Sentervekternes polisiære fullmakter : grunnlag og grenser
Journal article, Peer reviewed
Permanent lenke
http://hdl.handle.net/11250/174640Utgivelsesdato
2011Metadata
Vis full innførselSamlinger
Sammendrag
Policing in semi-private space such as shopping malls and railway stations
etc. is to a large extent carried out by private security companies and
not by the police, even though the areas are open to the public. The conduct
and discretion of the security officers are regulated by the wish to offer
visitors a pleasant environment, in particular conducive to shopping.
This creates a risk for discrimination and violation of the fundamental
right to liberty of movement for less desirable group of visitors.
Except from the provision in The Criminal Procedure Act Section 176 on
civil arrest and the right to use necessary force, laid down in the Civil
Penal Code Section 48, there are no statutory regulations of the security
officer’s policing powers. The general freedom of action provides the security
officer a right to observe, and within limits also to follow individuals.
The Personal Information Act, however, will to a large extent prohibit
the security company recording their observations and actions. It may
also be argued that the patrolling of public areas in shopping malls and
railway stations etc by security officers is a “private activity whose purpose
it is to maintain public peace and order” and as such is in breach of
The Police Act Section 26. Actions such as arrests, seizures and turning
people away may be based on consent from the person concerned, but it
must be required that the consent is informed and free, and if possible also
considered. The ability of under aged individuals to give a valid consent
may also be a problem. Even though the shopping mall is privately owned
and on private ground, the permission to establish it has been based on
the idea that it shall be accessible and open to the public. It might therefore
be argued that owners’ right to regulate access to the area should be
restricted by “an urban right of way” in analogy with the statutory public
right of rural way in Norway and Sweden. Only persons showing improper
behaviour causing disturbance and danger, should be expelled or for
a period of time denied access.
Beskrivelse
Dette er siste tekst-versjon av artikkelen, den kan inneholde ubetydelige forskjeller fra forlagets pdf-versjon.