Loading...
Publication
Identificação de suspeitos e consequências jurídicas da recusa – Abordagem aos procedimentos policiais no Comando Metropolitano de Polícia de Lisboa
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.49 MB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
A medida cautelar e de polícia de identificação de suspeitos da prática de crime, atualmente, encontra-se
consagrada no artigo 250.º do Código de Processo Penal (CPP). Para além do articulado sub judice não
fazer referência direta quanto às consequências jurídicas que recaem sobre um suspeito da prática de
crime que se recusa a identificar, também a Doutrina e a Jurisprudência não conseguem apresentar uma
resposta unívoca sobre o procedimento policial a ser adotado.
Através do método de interpretação do Direito, concluiu-se que a cominação pelo crime de desobediência,
nos termos da al. b) do n.º 1 do art.º 348.º do Código Penal, é o procedimento policial mais adequado
para lidar com estas situações. No entanto, cientes de que o partido tomado não é inequívoco e comporta
críticas, aplicou-se um inquérito por questionário aos polícias a prestar serviço nas Esquadras policiais
de competência territorial do Comando Metropolitano de Polícia de Lisboa. Este instrumento teve o
propósito de verificar se existem incongruências quanto aos procedimentos policiais que os polícias
referem que adotariam perante um suspeito da prática de crime que se recusa a identificar.
Os resultados do inquérito por questionário, realizado no âmbito desta investigação do tipo quantitativo,
revelaram que, apesar da opção pela medida coativa prevista no n.º 6 do art.º 250.º do CPP ter sido a
mais frequente, não foi unânime. Para além de que, caso o suspeito se recusasse a ser conduzido à
Esquadra mais próxima para identificação, as incongruências, quanto ao procedimento a adotar, foram
ainda mais notáveis.
Neste sentido, perante a necessidade de os polícias decidirem e atuarem com celeridade, nota-se
pertinente uma reformulação do artigo 250.º do CPP que dê soluções definitivas e inquestionáveis quanto
ao procedimento policial a adotar nas situações de recusa de identificação e de condução à Esquadra para
identificação.
The precautionary and police measure to identify suspected criminals is currently consecrated in article 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). In addition to the articulated sub judice not making direct reference to the legal consequences that fall on a crime suspect who refuses to identify himself, the doctrine and the jurisprudence are also unable to provide a univocal answer on the police procedure to be adopted. Through the interpretation of Law, it was concluded that the penalty for the crime of disobedience, under paragraph 1, point b) of art. º 348 of the Penal Code, is the most appropriate police procedure to deal with these crimes’ situations. However, being aware that the side taken is not unequivocal and is subject to criticism, a questionnaire survey was applied to police officers serving Lisbon’s Metropolitan Police Command’s police stations. This instrument had the purpose of verifying inconsistencies regarding the police procedures that the police say they would adopt if a criminal suspect refuses to identify himself. The questionnaire survey results, carried out within the scope of this quantitative investigation, revealed that, despite the option that the coercive measure provided for paragraph 6 of article 250 of the CPC had been the most frequent, it was not unanimous. In addition, if the suspect refused to be taken to the nearest police station for identification, the inconsistencies regarding the procedure to be adopted are even more notable. In this sense, with the policemen having to decide and act quickly, a reformulation of article 250 of the CPC is pertinent, giving definitive and unquestionable solutions as to the police procedure to be adopted in situations of refusal of identification and driving the police station for identification.
The precautionary and police measure to identify suspected criminals is currently consecrated in article 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). In addition to the articulated sub judice not making direct reference to the legal consequences that fall on a crime suspect who refuses to identify himself, the doctrine and the jurisprudence are also unable to provide a univocal answer on the police procedure to be adopted. Through the interpretation of Law, it was concluded that the penalty for the crime of disobedience, under paragraph 1, point b) of art. º 348 of the Penal Code, is the most appropriate police procedure to deal with these crimes’ situations. However, being aware that the side taken is not unequivocal and is subject to criticism, a questionnaire survey was applied to police officers serving Lisbon’s Metropolitan Police Command’s police stations. This instrument had the purpose of verifying inconsistencies regarding the police procedures that the police say they would adopt if a criminal suspect refuses to identify himself. The questionnaire survey results, carried out within the scope of this quantitative investigation, revealed that, despite the option that the coercive measure provided for paragraph 6 of article 250 of the CPC had been the most frequent, it was not unanimous. In addition, if the suspect refused to be taken to the nearest police station for identification, the inconsistencies regarding the procedure to be adopted are even more notable. In this sense, with the policemen having to decide and act quickly, a reformulation of article 250 of the CPC is pertinent, giving definitive and unquestionable solutions as to the police procedure to be adopted in situations of refusal of identification and driving the police station for identification.
Description
Keywords
identificação de suspeitos crime de desobediência medidas coativas procedimento policial medida cautelar e de polícia identification of suspects crime of disobedience coercive measures police procedure precautionary and police measure