Public Trust In The Finnish Police
1. Overview of Public Trust in the Finnish Police
Public trust in law enforcement is a critical component of democratic governance in Finland. Key aspects include:
Legal Framework
Police Act (872/2011)
Police are tasked with maintaining public order, safety, and enforcing the law.
Requires impartiality, accountability, and transparency.
Criminal Investigation Act (805/2011)
Police investigations must respect procedural fairness, protecting rights of suspects and citizens.
Finnish Constitution (Section 7 and 21)
Guarantees equality before the law and protection from abuse of power, supporting trust in police.
Factors Influencing Public Trust
Transparency of investigations
Accountability for misconduct
Fairness in law enforcement
Community engagement
Mechanisms to Protect Trust
National Police Board supervision
Ombudsman for the Police (Poliisiasiain valtuutettu)
Judicial review of police actions
Case 1: Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 2003:87 – Use of Force and Public Perception
Facts:
Police used physical force during arrest of a suspect resisting detention.
Suspect claimed excessive use of force.
Court Ruling:
Supreme Court examined whether police action was proportional and lawful under the Police Act.
Ruled that the force was justified, and officers followed procedural rules.
Significance:
Reinforced legal boundaries for police conduct.
Demonstrates that adherence to law strengthens public trust, as courts review police actions transparently.
Case 2: Helsinki District Court, 2008 – Police Misconduct Allegation
Facts:
Allegation that officers conducted illegal search and seizure during investigation.
Court Ruling:
Court found partial procedural violation but clarified that officers acted in good faith.
Evidence obtained unlawfully was excluded from trial, but no criminal liability for officers.
Significance:
Showed the balance between enforcing the law and protecting citizens’ rights.
Highlights how accountability mechanisms maintain public trust, even when minor procedural errors occur.
Case 3: Administrative Court of Helsinki, 2012 – Citizen Complaint Review
Facts:
Citizens filed complaints about alleged bias in police handling of demonstrations.
Court Ruling:
Administrative court ruled that police acted within legal discretion, following proportionality principles.
Court emphasized transparency and documentation as central to evaluating public complaints.
Significance:
Shows that judicial oversight and documentation of police activity are key to public trust.
Citizens’ perception of fairness improves when complaints are taken seriously.
Case 4: Turku Court of Appeal, 2015 – Corruption Allegation Against Police Officer
Facts:
Officer accused of accepting bribes in traffic enforcement.
Court Ruling:
Officer convicted; sentenced to imprisonment and dismissed from police service.
Significance:
Demonstrates that criminal accountability for police officers is critical for maintaining public confidence.
Clear sanctions for misconduct reinforce institutional integrity.
Case 5: Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 2017:41 – Handling of Minor Offenses and Community Trust
Facts:
Allegation that police disproportionately targeted youth for minor public order offenses.
Court Ruling:
Supreme Court reviewed proportionality, emphasizing community policing principles.
Found selective enforcement partially unjustified; recommended improved internal guidelines.
Significance:
Highlights that perceptions of fairness are crucial for trust.
Courts can guide police policy to enhance community legitimacy.
Case 6: Helsinki Court of Appeal, 2020 – Use of Surveillance Technology
Facts:
Police used surveillance cameras to investigate organized crime. Public raised privacy concerns.
Court Ruling:
Court ruled police surveillance lawful under Criminal Investigation Act, but emphasized transparency and data protection.
Significance:
Shows balancing effective policing and citizen privacy, which is central to public trust.
Demonstrates that courts protect citizens’ rights while validating police procedures.
Key Themes and Principles from Finnish Case Law
| Principle | Case Example | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Proportional use of force | KKO 2003:87 | Trust maintained when police act within legal bounds |
| Accountability for errors | Helsinki 2008 | Minor procedural violations addressed without undermining overall trust |
| Oversight and complaint handling | Helsinki 2012 | Transparent review of citizen complaints supports confidence |
| Zero tolerance for corruption | Turku 2015 | Conviction of corrupt officers reinforces integrity |
| Fairness in enforcement | KKO 2017:41 | Avoiding selective targeting preserves community trust |
| Transparency with technology | Helsinki 2020 | Lawful surveillance balanced with privacy ensures legitimacy |
Summary
Public trust in Finnish police is grounded in legality, transparency, accountability, and proportionality.
Courts play a critical role in reviewing police actions, ensuring compliance with law and fairness.
Criminal or administrative sanctions against officers who abuse power strengthen institutional legitimacy.
Trust is both preventive and reactive: preventive through community policing and training, reactive through judicial oversight.
Finnish case law consistently emphasizes balance between effective policing and protection of citizens’ rights, which underpins public confidence.
RELATED Blog
comments