafficking operation.

The seized content allegedly contained 66 videos or images classified as Category A, the most serious category under UK legal standards, alongside 26 images categorized as Category B. The documents also raise concerns about why Tate faced no charges at the time the evidence was found over a decade ago.

Since 2015, Tate has faced multiple accusations of sexual offenses, including allegedly trafficking women to Romania for exploitation, all of which he denies.

An IOPC spokesperson confirmed the investigation is assessing whether Hertfordshire Constabulary’s response to the evidence met both local and national guidelines concerning child sex exploitation and human trafficking offenses.

Meanwhile, a representative from the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, and Hertfordshire Major Crime Unit noted the ongoing legal proceedings and declined further comment, emphasizing the active nature of the case following the authorization of charges.