Information gathering is the keystone of the police’s work, in both preventive activity and criminal investigations. This also applies to PST. There are many ways – methods – in which the police can proceed to gather information in the cases we work on. Some police methods are, however, so intrusive to the person affected that the Norwegian Parliament has drawn up special terms under which they should be used. In legal terminology such intrusive methods are referred to as “coercive measures”.
Non-statutory powers
The general freedom of action also presents opportunities for information gathering by the police. The police have the ability to observe matters that occur in public. The police surveillance activity represents systematic use of this opportunity. We can therefore observe what suspects do in public.
Even though Acts of Parliament or regulations do not govern the use of such methods, legal safeguards require that the methods are not used arbitrarily. The Norwegian Parliament has through several provisions highlighted the need for policing to be carried out on the basis of clearly defined objectives, and that it should be appropriate. Section 6 of the Police Act stresses that the means used by the police must be necessary and commensurate with the gravity of the situation, the purpose of the action taken and circumstances in general.
PST can use the non-statutory powers in investigations and in our preventive activities.
Statutory powers: coercive measures
The term “Coercive measures” relates to a number of powers that the authorities can use, but that have such an intrusive impact on the subject that the Norwegian Parliament has laid down strict terms governing the use of such powers. Arrest and detention are among the most intrusive coercive measures available to the police.
Coercive measures allowed in Norway are described in Part IV of the Criminal Procedure Act, (Chapters 13a–17b). The first provision concerning coercive measures is section 170a, which stipulates that the police can only use coercive measures where there is sufficient reason to do so, and that they may not be used when it would be a disproportionate intervention in view of the nature of the case and other circumstances.
PST may use coercive measures in its preventive activity as well as in investigations, provided that the legal provisions are complied with in each case. Section 17d of the Police Act provides the statutory basis for the use of coercive measures for the purpose of preventive activity.
On 17 July 2005, the Norwegian Parliament passed, by a large majority, provisions allowing the use of coercive measures in connection with pre-emptive investigations and preventive activity. In addition, the Norwegian Parliament introduced a couple of new powers, including audio surveillance of private property. This amendment came into force on 5 August 2005.
The use of coercive measures to avert serious crime
Section 222 d of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that if the police in the course of an investigation has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is going to commit a specific serious offence, the court may make an order permitting the police to use certain coercive measures to prevent the offence being committed. In PST’s remit, the Service can essentially use coercive measures when taking preventive action.
A warrant for the use of coercive measures to prevent someone from committing an offence can only be issued if the police would be unable to get equally good results through other means.
A warrant permitting coercive measures to be used pre-emptively can provide for searches, hidden CCTV monitoring, forensic evidence gathering, property seizures, disclosure orders, interception of communications, audio surveillance of private property and the identification of communications facilities.
The use of coercive measures in preventing terrorist acts, espionage and threats against the leaders of the country
Section 17 d of the Police Act gives PST the power to use coercive measures to prevent the most serious acts within our remit if there is reason to ascertain whether someone is preparing to commit such an act. The Norwegian Parliament has stipulated that this is a reserve measure in cases that do not lend themselves to a full criminal investigation because no specific act has been shown to be in the planning stage.