Ändamålet helgar (tvångs)medlen? - Om polisiär användning av tvångsmedel vid misstanke om ringa narkotikabrott
(2018) JURM02 20181Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Sedan 1993 äger svensk polis rätt att använda de så kallade öppna tvångsmedlen husrannsakan, beslag, kroppsvisitation och kroppsbesiktning när det föreligger misstanke om ringa narkotikabrott. Integritetsskyddskommittén vittnade år 2007 om att Justitieombudsmannen och Justitiekanslern varje år får ta emot flera klagomål kring användningen av dessa tvångsmedel. Med anledning av detta ställer uppsatsen frågan om det skulle kunna vidtas lagstiftningsåtgärder för att minska den otillbörliga användningen av tvångsmedlen vid misstanke om ringa narkotikabrott.
Tvångsmedelsanvändningen grundar sig i en allmän avvägning mellan den personliga integriteten och statens intresse av en effektiv brottsbekämpning. Den grundar sig också i ett antal... (More) - Sedan 1993 äger svensk polis rätt att använda de så kallade öppna tvångsmedlen husrannsakan, beslag, kroppsvisitation och kroppsbesiktning när det föreligger misstanke om ringa narkotikabrott. Integritetsskyddskommittén vittnade år 2007 om att Justitieombudsmannen och Justitiekanslern varje år får ta emot flera klagomål kring användningen av dessa tvångsmedel. Med anledning av detta ställer uppsatsen frågan om det skulle kunna vidtas lagstiftningsåtgärder för att minska den otillbörliga användningen av tvångsmedlen vid misstanke om ringa narkotikabrott.
Tvångsmedelsanvändningen grundar sig i en allmän avvägning mellan den personliga integriteten och statens intresse av en effektiv brottsbekämpning. Den grundar sig också i ett antal principer såsom ändamålsprincipen, behovsprincipen, proportionalitetsprincipen, legalitetsprincipen och hänsynsprincipen. Dessa principer styr både lagstiftningen bakom tvångsmedlen och det praktiska förfarandet vid tvångsmedelsanvändningen.
Vid det praktiska förfarandet framkommer utifrån Justitieombudsmannens och i viss mån Justitiekanslerns praxis att det finns ett antal olika typfall som föranleder kritik. Dessa innefattar att det inte uppnåtts skälig misstanke för att vidta tvångsmedlet ifråga, att de straffprocessuella principerna inte anses ha efterlevts eller att ett beslut om tvångsmedelsanvändning fattats av enskild polisman utan att det förelegat fara i dröjsmål.
Framställningen föreslår att 28 kap. 1 § rättegångsbalken ses över i syfte att göra det tydligare att det som huvudregel krävs skälig misstanke vid användning av tvångsmedlet. Detta i syfte att minska risken för otillbörlig användning av tvångsmedlet. I övrigt ställer sig framställningen avvisande till lagstiftningsåtgärder för att minska förekomsten av otillbörlig användning. Istället anses förekomsten i huvudsak grunda sig i tillämpningen. Framställningen konstaterar dock att ett visst mått av felaktig användning, eller misstag om så vill kallas, kanske får anses vara oundvikligt i ett samhälle där de styrande principerna är öppna för olika tolkningar och där den personliga integriteten och en effektiv brottsbekämpning kan tänkas hamna i konflikt. (Less) - Abstract
- The Swedish Police Authority has since 1993 the right to use a number of coercive measures when faced with a suspected case of petty drug offense. The measures permitted to be used by the police in these cases are search, seizure, personal body search and intimate search. In 2007 a parliamentary committee stated that a number of reports of irregular use of the coercive measures had been received by the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Office of the Chancellor of Justice every year. Against this background this essay asks the question if any legislative measures could be taken in order to ameliorate this situation.
The use of coercive measures is founded on a general balance between the individual’s right to personal integrity and... (More) - The Swedish Police Authority has since 1993 the right to use a number of coercive measures when faced with a suspected case of petty drug offense. The measures permitted to be used by the police in these cases are search, seizure, personal body search and intimate search. In 2007 a parliamentary committee stated that a number of reports of irregular use of the coercive measures had been received by the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Office of the Chancellor of Justice every year. Against this background this essay asks the question if any legislative measures could be taken in order to ameliorate this situation.
The use of coercive measures is founded on a general balance between the individual’s right to personal integrity and the state’s interest in effectiveness in combating crime. It is also founded on and guided by a number of principles such as the principle of appropriation, the principle of necessity, the principle of proportionality, the principle of legality and the principle of consideration. These principles guides both legislation and the practical use of the coercive measures.
In the practical use of the coercive measures when there is suspicion of a committed petty drug offense, cases from the aforementioned offices shows that there are a number of recurring irregularities that are subject to criticism. These concern mainly the fact that the requirement of reasonable suspicion is not achieved, that the aforementioned principles have been sidelined or that the decisions on using such measures have been made by a police officer without the authorization to do so (since danger of delay have not been established to have existed).
The essay suggests that chapter 28 section 1 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure should be amended in order to make it clearer that reasonable suspicion is required in order to use search as a coercive measure – this in order to minimize the risk of wrongful use of searches. Other changes in the law are deemed unecessary. The issues with use that can be criticized is instead considered to be caused by the practical use rather than by the legislation. The essay concludes however that some wrongful use, or mistakes, probably must be accepted in a society where the guiding principles are open for different interpretations and where personal integrity and effectiveness in combating crime may come into conflict with one another. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8941800
- author
- Magnusson, Adrian LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The end justifies the means? - About police use of coercive measures at suspected cases of petty drug offense
- course
- JURM02 20181
- year
- 2018
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- straffrätt, polis, tvångsmedel, ringa narkotikabrott, criminal law, police, coercive measures, petty drug offense
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8941800
- date added to LUP
- 2018-06-08 13:21:24
- date last changed
- 2018-06-08 13:21:24
@misc{8941800,
abstract = {{The Swedish Police Authority has since 1993 the right to use a number of coercive measures when faced with a suspected case of petty drug offense. The measures permitted to be used by the police in these cases are search, seizure, personal body search and intimate search. In 2007 a parliamentary committee stated that a number of reports of irregular use of the coercive measures had been received by the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Office of the Chancellor of Justice every year. Against this background this essay asks the question if any legislative measures could be taken in order to ameliorate this situation.
The use of coercive measures is founded on a general balance between the individual’s right to personal integrity and the state’s interest in effectiveness in combating crime. It is also founded on and guided by a number of principles such as the principle of appropriation, the principle of necessity, the principle of proportionality, the principle of legality and the principle of consideration. These principles guides both legislation and the practical use of the coercive measures.
In the practical use of the coercive measures when there is suspicion of a committed petty drug offense, cases from the aforementioned offices shows that there are a number of recurring irregularities that are subject to criticism. These concern mainly the fact that the requirement of reasonable suspicion is not achieved, that the aforementioned principles have been sidelined or that the decisions on using such measures have been made by a police officer without the authorization to do so (since danger of delay have not been established to have existed).
The essay suggests that chapter 28 section 1 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure should be amended in order to make it clearer that reasonable suspicion is required in order to use search as a coercive measure – this in order to minimize the risk of wrongful use of searches. Other changes in the law are deemed unecessary. The issues with use that can be criticized is instead considered to be caused by the practical use rather than by the legislation. The essay concludes however that some wrongful use, or mistakes, probably must be accepted in a society where the guiding principles are open for different interpretations and where personal integrity and effectiveness in combating crime may come into conflict with one another.}},
author = {{Magnusson, Adrian}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Ändamålet helgar (tvångs)medlen? - Om polisiär användning av tvångsmedel vid misstanke om ringa narkotikabrott}},
year = {{2018}},
}