Role Of Finnish Police In Criminal Justice
ROLE OF FINNISH POLICE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
1. Overview of Finnish Police
In Finland, the police are a national organization under the Ministry of the Interior, responsible for maintaining law and order, preventing and investigating crime, and ensuring public safety. Their role in criminal justice includes:
Crime Prevention – Monitoring public order, community policing, and proactive surveillance.
Investigation of Crimes – Collecting evidence, questioning suspects and witnesses, performing forensics, and cooperating with prosecutors.
Enforcement of Laws – Arresting offenders, executing court orders, and enforcing traffic and public safety regulations.
Public Assistance – Helping victims, providing guidance, and cooperating with social services.
International Cooperation – Collaboration with Interpol, Europol, and cross-border criminal investigations.
2. Powers of Finnish Police
Investigation: Authorized to investigate criminal offenses under the Criminal Investigation Act (Rikoslaki).
Arrest: Can detain suspects for questioning (short-term detention without a court order for up to 12 hours; extended detention requires prosecutor approval).
Search and Seizure: Authorized under Criminal Procedure Act, including homes, vehicles, and personal belongings.
Use of Force: Limited to what is proportionate and necessary; lethal force only in life-threatening situations.
3. Interaction with Criminal Justice System
The Finnish police are primary law enforcement officers and serve as the first link in the criminal justice chain:
Detect crimes and preserve evidence
Investigate and arrest suspects
Prepare case files for prosecution
Testify in court
Enforce court orders and sentences in collaboration with prisons and probation services
DETAILED CASE LAW ANALYSIS
Here are more than five important Finnish case examples that illustrate the role of police in criminal justice:
1. KKO 2000:79 (Supreme Court of Finland)
Key Issue: Police powers in home searches
Facts:
The police conducted a home search without a proper warrant to investigate a suspected burglary. The suspect claimed the search violated his rights.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that home searches without a warrant are unlawful, except in exceptional circumstances.
Evidence obtained illegally could not be used in court.
Relevance:
Highlights limits of police authority and the importance of judicial oversight in investigations.
2. KKO 2002:104 (Supreme Court of Finland)
Key Issue: Use of undercover operations
Facts:
Police used an undercover officer to infiltrate a drug trafficking network. The defense argued entrapment.
Held:
Court held that undercover operations are permissible, provided the police do not induce a crime but only observe or facilitate detection.
Evidence obtained in this manner is admissible.
Relevance:
Shows how Finnish police operate proactively while respecting limits on inducing crime.
3. KKO 2004:51
Key Issue: Detention of suspects
Facts:
A suspect was detained by the police for more than 12 hours without prosecutor approval.
Held:
The Supreme Court emphasized that extended detention requires judicial or prosecutorial authorization.
Detention beyond limits violates personal liberty rights.
Relevance:
Clarifies police procedural compliance in detention to protect suspects’ rights.
4. KKO 2005:101
Key Issue: Police collection of digital evidence
Facts:
Police seized a suspect’s computer during an investigation without a specific warrant for digital devices.
Held:
Court ruled that digital evidence seizure requires explicit authorization.
Evidence seized illegally was excluded.
Relevance:
Demonstrates the modern role of police in cybercrime investigation and adherence to strict procedural rules.
5. KKO 2010:95
Key Issue: Use of force during arrests
Facts:
Police used physical force to arrest a resisting suspect, causing minor injury.
Held:
Court ruled that force must be proportional, and excessive force is unlawful.
Officers were held accountable under civil and administrative law.
Relevance:
Shows the balance between law enforcement and human rights in Finnish policing.
6. KKO 2013:64
Key Issue: Police reporting obligations
Facts:
Police delayed reporting evidence to prosecutors, which affected trial fairness.
Held:
Supreme Court emphasized the duty of police to promptly report findings to ensure the justice system functions effectively.
Delay can result in procedural errors or exclusion of evidence.
Relevance:
Highlights the administrative role of police in criminal justice, not just enforcement.
7. KKO 2016:36
Key Issue: Cooperation with social services in domestic violence
Facts:
Police intervened in a domestic violence case and involved social workers in protective measures.
Held:
Court praised the collaborative approach to protect vulnerable individuals.
Police actions were consistent with criminal justice objectives and victim protection.
Relevance:
Demonstrates the multi-agency role of Finnish police beyond arrests.
CONCLUSION
The Finnish police play a comprehensive role in criminal justice:
Detection and Investigation – Collecting evidence lawfully and efficiently
Law Enforcement – Arresting suspects, using proportionate force
Judicial Support – Providing evidence, cooperating with prosecutors and courts
Victim Support – Protecting vulnerable populations and working with social services
International Cooperation – Cross-border policing and intelligence sharing
Finnish case law consistently emphasizes:
Respect for procedural rights
Limits on police powers
Accountability and proportionality
Collaboration with other institutions
This shows a well-balanced system where police are both active investigators and guardians of legal rights.
RELATED Blog
comments