During a police intervention against two men the men defended themselves and behaved aggressively, which, among other things, led to the men being suspected of violent resistance. The men were handcuffed and placed in a police bus. Additional people, who knew the two men, arrived to the site and the atmosphere became aggressive, moreover they did not listen to the police’s instructions. The police considered that there was a risk that there would be an attempt to release the men and decided to apprehend them pursuant to section 13 of the Police Act.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the assessment of measures pursuant to section 13 of the Police Act must be based on the actions of the individual who is to be the subject of the intervention. An intervention cannot be justified by the fact that the police want to be able to control the actions of other people. An assessment must be made for each individual that is affected.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman finds, however, in this particular case, that there was an immediate danger that the two men, if they were to be released on the site, would commit a punishable act or disturb public order. Therefore, there were grounds for intervening against them in accordance with section 13 of the Police Act. However, pursuant to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s understanding, in order to avert the danger, it had been enough to remove the men from the site.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Police Authority due to temporarily apprehending the men despite the fact that a removal had been enough and because the assessment of the situation was inadequate. The Police Authority is also criticized for not questioning the apprehended men pursuant to section 16 of the Police Act, for deficiencies in the ongoing assessment of the justification of the possible release attempt and due to shortcomings, in several respects, in the documentation of the apprehension.