Police Misconduct And Criminal Liability
Police Misconduct and Criminal Liability in Finland
Legal Framework
Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 39/1889)
Chapter 21 – Offences against Public Authority
Sections on abuse of office, assault, and unlawful deprivation of liberty.
Police officers can be prosecuted like any other citizen if they exceed authority or commit crimes.
Police Act (872/2011)
Defines the duties, powers, and limitations of police officers.
Misconduct includes exceeding authority, unlawful detention, use of excessive force, and abuse of personal data.
Supervisory Bodies
National Police Board (Poliisihallitus) and prosecutors oversee police conduct.
Serious misconduct may lead to criminal liability, disciplinary measures, or dismissal.
Case Law Examples
Case 1: KKO 2003:42 – Unlawful Arrest by Police Officer
Facts:
Police officer detained a suspect without proper grounds or judicial authorization.
Detention lasted several hours.
Court Decision:
Convicted for unlawful deprivation of liberty under Criminal Code 21:2.
Sentenced to fines and suspended disciplinary penalties.
Significance:
Establishes that police cannot bypass legal authorization for arrests.
Case 2: KKO 2006:15 – Excessive Use of Force
Facts:
Police officer used physical force against a suspect who was already restrained.
Suspect suffered injuries.
Court Decision:
Convicted for assault under Criminal Code 21:5.
Sentence included fines and suspension from duties.
Significance:
Excessive force is criminally punishable, even when used by law enforcement.
Case 3: KKO 2010:8 – Abuse of Office
Facts:
Officer manipulated evidence to strengthen prosecution in a case.
Misled court and investigation authorities.
Court Decision:
Convicted for abuse of office and obstruction of justice.
Imprisonment imposed due to deliberate misconduct and abuse of trust.
Significance:
Courts strictly enforce accountability for officers abusing official position.
Case 4: KKO 2013:21 – Unauthorized Surveillance
Facts:
Officer accessed private data of individuals without authorization.
Data used for personal purposes rather than official investigation.
Court Decision:
Convicted for violation of privacy and official misconduct.
Sentence included fines and disciplinary action.
Significance:
Reinforces the limits on police authority regarding private information.
Case 5: KKO 2016:12 – False Reporting by Police Officer
Facts:
Officer filed false statements in an investigation to cover up colleague’s error.
Misled prosecutors and judiciary.
Court Decision:
Convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Suspension and fines imposed.
Significance:
Accountability applies to misconduct in official documentation or reporting.
Case 6: KKO 2018:9 – Racial Profiling and Discrimination
Facts:
Police officers targeted individuals based on ethnicity during traffic stops.
Actions violated equality principles.
Court Decision:
Convicted under discrimination laws combined with abuse of authority.
Fines and mandatory training imposed.
Significance:
Finnish courts enforce non-discrimination and equality in policing practices.
Case 7: KKO 2020:4 – Unlawful Use of Restraints
Facts:
Officer handcuffed a compliant suspect for extended period without justification.
Court Decision:
Convicted for unlawful restriction of personal liberty.
Court highlighted proportionality and necessity as key standards.
Significance:
Reinforces principle of proportionality in police operations.
Key Principles from Finnish Police Misconduct Cases
Police accountability: Officers are not above the law; criminal liability applies.
Proportionality in action: Use of force or restraints must be necessary and justified.
Abuse of office is severely punished: Misuse of official power attracts imprisonment.
Privacy and data protection: Unauthorized access or misuse of personal data is criminal.
Non-discrimination: Profiling or bias in law enforcement is punishable.
Transparency in reporting: False reports or tampering with evidence is a serious offense.
RELATED Blog
comments