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: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.71 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. 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 artigo 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 method of interpretation of Law, it was concluded that the penalty for the crime of disobedience, under the terms of paragraph 1, point b) of art. 348 of the Penal Code, is the most appropriate police procedure to deal with these 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 on the Lisbon’s Metropolitan Police Command’s police stations. This instrument had the purpose of verifying if there are inconsistencies regarding the police procedures that the police say they would adopt, in case a crime suspect refuses to identify himself. The results of the questionnaire survey, carried out within the scope of this quantitative type investigation, revealed that, despite the option for the coercive measure provided for in paragraph 6 of article 250 of the CPC had been the most frequent, wasn`t 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 to 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 method of interpretation of Law, it was concluded that the penalty for the crime of disobedience, under the terms of paragraph 1, point b) of art. 348 of the Penal Code, is the most appropriate police procedure to deal with these 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 on the Lisbon’s Metropolitan Police Command’s police stations. This instrument had the purpose of verifying if there are inconsistencies regarding the police procedures that the police say they would adopt, in case a crime suspect refuses to identify himself. The results of the questionnaire survey, carried out within the scope of this quantitative type investigation, revealed that, despite the option for the coercive measure provided for in paragraph 6 of article 250 of the CPC had been the most frequent, wasn`t 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 to the police station for identification.
Description
Keywords
Crime Desobediência Identificação de suspeitos Impossibilidade Recusa