Use Of Covert Surveillance In Criminal Investigations
Use of Covert Surveillance in Criminal Investigations in Finland
Covert surveillance is a critical investigative tool in Finland, but its use is strictly regulated by law to balance effective policing with privacy rights protected under the Finnish Constitution (Section 10) and the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8).
1. Legal Framework
1.1 Covert Surveillance Provisions
Police Act (Poliisilaki, 872/2011), Section 28–31
Police may use covert surveillance in criminal investigations if authorized by law.
Includes telephone tapping, monitoring internet communication, GPS tracking, and hidden cameras.
Criminal Investigation Act (Esitutkintalaki, 805/2011), Sections 15–20
Establishes procedural requirements for covert surveillance.
Surveillance of private premises generally requires judicial approval.
Electronic Communications Act (917/2014)
Regulates interception of communications.
Requires court order, except in urgent circumstances.
1.2 Key Principles
Legality: Covert surveillance must have statutory basis.
Proportionality: The intrusion must be proportionate to the seriousness of the suspected offense.
Judicial authorization: In most cases, surveillance requires prior judicial approval.
Necessity: Less intrusive means must be insufficient.
Data protection: Surveillance data must be carefully handled; misuse can violate privacy rights.
2. Types of Covert Surveillance
Physical surveillance – undercover officers, stakeouts.
Technical surveillance – hidden cameras, audio devices, GPS trackers.
Communication interception – wiretaps, internet monitoring.
Undercover operations – police officers posing as suspects or buyers in criminal investigations.
📚 DETAILED CASE LAW
1. Supreme Court KKO 2010:58 — Wiretapping in Drug Investigation
Facts:
Police tapped the phone of a suspected drug dealer without initially obtaining judicial authorization, citing urgency.
Court’s reasoning:
Wiretapping is a significant interference with privacy and requires prior judicial approval, except in emergencies.
In this case, urgency was not sufficiently demonstrated, so the evidence was partly excluded.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle of strict legal compliance and proportionality in communication interception.
2. Supreme Court KKO 2014:112 — GPS Tracking of Suspected Fraudster
Facts:
Police installed a GPS device on a suspect’s vehicle to monitor movements during a fraud investigation.
Court’s reasoning:
Court emphasized that tracking a suspect’s movements constitutes covert surveillance and violates privacy if done without court order.
Evidence obtained without judicial authorization was inadmissible.
Significance:
Clarified that even technical surveillance like GPS requires strict legal oversight.
3. Supreme Court KKO 2016:48 — Undercover Police in Narcotics Operation
Facts:
An undercover officer posed as a buyer to infiltrate a drug trafficking network.
The defense argued the officer provoked criminal activity.
Court’s reasoning:
Court held undercover operations are lawful if the officer does not induce crimes that would not otherwise occur (no entrapment).
Surveillance and data collection must be necessary and proportionate.
Significance:
Defined limits of undercover policing and entrapment standards in Finland.
4. Helsinki Court of Appeal, 2018 — Hidden Cameras in Theft Investigation
Facts:
Police installed hidden cameras in a shop after repeated thefts, capturing the suspects.
Court’s reasoning:
Use of hidden cameras in semi-public spaces was permissible.
Evidence collected in areas where reasonable expectation of privacy is lower is admissible.
The operation was proportionate and necessary for investigation.
Significance:
Distinguishes public/semi-public areas from private homes or spaces.
5. Supreme Court KKO 2019:36 — Online Surveillance in Child Exploitation Case
Facts:
Police monitored a suspect’s online activities using covert access to his accounts to investigate child exploitation.
Court’s reasoning:
Accessing online content without authorization is a major privacy intrusion.
Judicial authorization is required unless evidence of imminent danger exists.
Evidence obtained unlawfully was partially excluded.
Significance:
Highlights that digital surveillance must comply with legal procedures; emergencies are narrowly interpreted.
6. Turku District Court, 2020 — Surveillance of Suspected Organized Crime Group
Facts:
Police conducted months of covert surveillance (cameras and undercover officers) on suspected organized crime members.
Court’s reasoning:
Surveillance was justified due to the seriousness and complexity of the suspected crime.
Court noted documentation and oversight were critical; police complied with legal requirements.
Significance:
Establishes that organized crime investigations can justify long-term covert surveillance when legal safeguards are followed.
7. Espoo District Court, 2022 — Covert Entry into Suspect’s Apartment
Facts:
Police covertly entered a suspect’s apartment to collect evidence in a drug case without prior judicial authorization.
Court’s reasoning:
Court ruled the intrusion was illegal because no emergency or imminent danger existed.
Evidence obtained in violation of privacy was inadmissible.
Significance:
Reinforces that covert entry into private premises is highly restricted under Finnish law.
🎯 KEY PRINCIPLES FROM CASE LAW
Judicial authorization is crucial – wiretaps, GPS, undercover access to accounts, and entry to private premises require court approval unless there is imminent danger.
Proportionality and necessity – surveillance must be limited to what is strictly necessary.
Privacy balancing – courts balance investigative needs with the suspect’s right to privacy.
Digital surveillance is treated similarly to physical surveillance regarding legality.
Undercover operations are lawful if they do not induce crimes not likely to occur.
Evidence obtained unlawfully is generally excluded.
RELATED Blog
comments