The police have a number of powers in the field of detecting and solving crimes and misdemeanors. Some of these powers are operational in nature – they are regulated by law, but do not have a strictly formal character. One such power is to collect information from citizens – which is known in layman's terms as the notorious police interview.
The operational character of this power is precisely what causes the most confusion. Very often questions are asked: why did the police call me in for an interview? Do I have to respond? Is my statement evidence? This post deals with these very questions.
What is a police interview?
The police collect evidence and information about a crime in various ways. By collecting information from citizens, the police obtain useful information that they can use to solve the crime. Information from citizens is collected through a so-called informative interview.
A police interview is often mistakenly equated with the interrogation of a suspect – especially in the media and on social networks. A police interview (i.e., gathering information from citizens) and the interrogation of a suspect are two different things, which will be discussed in more detail later.
A summon to a police interview must contain the reason for the summon and information in what capacity the person is being summoned. It may last as long as necessary to obtain the information, but not longer than 4 hours. This period may be extended with the consent of the summoned person.
Is it mandatory to respond to the summon?
The obligation to respond to a summon is linked to the potential consequences of not responding. If the summon states that the summoned person will be forcibly brought in if they do not respond to the summon, then responding to the summon is essentially mandatory. If this warning is not stated in the summon, the summoned person will not bear any legal consequences if they do not respond to the summon.
However, the practical consequences of the summoned person’s decision not to respond to the summon should not be completely ruled out. Not responding to the summon may increase the police’s suspicion that the person is somehow connected to a criminal offense.
The same person may be summoned for a police interview multiple times, but he or she may not be forcibly brought in if he or she is summoned again about the same criminal offense.
Is the given statement evidence in court?
A statement given during a police interview cannot be used as evidence in criminal proceedings, even if it contains an admission of guilt. This rule applies only if the police interview has not developed into a formal interrogation of the suspect in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. This can happen if the police, while collecting information, assess that the summoned citizen may be considered a suspect. From that moment on, the police are obliged to inform the summoned person that he or she has the right to:
- be informed in detail and in a language he understands, as soon as possible, and always before the first hearing, of the offence with which he is charged, of the nature and reasons for the accusation, and that everything he states may be used as evidence in the proceedings;
- remain silent, refuse to answer a question, freely present his defense, admit or not admit guilt, and
- hire an attorney to attend his hearing.
If the police interview does not develop into an interrogation of the suspect, the police draw up an official note on the stetement collected from the citizen, which serves the public prosecutor’s office to direct the investigation and collect other evidence. Because of the “informal” nature of the police interview, it is sometimes used as a means of political pressure and manipulation of the public.
It should be noted that every situation is specific and every legal action has different legal and practical consequences. You can get the best legal protection by consulting with an attorney.
If you have any questions regarding the office's practice areas or the posts on this website, please feel free to contact us. All communication with the office is protected by the obligation of attorney-at-law confidentiality.