Permission was granted under the Police Act, although the provision is intended only for assault situations.
Ombudsman Petri Jääskeläinen has issued a reprimand to the district judge because he had unlawfully granted police permission to eavesdrop on the telephone.
Permission for wiretapping and telemonitoring is usually granted under the Coercive Measures Act. It requires a concrete criminal suspicion.
In this case, the permit had been granted under the Police Act.
According to the Police Act, the police can obtain permission to be heard even before a criminal investigation in order to prevent or expose a crime. The law lists the offenses for which a permit may be issued.
All the crimes listed in the law are very serious and relate to, for example, terrorist offenses, treason and espionage.
Lapin the district court had granted permission to intercept and monitor the telecommunications at the request of the police because the police intended to prevent a felony against life or health.
However, it is not one of the crimes listed in the Police Act.
In addition to the offenses mentioned in the law, a permit may be granted if it is necessary to combat a serious danger to life or health.
The Ombudsman noted that this provision is an “assault provision”. It can only be applied in a situation where the police are preparing for an attack.
The district judge admitted that he had made a mistake in a hurry.
The Ombudsman also criticized the judge for the poor reasoning of the decision. They did not indicate the facts on which the decision was based.