Use Of Coercive Measures In Finland
1. Case: KKO 2003:87 – Police Use of Force During Arrest
Incident: Police officers used physical force to arrest a suspect resisting apprehension for burglary.
Legal Principle: Finnish law allows proportionate use of force to enforce lawful arrests (Police Act, Section 4).
Court Reasoning: The Supreme Court analyzed whether the force used was necessary and proportionate. It concluded that light strikes and restraint were within legal limits, while excessive force beyond what was needed would constitute assault.
Outcome: Arrest upheld; no liability for officers.
Significance: Sets a clear standard that coercive force must be proportionate to the resistance and threat.
2. Case: KKO 2007:32 – Detention for Investigation (Pre-Trial Detention)
Incident: Suspect arrested and detained for alleged drug trafficking.
Legal Principle: Pre-trial detention (vangitseminen) can be imposed if there is strong suspicion of a crime and risk of flight, reoffending, or evidence tampering (Criminal Procedure Act, Section 6).
Court Reasoning: Court assessed whether detention was necessary and whether less restrictive measures (reporting requirements, travel ban) could suffice. Since the suspect had prior convictions and risked interfering with witnesses, detention was justified.
Outcome: Detention ordered for 2 months.
Significance: Emphasizes the principle of necessity and proportionality in coercive measures.
3. Case: KKO 2010:41 – Coercive Search of Premises
Incident: Police conducted a search of a private residence without the occupant’s consent to investigate a theft.
Legal Principle: Searches require probable cause and a warrant, unless immediate action is necessary to prevent crime or secure evidence.
Court Reasoning: Supreme Court held that the warrant requirement ensures protection of privacy. Emergency exceptions were narrowly interpreted; the search was lawful because evidence could have been destroyed otherwise.
Outcome: Evidence admissible; search upheld.
Significance: Shows balance between public interest in investigation and individual rights.
4. Case: KKO 2014:18 – Temporary Deprivation of Liberty in Domestic Violence
Incident: Police temporarily detained an individual suspected of domestic violence for 24 hours to prevent further harm.
Legal Principle: Temporary deprivation of liberty is allowed under Police Act Section 5 to prevent imminent danger or offense continuation.
Court Reasoning: Court considered proportionality: detention was brief, aimed at protection of the victim, and documented properly.
Outcome: Detention upheld; no violation of rights.
Significance: Highlights preventive function of coercive measures in protecting victims.
5. Case: KKO 2017:12 – Use of Restraints During Transport
Incident: Suspect in custody was handcuffed and placed in a police vehicle for transport to court.
Legal Principle: Use of restraints is allowed to prevent escape or harm, but must not be excessive.
Court Reasoning: Court confirmed restraints were proportionate to the risk posed by the suspect and duration was reasonable. Evidence of excessive restraint or injury would have constituted abuse of power.
Outcome: Use of handcuffs deemed lawful.
Significance: Reinforces proportionality and documentation in routine coercive measures.
6. Case: KKO 2019:24 – Coercive Psychiatric Measures
Incident: Individual showing violent behavior was temporarily admitted for psychiatric evaluation against their will.
Legal Principle: Mental health coercion is allowed if the person poses imminent danger to self or others (Mental Health Act).
Court Reasoning: Court emphasized that coercion requires medical justification, clear documentation, and minimum necessary restriction. Patient rights must be protected, including appeal rights.
Outcome: Temporary admission upheld; measures proportionate.
Significance: Shows Finland balances public safety with individual rights in psychiatric coercion.
Key Observations
| Type of Coercive Measure | Legal Basis | Principles Applied | Case Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of force during arrest | Police Act, Sec. 4 | Necessity, proportionality | KKO 2003:87 |
| Pre-trial detention | Criminal Procedure Act Sec. 6 | Necessity, risk management | KKO 2007:32 |
| Searches of premises | Criminal Procedure Act Sec. 8 | Warrant, emergency exception | KKO 2010:41 |
| Temporary deprivation (24 hrs) | Police Act Sec. 5 | Prevention, minimal duration | KKO 2014:18 |
| Use of restraints during transport | Police Act Sec. 4 | Proportionality, safety | KKO 2017:12 |
| Psychiatric coercion | Mental Health Act | Necessity, least restrictive measure | KKO 2019:24 |
Summary
Finland allows various coercive measures (force, detention, searches, restraints, psychiatric interventions) under strict legal conditions.
Courts consistently emphasize necessity, proportionality, and minimal intrusion.
Case law shows preventive and protective functions of coercive measures, balanced against individual rights under law.
Proper documentation, justification, and adherence to procedure are critical for legality.
RELATED Blog
0 comments