The Police of the Czech Republic insisted on a response to notice of infraction

The complainant was caught crossing the road near a pedestrian crossing, but outside it, at a time when the “go” signal was active (the complainant crossed between cars halted by the “stop” signal). On request of a police officer, he proved his identity through his identity card and the police officer offered him the possibility of resolving the matter in summary proceedings with a fine of CZK 100. The complainant disagreed with this solution and the police officer requested that he follow him to the police car.

After walking the distance of approximately 100 metres, the complainant asked how much further he would have to go; the police officer told him that his car was about 10 minutes away. The complainant then refused to continue. However, the police officer insisted that the complainant continue with him in order to resolve the matter. By resolving the matter, the police officer meant enabling the complainant to provide a statement (response) on the notice of infraction. Due to the increasing passive resistance on the part of the complainant, who refused to continue walking, the police officers first warned him by invoking the law and subsequently used coercive measures. This caused injury to the complainant.

The Ombudsman launched an inquiry into the case and came to the conclusion that the police officers made an error consisting in an unlawful invocation of the law and the use of coercive measures. In principle, the police officers used coercive measures to force the complainant to exercise his right to provide a statement on the notice of infraction, even though this was not his duty. The police statement provided later that physical presence of the complainant at the police car was necessitated by the police officers’ duty to carry out a search in the records was, in my opinion based on other facts, untenable and insufficient. Indeed, persons who, in similar situations in the past, committed infractions and agreed to pay a summary fine were not subsequently forced to walk anywhere; the police officers made all the necessary verifications through their portable radios. Therefore, if police officers intend to restrict the freedom of persons who have already proven their identity through their identity card (i.e. the manner anticipated by the law), they may only do so in accordance with the principle of proportionality pursuant to Section 11 of the Police Act.

The search in the records itself, which is required by the internal rules of the Police of the Czech Republic, is not problematic unless it represents unreasonable burden to the persons who are subject to it.

Another error was made by the head of the Regional Police Directorate in the Plzeň Region who qualified the complaint against the procedure of the police officers as groundless.

As a remedy, the Ombudsman especially proposed making systemic provisions to prevent unreasonable and unnecessary burdening of persons in the future, when police officers make searches in the information systems as part of verification of a person’s identity.

Since the head of the Regional Police Directorate failed to implement the proposed remedial measures, the Ombudsman exercised her punitive powers and informed the Police President of the case. As not even this procedure led to a remedy in the given case, the Ombudsman decided to inform the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic of this matter.