Reference no.: |
Up-2054/07 |
Objavljeno: |
Official Gazette, No. 57/2009 and OdlUS XVIII, 78 | 18.06.2009 |
ECLI: |
ECLI:SI:USRS:2009:Up.2054.07 |
Abstract: |
It is admissible that a police officer enter the dwelling of another person and conduct a crime scene search if the affected persons did not object to such. The consent must be voluntary in the sense that it may not be obtained by means of force, threat, or deception. The consent must reflect the true will of the affected persons and must be a result of their free choice. Voluntariness is a question of facts which must be resolved by taking into consideration the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The consent can be deemed admissible also in cases in which affected persons were not informed in advance of the type and the purpose of the specific investigative act of the police, however, the circumstances of the case indicate that they were aware of such.
As follows from the records of the crime scene search, the complainant was not informed in advance of the type and the purpose of the specific investigative act of the police, however, considering the circumstances of the case at issue, he could justifiably have expected that the police would conduct a crime scene search in his dwelling and secure evidence of the criminal offence. Due to the fact that the complainant's consent referred to an act of the police that he could have expected, the Supreme Court justifiably deemed that his consent was admissible. As regards the above-mentioned, Article 36 of the Constitution was not violated. |
Document in PDF: |
|
Type of procedure: |
constitutional complaint |
Type of act: |
individual act |
Date of application: |
04.06.2007 |
Date of decision: |
18.06.2009 |
Type of decision adopted: |
decision |
Outcome of proceedings: |
dismissal |
Document: |
AN03256 |