A police officer decided that a 16-year-old, that was a suspect of a drug offense, should be examined and that his underwear should be searched. The examination was conducted in a stairwell behind a wall. The light in the stairwell was turned off but the police used a flashlight to examine the underwear. 

The examination was conducted in such a way that 16-year-old’s intimate parts could be observed. The Parliamentary Ombudsman deems that the strip search was a body search and not a strip search. The coercive measure was therefore, in a legal context, a different and a far more intrusive measure, than what the police had taken a decision on, which is not acceptable.

A strip search of a more significant extent must be carried out indoors and in a separate room. Consideration must be taken to the individual that is being examined. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s understanding, the scope of the bodily examination must be assessed in accordance to the nature of the breach of an individual’s right to privacy. Even an examination that concerns a limited part of the body can therefore be of a more significant scope depending on how the privacy of the individual was infringed. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the investigation of the 16-year-old was beyond the scope of a strip search.

The conditions in the stairwell were such that an outsider could have passed by or seen the ongoing investigation. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman the investigation can therefore not be considered to have been conducted pursuant to the requirement on seclusion and consideration.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Police Authority due to how the investigation was carried out and moreover for shortcomings in the documentation.