Pre-Trial Investigation By Finnish Police
1. Overview of Pre-Trial Investigation in Finland
In Finland, the pre-trial investigation (esitutkinta) is the police-led investigative stage that occurs after a crime has been reported or suspected, before it reaches the prosecutor or court. The main purpose is to gather evidence, clarify the facts, and decide whether to prosecute. The key legislation governing this is the Criminal Procedure Act (Act No. 689/1997, especially Chapters 1–10) and the Police Act.
Key Principles
Official Duty – Police are obligated to investigate crimes if there is reasonable suspicion. Private individuals cannot prevent this.
Legality – Police must act according to law; any evidence obtained unlawfully may be inadmissible.
Suspect Rights – Suspects have rights to be informed, have legal counsel, remain silent, and challenge illegal actions.
Prosecutorial Oversight – Prosecutors supervise the pre-trial investigation and can order further investigation.
2. Stages of Pre-Trial Investigation
Initiation – A crime is reported, or suspicion arises. Police decide whether to start an investigation.
Preliminary Inquiry – Police gather initial evidence, witness statements, and assess the need for further action.
Formal Investigation – If sufficient suspicion exists, police formally investigate, including arrests, interrogations, and searches.
Investigation Completion – Police submit a report (esitutkintapöytäkirja) to the prosecutor, who decides whether to prosecute.
3. Police Powers During Pre-Trial Investigation
Detention and Arrest: Police may detain a suspect for up to 96 hours before bringing them to a magistrate for a court decision.
Searches: Police can conduct house or vehicle searches if legally justified.
Seizure of Evidence: Police can seize documents, electronic data, or physical evidence relevant to the investigation.
Interrogations: Witnesses and suspects can be questioned, with suspects having the right to silence and legal representation.
Surveillance & Wiretapping: Requires authorization by a prosecutor or court for serious crimes.
4. Relevant Finnish Case Law Examples
Case 1: KKO 2002:101
Facts: Police conducted a house search without proper authorization in a suspected drug trafficking case.
Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled the evidence obtained during the illegal search inadmissible.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that pre-trial evidence must comply with legal procedures, especially regarding search warrants.
Case 2: KKO 2010:50
Facts: A suspect was detained for 120 hours without sufficient justification.
Outcome: The Supreme Court held that police exceeded the lawful detention period. The suspect’s rights under Chapter 7, Criminal Procedure Act were violated.
Significance: Clarified limits on detention duration and emphasized judicial oversight to prevent abuse of police powers.
Case 3: KKO 2014:12
Facts: Police interrogated a suspect without providing access to legal counsel, arguing the suspect “volunteered information.”
Outcome: Court ruled that all suspects must have access to legal counsel, and any statements given without this access may be excluded.
Significance: Strengthened suspects’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 6.
Case 4: KKO 2016:48
Facts: Evidence from a mobile phone was seized without sufficient suspicion of a crime.
Outcome: Supreme Court excluded the digital evidence because the search violated the principle of proportionality.
Significance: Set precedent for digital evidence collection; emphasized police must balance investigative need with privacy rights.
Case 5: KKO 2018:65
Facts: Police secretly monitored communications over a prolonged period without proper authorization.
Outcome: Court held that surveillance violated procedural safeguards and evidence was inadmissible.
Significance: Reinforced that wiretapping requires strict adherence to legal authorization and is not permissible for minor suspicions.
Case 6: KKO 2020:33
Facts: Suspect claimed that police coerced confessions during interrogation.
Outcome: Court excluded confessions as obtained under duress. Police were reminded that coercion violates Chapter 3, Criminal Procedure Act, and ECHR rights.
Significance: Highlighted the importance of voluntary statements and proper conduct during pre-trial investigations.
5. Key Takeaways from Finnish Case Law
Evidence Legality: All evidence must be collected in strict compliance with the law; otherwise, it may be excluded.
Suspect Rights: Detention, interrogation, and surveillance must respect constitutional and ECHR rights.
Judicial Oversight: Prosecutors and courts supervise pre-trial investigations to prevent abuse.
Proportionality & Necessity: Police powers are not unlimited; intrusive measures require justification.
Digital Evidence: Modern case law increasingly deals with phones, emails, and online data, emphasizing lawful collection.
In summary, the Finnish pre-trial investigation system balances efficient criminal investigation with protection of individual rights. The cases above illustrate that violations of procedure or rights often lead to evidence exclusion, reinforcing strict legal compliance for the police.
RELATED Blog
comments