Advanced

Rättssäkerhetsgarantier vid bruk av straffprocessuella tvångsmedel - En komparativ analys mellan svensk och amerikansk rätt

Petersson, Joakim LU (2018) JURM02 20181
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Straffprocessuella tvångsmedel utgör ett viktigt verktyg för polisers och åklagares möjlighet att utreda och bekämpa brott, samtidigt som de utan tillräckliga rättssäkerhetsgarantier kan innebära stora rättsförluster för den individ som drabbas. Regelverket för användning av de straffprocessuella tvångsmedlen utgör därför en intresseavvägning mellan dessa värden. Framställningen tar en normativ utgångspunkt i att individens rättsskydd genom en grundläggande uppsättning rättssäkerhetsgarantier måste finnas tillgängliga i straffprocessen. Således syftar framställningen till att undersöka hur sådana rättssäkerhetsgarantier i form av tydligt utformade bestämmelser, domstolskontroll och meningsfulla sanktioner vid regelbrott är beskaffade... (More)
Straffprocessuella tvångsmedel utgör ett viktigt verktyg för polisers och åklagares möjlighet att utreda och bekämpa brott, samtidigt som de utan tillräckliga rättssäkerhetsgarantier kan innebära stora rättsförluster för den individ som drabbas. Regelverket för användning av de straffprocessuella tvångsmedlen utgör därför en intresseavvägning mellan dessa värden. Framställningen tar en normativ utgångspunkt i att individens rättsskydd genom en grundläggande uppsättning rättssäkerhetsgarantier måste finnas tillgängliga i straffprocessen. Således syftar framställningen till att undersöka hur sådana rättssäkerhetsgarantier i form av tydligt utformade bestämmelser, domstolskontroll och meningsfulla sanktioner vid regelbrott är beskaffade avseende de straffprocessuella tvångsmedlen, dock avgränsat till husrannsakan och beslag. Dessa rättssäkerhetsgarantier anses i framställningen utgöra det huvudsakliga medlet för att kontrollera polisers och åklagares beslutsfattande. För att bredda analysen av hur sådana rättssäkerhetsgarantier kan utformas har en jämförelse med det amerikanska regelverket gjorts.

Båda rättssystem utgår från att den enskilde åtnjuter grundlagsskydd gentemot husrannsakan och beslag. Detta skydd kan dock inskränkas om det finns godtagbara skäl till detta. I det amerikanska rättssystemet är en inskränkning tillåten om tvångsmedlet anses skäligt i den mening att tillräckligt beviskrav är uppfyllt och som huvudregel att tillstånd inhämtats hos domstol. I det svenska rättssystemet är en inskränkning tillåten om den uppfyller legalitets-, ändamåls-, behovs- och proportionalitetsprincipen samt de i lagtext mer preciserade bestämmelserna om t.ex. beviskrav. I det svenska rättssystemet finns dock inget krav på att ett beslut om husrannsakan och beslag måste underställas rätten. I detta avseende har rättssystemen, utöver kravet på tillstånd från rätten, funnits vara mycket lika i hur reglerna tillämpas.

Två tydliga skillnader mellan rättssystemen kan dock utrönas. För det första uttrycker det amerikanska rättssystemet genom kravet på tillstånd av rätten en starkare misstro mot att polisen kan upprätthålla sin objektivitet i beslutsfattandet. För det andra innebär de svenska reglerna att majoriteten av praxisen i det svenska rättssystemet utvecklas av de allmänna tillsynsorganen Justitieombudsmannen och Justitiekanslern, medan domstolarna har större inflytande i det amerikanska rättssystemet.

Beträffande sanktioner för otillåtna tvångsmedel finns ytterligare en relevant skillnad mellan rättssystemen. I det svenska regelverket utgörs sanktionerna huvudsakligen av disciplinära åtgärder och skadestånd. I det amerikanska rättssystemet kan otillåten tvångsmedelsanvändning även innebära att den bevisning som anskaffats fråntas bevisverkan i målet genom den s.k. avvisningsregeln.

Vid en analys av det svenska regelverket anses för det första att praxisen för vilka regelbrott som anses så pass allvarliga att de bör följas av relevanta sanktioner är underutvecklad. För det andra anses att tvångsmedelsbeslut bör underställas rätten. Det argumenteras för att ett ökat domstolsinflytande dels är nödvändigt för att öka kontrollen över polisers och åklagares förmåga att förhålla sig objektiva, dels att skulle stimulera en utveckling av vägledande domstolsavgöranden.

Vad gäller sanktionsmöjligheterna argumenteras för att de ska skapa tillräckliga incitament till regelefterlevnad huvudsakligen bör rikta sig mot de brottsbekämpande myndigheternas verksamhet, istället för mot den individuella tjänstepersonen. Detta då fel i myndighetsutövningen ofta kan bero på strukturella brister i t.ex. utbildning, samtidigt som enstaka fel inte bör få för långtgående konsekvenser för en enskild beslutsfattare. I detta avseende argumenteras för att disciplinära åtgärder och skadestånd inte uppfyller denna funktion, varför en introduktion av en avvisningsregel skulle vara att föredra. (Less)
Abstract
Coercive measures in the criminal process are important tools for the effectiveness of the administration of criminal justice but can without proper mechanisms for individual rights protection amount to grave violations of the individual’s integrity. Therefore, the rules for the practice of these coercive measures are fundamentally a balancing between the state’s and the individual’s interests. This paper takes a normative stance that a set of mechanisms for protection of individual rights must be applied in the criminal process. Thus, the purpose of the paper is to examine how these protections in the form of clearly formulated rules, judicial control and meaningful sanctions for violations of the rules for searches and seizures are... (More)
Coercive measures in the criminal process are important tools for the effectiveness of the administration of criminal justice but can without proper mechanisms for individual rights protection amount to grave violations of the individual’s integrity. Therefore, the rules for the practice of these coercive measures are fundamentally a balancing between the state’s and the individual’s interests. This paper takes a normative stance that a set of mechanisms for protection of individual rights must be applied in the criminal process. Thus, the purpose of the paper is to examine how these protections in the form of clearly formulated rules, judicial control and meaningful sanctions for violations of the rules for searches and seizures are constituted. These mechanisms for individual rights protection are in the paper seen as the main means for the control of the decision making by the police. To further broaden the analysis of how the mechanisms can be formulated, a comparison with the American rules is utilized.

The starting point for both the Swedish and American judicial system is that the individual is entitled to constitutional protection from searches and seizures. However, infringements of this protection are allowed if they can be justified by legitimate reasons. In the American judicial system an infringement is justified if the coercive measure is reasonable in the sense that probable cause can be established and as a principle rule that it is based on a valid search warrant. In the Swedish judicial system an infringement is justified if it satisfies the principles of legality, purposefulness, necessity and proportionality. It must also satisfy the more precise requirements established in law such as probable cause. However, the Swedish rules do not require that the decision to search or seize is subject to review by the courts. In this context the two judicial systems have been found to be very similar in how the rules are applied, with exception for the warrant requirement.

Even though the rules are similarly applied, two differences can be pointed out. Firstly, the American rules are by the warrant requirement expressing a stronger mistrust in the authorities’ ability to maintain their objectivity in their decision making. Secondly, in the Swedish judicial system most of the jurisprudence in this area of law are made by The Parliamentary Ombudsmen and The Chancellor of Justice, which are governmental agencies, while the courts have more influence on the jurisprudence in the American system.

Regarding sanctions for illegal use of searches and seizures there is another relevant difference between the two judicial systems. In the Swedish system the sanctions consist mainly of disciplinary action and damages. In the American system an illegal search or seizure can also result in exclusion of the collected evidence at trial, by means of the exclusionary rule.

In the analysis of the Swedish rules for searches and seizures it is found that the jurisprudence needs development, especially concerning which type of illegal conduct is regarded as serious enough to be followed by relevant sanctions. It is also found that decisions to search and seize should be subject to review by the courts. It is argued that an increase in influence by the courts is necessary in part to control the ability of the police and prosecutors to maintain their objectivity, in part to stimulate development of leading court decisions in this area of law.

Regarding sanctions for illegal searches and seizures it is argued that they, to create an incitement for compliance with rules, should target the crime fighting agencies’ operation as such, instead of the individual officer. This is because wrongful decisions often can be a result of poor organizational structure, such as lacking educational efforts, at the same time as occasional wrongs should not have too far reaching consequences for the individual. It is argued that disciplinary action and award of damages do not fulfill this function, why an introduction of the exclusionary rule in the Swedish judicial system is preferred. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Petersson, Joakim LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Mechanisms For Individual Rights Protection Regarding the Use of Coercive Measures in the Administration of Criminal Justice - A Comperative Study of the Swedish and American Criminal Process
course
JURM02 20181
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, Straffprocessrätt
language
Swedish
id
8955625
date added to LUP
2018-09-07 14:47:38
date last changed
2018-09-07 14:47:38
@misc{8955625,
  abstract     = {Coercive measures in the criminal process are important tools for the effectiveness of the administration of criminal justice but can without proper mechanisms for individual rights protection amount to grave violations of the individual’s integrity. Therefore, the rules for the practice of these coercive measures are fundamentally a balancing between the state’s and the individual’s interests. This paper takes a normative stance that a set of mechanisms for protection of individual rights must be applied in the criminal process. Thus, the purpose of the paper is to examine how these protections in the form of clearly formulated rules, judicial control and meaningful sanctions for violations of the rules for searches and seizures are constituted. These mechanisms for individual rights protection are in the paper seen as the main means for the control of the decision making by the police. To further broaden the analysis of how the mechanisms can be formulated, a comparison with the American rules is utilized.

The starting point for both the Swedish and American judicial system is that the individual is entitled to constitutional protection from searches and seizures. However, infringements of this protection are allowed if they can be justified by legitimate reasons. In the American judicial system an infringement is justified if the coercive measure is reasonable in the sense that probable cause can be established and as a principle rule that it is based on a valid search warrant. In the Swedish judicial system an infringement is justified if it satisfies the principles of legality, purposefulness, necessity and proportionality. It must also satisfy the more precise requirements established in law such as probable cause. However, the Swedish rules do not require that the decision to search or seize is subject to review by the courts. In this context the two judicial systems have been found to be very similar in how the rules are applied, with exception for the warrant requirement.

Even though the rules are similarly applied, two differences can be pointed out. Firstly, the American rules are by the warrant requirement expressing a stronger mistrust in the authorities’ ability to maintain their objectivity in their decision making. Secondly, in the Swedish judicial system most of the jurisprudence in this area of law are made by The Parliamentary Ombudsmen and The Chancellor of Justice, which are governmental agencies, while the courts have more influence on the jurisprudence in the American system.

Regarding sanctions for illegal use of searches and seizures there is another relevant difference between the two judicial systems. In the Swedish system the sanctions consist mainly of disciplinary action and damages. In the American system an illegal search or seizure can also result in exclusion of the collected evidence at trial, by means of the exclusionary rule.

In the analysis of the Swedish rules for searches and seizures it is found that the jurisprudence needs development, especially concerning which type of illegal conduct is regarded as serious enough to be followed by relevant sanctions. It is also found that decisions to search and seize should be subject to review by the courts. It is argued that an increase in influence by the courts is necessary in part to control the ability of the police and prosecutors to maintain their objectivity, in part to stimulate development of leading court decisions in this area of law.

Regarding sanctions for illegal searches and seizures it is argued that they, to create an incitement for compliance with rules, should target the crime fighting agencies’ operation as such, instead of the individual officer. This is because wrongful decisions often can be a result of poor organizational structure, such as lacking educational efforts, at the same time as occasional wrongs should not have too far reaching consequences for the individual. It is argued that disciplinary action and award of damages do not fulfill this function, why an introduction of the exclusionary rule in the Swedish judicial system is preferred.},
  author       = {Petersson, Joakim},
  keyword      = {Straffrätt,Straffprocessrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Rättssäkerhetsgarantier vid bruk av straffprocessuella tvångsmedel - En komparativ analys mellan svensk och amerikansk rätt},
  year         = {2018},
}