Disturbance of an official act
The disruption of an official act in Germany refers to an act that can be prevented according to Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
Systematic classification
According to the principle of legality and the principle of official investigation, the public prosecutor's office must investigate the matter in question if a criminal offense is suspected ( Section 160 StPO). If they are disturbed during these investigations , they or the investigator working for them on the spot ( Section 161, Paragraph 1, Section 163, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) can arrest and temporarily detain the interferer under certain conditions ( Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
The right of arrest under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be distinguished from a provisional arrest to establish identity under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which does not require interference, and the provisional arrest in the case of criminal offenses in a meeting ( Section 183 sentence 2 GVG ).
Malfunction and legal consequences
Section 164 StPO reads:
“In the case of official acts on the spot, the official who directs them is authorized to arrest persons who deliberately disrupt his official activity or who oppose the orders made by him within his jurisdiction and until the end of his official duties, but not beyond the next Day out to be held. "
The baffles in the case of a willful obstruction criminal procedural investigative measures detained , if he leave an assembly place of the official act, does not fulfill.
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to all troublemakers and thus, for example, also to legal counsel for witnesses. According to the principle of proportionality, arrest of a lawyer is only possible in exceptional cases. If the assistance interferes with interrogations in the office, as a rule, his distance from the room is sufficient (exclusion). With regard to the freedom of the press ( Art. 5 (1) GG) and the media program mandate, designated press representatives may only be restricted in connection with police operations if the police tasks could otherwise not be fulfilled.
The right of arrest empowers all responsible officials who carry out a lawful official act . This mainly affects law enforcement officers. It does not necessarily have to be an operations manager. If such a person is not present, the crew of a patrol car may, for example, proceed according to § 164 StPO. The disorder can include verbal or physical influences, for example constant shouts or pushing people away. The mere fear that there will be a disruption is not sufficient for § 164 StPO.
As a criminal prosecution measure, orders according to § 164 StPO are so-called judicial administrative acts and are subject to review by the ordinary courts, not the administrative jurisdiction .
Endangered an interferer at the same time, the public security or public order , for example, when an amount Schaulustiger hinders the road, which is the part of the police , a dismissal or the police custody as a measure of security permitted. The deprivation of liberty is to be verified by a judge's confirmation of its legality and continuity , unless the reason for the measure is likely to cease to exist until the judge's decision is due to dismissal.
In the event of such disturbances, the criminal offenses of resistance to law enforcement officers or the release of prisoners may also be examined.
Individual evidence
- ↑ Antje Dittmer: The provisional arrest according to § 127 Abs. 2 StPO. At the same time a contribution to the delimitation of preventive and repressive police action. Nomos, Baden-Baden (no year), table of contents online
- ^ Wagner, DRiZ 1983, 22, 23
- ↑ a b Alfred Rodorf: § 164 Code of Criminal Procedure (Arrest of interferers) Retrieved on March 24, 2016
- ↑ Wache, in: Karlsruhe Commentary on StPO, 5th edition 2003, § 164 Rn. 4 ff.
- ^ LG Frankfurt am Main, decision of February 26, 2008 - Az. 5/26 Qs 6/08, 5/26 Qs 6/08 Rz. 28
- ^ Lower Saxony Higher Administrative Court, decision of January 11, 2012 - 11 OB 408/11
