Balancing public safety and discretion in policing
Balancing Public Safety and Discretion in Policing
I. 🔍 Legal and Administrative Framework
Police Act (872/2011) governs policing in Finland, granting police officers discretion in operational matters.
Constitution of Finland (1999) guarantees public safety (Section 7), personal liberty (Section 7), and prohibition of arbitrary treatment (Section 6).
Police discretion must be exercised lawfully, proportionately, and respecting fundamental rights.
Administrative Procedure Act also applies to police decisions with administrative character.
The Police Board and Ombudsman supervise police conduct.
II. ⚖️ Balancing Principles
Public Safety: Police must maintain order, prevent crimes, and protect citizens.
Discretion: Officers decide on actions like stops, searches, arrests, and use of force.
Fundamental Rights: Police actions must respect constitutional rights, including privacy, freedom of movement, and due process.
Proportionality: Police measures must be appropriate and not excessive.
Judicial Oversight: Courts review police actions when challenged.
III. 🧾 Case Law – Detailed Explanations
✅ Case 1: KKO 2015:79 – Police Stop and Search
Facts:
Police stopped and searched a person based on suspicion of carrying illegal substances.
Issue:
Was the stop and search lawful, or was police discretion exercised arbitrarily?
Decision:
The Supreme Court (KKO) held that the stop was justified based on reasonable suspicion.
However, the search must be proportionate and limited in scope.
The Court emphasized that police discretion must be exercised with clear factual basis, respecting personal liberty.
Significance:
Clarifies the legal threshold for stop-and-search and reinforces proportionality.
✅ Case 2: KHO 2008:95 – Use of Force and Public Safety
Facts:
Police used force to disperse a violent demonstration.
Issue:
Was the force used proportionate to the threat posed?
Decision:
The Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) found that police action was necessary and proportional given the risk to public safety.
Emphasized that when public safety is at risk, police discretion to use force is broad but must be justified.
Significance:
Reinforces proportionality and necessity in police use of force.
✅ Case 3: KKO 2017:22 – Arrest Without Warrant
Facts:
Police arrested a suspect without a prior warrant during an ongoing investigation.
Issue:
Was the warrantless arrest justified under the law?
Decision:
The Court held that warrantless arrest is permissible if there is an urgent reason (e.g., risk of flight, ongoing crime).
Police discretion in arresting without a warrant is constrained by strict criteria.
Significance:
Establishes limits to police discretion in arrest, balancing liberty and safety.
✅ Case 4: Parliamentary Ombudsman Decision 2012/1780 – Policing and Discrimination
Facts:
Complaint against police for stopping persons based on ethnic profiling.
Finding:
The Ombudsman found that police discretion cannot be based on ethnic or racial grounds.
Police must base stops and searches on objective, individualized suspicion.
Significance:
Limits discretion by emphasizing equality and non-discrimination.
✅ Case 5: KHO 2019:75 – Crowd Control and Public Order
Facts:
Police blocked access to a public event due to security threats.
Issue:
Was the preventive restriction of movement justified?
Decision:
KHO ruled the preventive measures lawful given credible threats.
However, such restrictions must be limited in time and scope.
Significance:
Shows balancing between freedom of movement and public safety.
✅ Case 6: KKO 2020:101 – Digital Surveillance and Privacy
Facts:
Police used digital tracking without a court order.
Issue:
Was the surveillance lawful?
Decision:
The Court held that surveillance requires legal authorization.
Discretionary powers are not unlimited; fundamental rights require strict safeguards.
Significance:
Highlights limits on police discretion regarding privacy rights.
IV. 📌 Summary Table: Balancing Police Discretion and Public Safety
| Issue | Police Discretion | Judicial/Legal Limit |
|---|---|---|
| Stop and Search | Allowed on reasonable suspicion | Must be proportional, justified |
| Use of Force | Broad in emergencies | Must be necessary and proportionate |
| Arrest Without Warrant | Allowed with urgency | Strict legal criteria |
| Preventive Restrictions | Allowed for credible threats | Must be limited, justified |
| Non-Discrimination | Must be objective | Prohibits ethnic profiling |
| Digital Surveillance | Requires authorization | Must respect privacy |
V. 💡 Conclusion
The Finnish model emphasizes careful judicial review of police discretion in favor of protecting fundamental rights while maintaining public safety. Police are granted broad operational discretion but must always justify their actions with legal grounds and respect constitutional safeguards. Courts and oversight bodies consistently reinforce the principles of proportionality, necessity, and non-discrimination.
RELATED Blog
0 comments