Illegality in Egyptian Criminal Procedure: Limits of Lawful Searches

According to Article 54 of the Constitution, personal freedom is a natural right that is inviolable. Except in cases of flagrante delicto, no one may be arrested, searched, or have their freedom restricted in any way without a justified judicial order required for investigation.

Search Regulations in the Code of Criminal Procedure no.

Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Law states that a search may only be conducted to find items related to the crime under investigation. However, if, during the search, objects are discovered that constitute a crime or help uncover the truth in another crime, the judicial officer may seize them.

The Right of Judicial Officers to Seize Evidence

Article 55 of the same law states that a judicial officer may seize documents, weapons, and anything that may have been used in the commission of a crime, resulted from its commission, or been affected by it, as well as anything that helps in uncovering the truth.

Search as a Preliminary Investigation Procedure

The essence of this is that, according to the aforementioned articles, a search is one of the preliminary investigation procedures granted to the competent investigative authority when a crime occurs and is attributed to a specific person for a particular purpose. This purpose is to seize objects used in, resulting from, or related to the crime, when the necessity of the investigation demands it, and when no other means is available to obtain such objects. It should be noted that the accused is not obligated to present evidence and cannot be forced to provide evidence against themselves in any form or for any purpose, as long as that evidence is not directly connected to the crime under investigation.

Invalidity of Evidence Resulting from Illegal Procedures

Consequently, if the accused is not caught in the act of consuming a narcotic substance, and the prosecution does not indicate that there were signs of suspicion when the accused was interrogated, the action of the public prosecution in taking a urine sample from the accused and conducting an analysis is considered arbitrary, has no legal basis, and is invalid. Any evidence derived from it is not admissible.

A Case Study Illustrating the Invalidity of Illegal Procedures

We refer here to a specific case where the Public Prosecution was investigating a manslaughter incident. Among its decisions, the prosecution ordered a urine sample to be taken from the accused and analyzed, even though during his interrogation, the investigation did not establish any visible signs that would raise suspicion of drug use. When the results showed that the accused had consumed morphine and weed, the prosecution charged him with possession of narcotics for personal use in situations not permitted by law and referred him to the Criminal Court for punishment according to the charges and description in the referral order.

The Defense of the Accused and the Invalidity of Evidence Derived from Illegal Procedures

During the trial, the defense insisted on the accused’s innocence of the crime of drug use, arguing that the case lacked any valid evidence to support the conviction of the appellant, other than the result of the urine sample analysis. This procedure, the defense argued, was arbitrary and invalid, as it lacked justification. The sample was taken and analyzed without a legal basis, given that the accused was brought before the prosecution for a manslaughter charge. The prosecution did not establish in the investigation that there were any signs of suspicion that would justify such an action, which constituted an infringement on the personal freedom of the accused and his right to bodily integrity.

Criminal Court Ruling and Confirmation of the Invalidity of Procedures

The Criminal Court acquitted the accused of the crime of using narcotics in situations not permitted by law, based on the invalidity of the procedures carried out by the Public Prosecution, specifically the collection and analysis of the urine sample from the accused, which was done without any legal basis. This decision was made despite the fact that the accused had been presented to the Public Prosecution for committing a manslaughter offense.

Appeal by the Public Prosecution and Rejection by the Court of Cassation

The Public Prosecution appealed the Criminal Court’s ruling of acquittal, claiming an error in the application of the law. It argued that the collection and analysis of the sample by the prosecution was necessary to determine the existence of an aggravating circumstance, specifically the use of drugs while driving.

Ruling of the Court of Cassation and Reasons for Rejecting the Public Prosecution’s Appeal

The Court of Cassation ruled to reject the Public Prosecution’s appeal, stating in its reasons that the evidence and investigations did not prove that the accused was caught in the act of consuming a narcotic substance or that he had committed the manslaughter while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The Public Prosecution’s investigation also lacked any indication that, during his interrogation, there were visible signs suggesting such suspicion that would necessitate taking and analyzing a urine sample, or that the procedure was voluntary on his part.

Therefore, the court held that the procedure carried out by the investigating prosecutor was merely arbitrary, with no basis in the circumstances of the case, and without justification, as it lacked legal grounds. It was deemed an infringement on the personal freedom of the respondent and his right to bodily integrity and not to be harmed physically. It also constituted an abuse of power, rendering the procedure invalid and any evidence derived from it inadmissible. Since the case lacked any other evidence sufficient to support a conviction, the court upheld the acquittal of the respondent. Consequently, the appeal by the Public Prosecution was found baseless and was therefore rejected on its merits.

Conclusion

The judicial rulings and legal texts highlight that search and arrest procedures must be based on clear and justified legal grounds in accordance with the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law. Any action taken by legal authorities without legal backing or legitimate justification is considered invalid and unacceptable, to protect personal freedom and the right to bodily integrity. This ruling emphasizes the importance of respecting legal procedures and ensuring individual rights, thereby reinforcing trust in justice and affirming that the law upholds human rights and protects them from any violation.

To find out more, please fill out the form or email us at: info@eg.Andersen.com

Contact Us