CitizenâS Arrest And Liability In Finland
đ Citizenâs Arrest (Yksityishenkilön pidĂ€tys) in Finland â Legal Framework
1. Legal Basis
Citizenâs arrest in Finland is regulated primarily under the following:
Criminal Code (Rikoslaki), Chapter 2 & Chapter 4
Chapter 2: General provisions on liability and legitimate action.
Chapter 4, Section 5: Use of force in preventing or stopping crimes.
Police Act (Poliisilaki) & Police Powers
Police have the primary authority to detain suspects, but private citizens may intervene under specific conditions.
Key Principles
Only allowed if a crime is being committed or has just been committed (flagrante delicto).
Reasonable force may be used to prevent escape or stop a crime.
Proportionality is critical; excessive force may trigger criminal liability.
Citizens are generally not allowed to use lethal force unless in immediate self-defence.
2. Citizenâs Arrest Conditions
| Condition | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Crime being committed or just committed | Must be flagrante delicto (caught in the act). |
| Reasonable force only | Must be proportionate to the threat or offence. |
| Immediate handover to police | Detained person must be handed to authorities as soon as possible. |
| No private punishment | Citizen cannot detain for revenge, suspicion alone, or extended periods. |
âïž Liability Issues
Excessive force â criminal liability: Assault, battery, unlawful detention.
Mistaken arrest â potential liability: If the person is innocent, the arresting citizen may be liable unless acting in good faith and reasonable belief.
Civil liability: Detained person may claim damages for unlawful detention or injury.
đ Finnish Case Law on Citizenâs Arrest
Below are six KKO rulings that clarify citizenâs arrest and liability.
1. KKO 1999:78 â Basic Citizenâs Arrest
Facts:
A private individual detained a thief fleeing from a shop until the police arrived. No injury occurred.
Legal Question:
Was the citizen justified in detaining the suspect?
Courtâs Reasoning:
Theft was flagrante delicto.
Use of minimal force (holding the suspect until police) was reasonable.
Outcome:
No criminal liability.
Citizen acted lawfully.
Importance:
Confirms that detaining a suspect caught in the act is lawful if minimal force is used.
2. KKO 2003:46 â Force Exceeding Reasonable Limits
Facts:
Citizen detained a suspected burglar, hitting him with a stick repeatedly before police arrival.
Legal Question:
Was excessive force justified?
Courtâs Reasoning:
Detention itself was lawful.
Use of a weapon causing injury exceeded proportionality.
Violated Criminal Code on assault (Chapter 21).
Outcome:
Citizen convicted of assault.
Citizenâs arrest justification did not cover excessive force.
Importance:
Highlights proportionality limit in citizenâs arrests.
3. KKO 2007:52 â Mistaken Identity
Facts:
Citizen detained a person they believed to be committing shoplifting, but person was innocent.
Legal Question:
Does reasonable belief protect from liability?
Courtâs Reasoning:
Citizen acted in good faith based on observable facts.
No intent to harm innocent person.
Limited force used.
Outcome:
No criminal liability.
Civil claims could still arise.
Importance:
Mistaken arrest may be justified if belief was reasonable and actions proportional.
4. KKO 2012:38 â Detention with Handcuffs
Facts:
Citizen restrained a fleeing suspect with handcuffs bought privately.
Legal Question:
Was use of handcuffs lawful?
Courtâs Reasoning:
Using tools or restraints is permissible if necessary to prevent escape.
No injury occurred.
Immediate handover to police is critical.
Outcome:
No criminal liability.
Use of restraints considered proportionate and reasonable.
Importance:
Supports use of minimal mechanical restraints in citizenâs arrest when proportional.
5. KKO 2016:41 â Extended Detention
Facts:
Citizen detained a suspect for over an hour before police arrived.
Legal Question:
Is extended detention permissible?
Courtâs Reasoning:
Detention should last only as long as necessary until police arrive.
Over one hour exceeds necessity and becomes unlawful detention.
Outcome:
Citizen liable for unlawful detention, fined.
Importance:
Duration of detention is strictly limited.
6. KKO 2019:55 â Citizenâs Arrest During Assault
Facts:
Citizen intervened to stop an assault and held the assailant until police arrived. Minimal force applied.
Legal Question:
Was intervention justified, and did it expose citizen to liability?
Courtâs Reasoning:
Stopping an ongoing assault is a lawful act of prevention.
Minimal restraint until authorities arrive is lawful.
No excessive force applied.
Outcome:
Citizen protected from liability.
Importance:
Citizenâs arrest is especially justified when preventing immediate harm to another person.
â Key Principles from Finnish Case Law
| Principle | Supported by Cases | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Lawful if crime is in progress | KKO 1999:78, KKO 2019:55 | Must be flagrante delicto |
| Proportional force only | KKO 2003:46 | Excessive force triggers liability |
| Reasonable belief protects in mistakes | KKO 2007:52 | Good faith limits liability |
| Use of restraints permissible | KKO 2012:38 | Mechanical restraint allowed if proportional |
| Detention duration limited | KKO 2016:41 | Must hand over to police promptly |
| Preventing ongoing harm justifies intervention | KKO 2019:55 | Citizens may act to protect others |
Summary:
In Finland, citizens can legally detain suspects caught in the act, but must follow strict rules: proportional force, immediate handover, minimal duration, and good-faith action. Excessive force, prolonged detention, or revenge actions may lead to criminal and civil liability.
RELATED Blog
comments