Adopted on September 24th, 2010, the Law on Police gives police officers the right to stop a person on the street and examine the outer clothing if the officer has “a reasonable suspicion” that criminal activity is afoot. According to the law, an individual can be stopped by the policeman for “a reasonable time period” required to allay the police suspicion. If the surface search results into further suspicion, an authorized official will then conduct a full search, according to the law.
The opposition party Our Georgia-Free Democrats (OGFD) has appealed to the Constitutional Court requesting to rule that police stop-and-frisk powers are a breach of human rights. OGFD claims that new rules are subject to abuse as the amended law does not specify exact circumstances in which the police can resort to stop-and-frisk practices. Abel Gegia, a lawyer from the Center of Protection of Constitutional Rights states that the new amendment violates the freedom of movement, as the concept of “reasonable suspicion on the possible commitment of crime” is too broad and “a reasonable time period” required for allaying the police suspicion – too vague. The fact that the law doesn’t concretely indicate the period of detainment is a breach of human rights, he states.
According to Abel Gegia, the new amendment further violates the right to a fair trial. Though the detained individual can appeal against the policeman’s conduct in five days after the detainment, the amendment doesn’t envisage the necessity of composition of protocol or calling witnesses while the individual is being held. Hence it is unclear what the defendant can base his/her appeal on. The only evidence can be the policeman’s testimony itself, but unlikely the officer will testify against himself. According to Abel Gegia, the right to a fair trial is further violated by the fact that the new provision does not grant the detainee certain legal status, and thus deprives him of his procedural rights, e.g. the right to a lawyer.
The Parliamentary Majority explains the amendment by the necessity of police protection. According to the initiators of the bill, Lasha Tordia and Kakha Anjaparidze, the amendment was stipulated by the fact that the police is not thoroughly protected and it is essential to adopt this law for their life protection.
“You might not know its legal nature, but should at least have seen in the movies that policemen are granted this right in the USA, Great Britain and many other countries,” – stated Lasha Tordia.
The fact is that the right to “stop-and-frisk” established in the international practice envisages the detainment of the individual only in cases where policeman has a reasonable suspicion that the latter is armed and is posing threat to policemen or bystanders. Thus, the ultimate goal of the “stop-and-frisk” procedure is the disarmament of the detainee and not the “confirming or invalidating the reasonable suspicion” of the “possible commitment of crime,” states Georgian Young Lawyers Association. The time period during which a person can be stopped should in no way exceed the time required for finding a weapon- if any, according to GYLA.
The new amendment to Law on Police far differs from the international standards. Vague terms like “reasonable suspicion on the possible commitment of crime” and “reasonable period for confirming or invalidating the reasonable suspicion” create a high risk for the misuse of authority by law-enforcement officials. The detainee is deprived of any legal status and does not have an effective remedy of protection since no legal document is composed and no witnesses are called while the suspect is detained. Therefore, the new amendment violates individual liberty, the essence of human freedom.
