Supreme court rejects lawyer’s protest. The copenhagen Police was within his rights to place equipment on a Skoda.
An anonymous source’s information to the police is sufficient grounds for police to put gps devices on a car belonging to a person who is not suspected of having committed the crime.
The Supreme court stated in an order. It approves, that the Copenhagen Police in the past by lower courts were allowed to use the procedure.
the Case arose in the spring. The police had from an anonymous person received information that some travelling criminals, which committed the burglary, drove around in a particular car of brand Skoda. The source was estimate to be credible. The car belonged not to a suspected person.
in Order to be able to monitor the vehicle’s whereabouts is asked the police for permission to implement it, which is called the gps observation.
According to the law is the condition that the interference must be “substantial importance” to the investigation, before the judges can say yes.
And as well in the Copenhagen city Court as in The high Court and now in Supreme court nikkes there all the way around.
at the same time, the judges have rejected the protest of a lawyer who had to perform bilejerens interests.
For example, the lawyer Stefan Sekabet Reinel believed that it is a slippery slope, if allowed to anonymous information in itself can form the basis for intervention because the judges are in their very nature, can not control an anonymous source’s validity.
In the current case, it may even be that the anonymous source is the police themselves, believe the lawyer according to the order, published Wednesday.
Furthermore, the lawyer said that gps monitoring should not be undertaken solely on the police, the sensations, but that there should be a reasonable and definite reasons.
Conversely, the prosecution told the judges that the gps observation can be made against both suspects as non-suspect citizens.
the Supreme court judges stated in its decision established that the law does not say mistankens strength. The condition for an intervention is just that there is a suspicion that a crime has been committed or is attempted committed.
Moreover, the Supreme court of the emphasis on, that the police deems the anonymous source to be credible, and that the police know the source’s identity. It is also significant that the source’s information came in connection with the investigation of organised indbrudskriminalitet in another case, it appears.
/ritzau/
