Does a police stop need to be justified?
As I got off the tram at La Jonction, two police officers asked to see my ID without a word of explanation. I asked what I was being accused of, but they simply repeated that they needed to know my identity. I eventually complied, feeling a bit put out at being treated like a suspect when I was simply heading home from work. Do the police have the right to stop me like this, without giving a reason?
F, Vernier
Yes, the police can stop you without having to explain their reasons whilst you’re on the pavement.
Under federal law, Article 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) authorises the police to stop a person in order to establish their identity, question them briefly or check whether they are the subject of any investigations. They may require you to state your identity and produce your identity documents; this measure does not require there to be a proven offence or reasonable suspicion against you. The Canton of Geneva has similar rules; the Police Act (LPol) gives officers the right to require any person stopped to prove their identity, including during preventive checks carried out without any link to a specific investigation.
Contrary to popular belief, however, there is no law requiring people to carry an identity card or passport with them at all times. What the law does require is that people cooperate when asked to prove their identity, not that they have to carry their documents around with them every day. If the person concerned is unable to identify themselves on the spot, either because they cannot produce a document or because there remains doubt about their statements, officers may take them to the police station for the time strictly necessary to carry out the verification, before releasing them as soon as this has been completed.
The question of grounds remains. The police are not required to justify every stop on the basis of a specific offence; prevention and routine checks are sufficient, provided that the stop is neither arbitrary nor based on discriminatory grounds. The Federal Court has also pointed out that the obligation to state one’s identity does not fall within the scope of the right to remain silent, as the latter protects the accused against self-incrimination in relation to the offences with which they are charged, not against the mere disclosure of their identity. A categorical refusal to cooperate may therefore amount to obstruction, as provided for in Article 286 of the Criminal Code (CC) criminalises the obstruction of an official act – an offence that can prove far more costly than a minute’s patience on the pavement.
Complying is therefore definitely the right thing to do, even if it means asking – once identification has been completed – for the officers’ names and ranks if you are considering challenging the way in which the check was carried out.
Read Pascal Rytz's columns on Tribune de Genève
