Police term in Germany

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The articles Police Science and Police Concept in Germany thematically overlap. Help me to better differentiate or merge the articles (→  instructions ) . To do this, take part in the relevant redundancy discussion . Please remove this module only after the redundancy has been completely processed and do not forget to include the relevant entry on the redundancy discussion page{{ Done | 1 = ~~~~}}to mark. KaPe ( discussion ) 13:03, Jul 30, 2013 (CEST)

The term police is not used uniformly in Germany . This is the result of the historical development and the resulting separation of police tasks.

The concept of the police in a historical change

The concept of the police has changed considerably over the course of history.

Derivation of the term "police"

The term “police” has its origins in Greek. According to one opinion, the term "politeia" used at the time referred to the constitution of the city-state and established the status of the people living there. According to another opinion, the origin of the word “police” lies more in the term “polizeia” in the Iliad written by Homer and refers to a collaborative activity: “building a wall together”.

The term "politeia" was adopted by the Romans in their language usage. Politeia described the urban community and citizenship as a reality in contrast to the res publica , which, as the legal system of this community, described the social condition to be striven for. The terms “politia” and “ius politiae” used in Latin have ultimately survived almost identically in the Germanic language area.

In 1451 the term “Policey” appeared for the first time in Germany in a confirmation of the Viennese handicrafts code for locksmiths, clock and gunsmiths by Emperor Friedrich III. ("so that under our handicrafts good mantzucht and policey are preserved"). In the following, the term can be found repeatedly in standard texts. In the 16th century, even the Imperial Police Regulations of 1530, 1548 and 1577 were issued, which had a great role model effect on territorial police regulations. The "good police" described a state of good order in the community as well as general welfare and, with the wide area of ​​legally orderly coexistence, encompassed virtually the entire legal system without making a distinction between public and private law.

The Age of Absolutism (17th / 18th Century)

A change in the definition of the police began in the 17th century in the age of absolutism . The police power ( ius politiae ) was united as the entire state power exercised inside the state in the person of the respective territorial prince and thus grew as a symbol of the domestic political exercise of power to the most important component of the unified absolute state power. From the merely descriptive nature of the “good police” and the associated regulations from the pre-absolutist period, the concept of the police has now expanded to include comprehensive sovereign authority for the entire internal state administration, including legislation and jurisdiction.

A system of separation of powers did not exist in the absolutist state. There was also no effective control against police measures, as the exercise of police power was withdrawn from the courts through the introduction of the so-called chamber justice. However, this had no function comparable to that of the courts, but was subordinate to the absolute monarch as an authority integrated into the state administration. According to today's classification, the police concept of the era would have to be assigned to state and constitutional law and not to administrative law.

Contemporary science endeavored to invent positive terms for this state, which should make it possible to justify such powers. The state theory therefore spoke of two state tasks, which are summarized materially in the police concept: the guarantee of security and the promotion of public welfare .

In this context, it is important to distinguish the understanding of welfare at that time from today's socio-political objectives: The monarchical right was considered to be the "promotion of general welfare" or "general happiness" to allow subjects their actions in political life as well as in their economic life and commercial activity as well as in the areas of custom and morality. The welfare state or police state means exercising internal state power without being bound by the constitution, parliamentary legislation and separation of powers, without consideration of private and civil rights and freedoms and without judicial protection.

The Age of Enlightenment

Johann Stephan Pütter (painting by Carl Lafontaine)

From this understanding of public welfare, the efforts of the Enlightenment must also be seen to limit the state's powers vis-à-vis the responsible “enlightened” citizen and to eliminate welfare from the material police law. In 1770 the Göttingen constitutional lawyer Johann Stephan Pütter countered the characteristic sentence of the conservative legal philosopher Christian Wolff , that the police state found its right to exist in the “limited subject understanding” that could not “recognize its right and happiness” , that the citizen was not “to his happiness forced ”. The concern for the promotion of welfare is not the actual task of the police, but the concern for the averting of impending dangers. With this revolutionary opinion of Pütter, the description of the content of police duties, the defense against danger , which is still valid today, was postulated scientifically and publicly for the first time .

Pütter's ideas, which by the way were also supported by Immanuel Kant and Wilhelm von Humboldt , had a great influence on the constitutional lawyer Carl Gottlieb Svarez . In a lecture held in 1791, he stated that the state “has a stronger right to restrictions aimed at warding off common disturbances and dangers than to those which merely result in prosperity, comfort, beauty or other such things Side benefits for the whole are to be promoted. “This enlightening, restrictive view of the police concept was adopted in the General Land Law for the Prussian States of 1794 (ALR) created by Svarez :

It is the office of the police to take the necessary steps to maintain public calm, security and order and to avert the dangers that are imminent to the public or to individual members of the public. "

However, the program of this standard remained unfulfilled. On the one hand, the Prussian ALR contained provisions that set out welfare state tasks for the police. On the other hand, in the course of the political reaction to the ideas of the French Revolution, the absolutist state did not really restrict itself to the tasks assigned to it by law. In order to legally safeguard the extensive interventions that are still practiced, various instructions for the ministries and subordinate authorities had already expanded the content of the police task codified in the ALR in 1795 and 1797, so that the new police concept of reconnaissance initially had no practical effects on the citizen would have.

For example, § 3 of the Prussian ordinance on the improved establishment of the provincial, police and financial authorities of 1808 said that the police “ are both entitled and obliged not to prevent and remove everything that is the state or its own Citizens can be dangerous or disadvantageous, therefore to take the necessary steps to maintain public peace, security and order, but also to ensure that the general good is promoted and increased. “ After 1815, the restoration , like state life as a whole, also marked the work of the police. Even in the official explanations of the draft law on police administration of 1850,“ the area of ​​the police [as] an almost unlimited ”.

The development of the liberal constitutional state using the example of Prussia

The police state in Prussia, which was formally changed but still existed in full in terms of content, only underwent real changes in the period after the revolution of 1848/1849 , and here, too, effective restrictions were only gradually enforced, as despite partly contrary liberal laws bureaucratic practice of a comprehensively understood responsibility continued largely unchanged. While the police force was restricted and the traditional police concept narrowed in the southern German states with the codification of police criminal codes, the Prussian legislature initially remained inactive. The turning point was marked by the “Kreuzberg judgment” (“ Kreuzbergerkenntnis ”) of the Prussian Higher Administrative Court from 1882. The judgment represented the starting point for the development and implementation of constitutional police law principles, as they were later also reflected in the Prussian Police Administration Act of 1931.

In the “Kreuzberg judgment”, the Prussian Higher Administrative Court had made § 10 II 17 ALR, which had long since been declared dead, but still formally in force, effective for the first time. In this decision, the court demanded a legal reservation for all sovereign orders by considering § 10 II 17 ALR as a comprehensive but also final regulation with regard to police interventions. The decision of the Berlin building authorities to refuse a building permit because the view of the Kreuzberg war memorial would be defaced, which was contested by the affected citizen, could not be based on § 10 II 17 ALR. Since the decision of the authority did not serve to avert danger but to promote welfare and there was also no special legal basis, the court declared it unlawful.

This was the first time that the highest court recognized the basic limitation of the police's tasks to averting danger and made it clear that a formal law was required for police interventions in freedom and property (legal reservation). However, the court did not determine which legal areas fall under the concept of security and can be regulated by special laws. It saw the answer to this question as the legislature's task. As a result, the Prussian legislature made extensive use of the possibility of regulating danger prevention in special legal matters.

For the Weimar Republic , it was a matter of course to adopt the liberal rule of law police concept of security. The Weimar Constitution even determined the “protection of public safety and order” to be a matter of Reich law ( Art. 9 No. 2 WRV). Since the Reich did not make use of this possibility of competing legislation (formerly: needs legislation), the main areas of hazard prevention remained state law.

An important step in the development of modern police law was the Prussian Police Administration Act (PVG) of 1931. Section 14 I PVG contained a general clause, which was in the tradition of the Kreuzberg judgment and Section 10 II 17 ALR and at the same time served as a model for all later general clauses has become: “ Within the framework of the applicable laws, the police authorities have to take the necessary measures according to their dutiful discretion in order to ward off dangers from the general public or the individual that threaten public safety or order. “In the provisions of the PVG of 1931, police law took on its classic form, in which it was later to exert considerable influence on the Federal Republic.

The time of National Socialism

The National Socialist “ seizure of power ” in January 1933 marked a decisive turning point; The law and organization of the police changed radically. The police law that has been handed down to us formally remained in place. But the general police clause (§ 14 Pr. PVG) was often reinterpreted ideologically through teaching and jurisprudence, so that the executive scope for action was considerably expanded. In particular, the indefinite protection of “public order” was misused for anti-liberal objectives. The consequence was a "verpolizeilichung" of more and more areas of life.

The aim of the National Socialist access to the police organization was to create a powerful instrument to secure the dictatorship. Step by step, the states forfeited their police sovereignty. In the course of the "synchronization of the federal states", police sovereignty passed to the Reich in 1934. In the early years of the dictatorship, however , Reich Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick only partially succeeded in gaining de facto authority over the state police. The political police assumed a special role at an early stage . In Prussia, it was separated from the context of internal administration as the Secret State Police (Gestapo) as early as 1933 and purposefully expanded to become the central state protection body of the National Socialist rulers.

The Gestapo controlled the persecution of political opponents and based its far-reaching measures (“ protective custody ”) from the start on the so-called Reichstag Fire Ordinance of February 1933. It claimed a field of activity that was “free of justice”. In a judgment of the Prussian Higher Administrative Court on May 2, 1935, judicial protection against state police measures was denied. The Gestapo thus formed the focal point of a completely new type of police term, which, detached from the police laws handed down, followed the political guidelines of the regime and paved the way for “total” police violence.

The most important milestone in the organizational upheaval of the police was the appointment of Heinrich Himmler as Reichsführer SS and head of the German police in 1936. Himmler was nominally still subordinate to the Reich Minister of the Interior. In fact the police but was always more into the sphere of influence of the Schutzstaffel included the NSDAP (SS) and suspended from the bureaucratic bonds of the "traditional" state apparatus. This process of “denationalization” went hand in hand with the progressive centralization of police power, which was clearly expressed at the Reich level in the main offices “ Security Police ” and “ Ordnungspolizei ” established in 1936 . The organizational changes had their correspondence in an escalating police activity and an increase in police power.

Protective detention order of the Gestapo against an "incorrigible homosexual"

The "protection of the German national community " moved to the center of the National Socialist police concept , which led to the Gestapo and the criminal police gaining more and more preventive police powers. Reinhard Heydrich , the chief of the security police and the SD , stated in 1938 that the police and in particular the Gestapo - regardless of the activity of the courts - had to take all means against people on their own responsibility, “from which attacks against the popular order and against the state security are to be expected ... through warnings, through confiscation of objects, through conditions, through restrictions of personal freedom, the extreme form of which is protective custody. ”The increase in power of the police was at the expense of the criminal justice system. Police instruments of coercion such as “protective custody” and “ police preventive custody” were used to undo unpleasant court decisions. In doing so, the police largely freed themselves from the rule of law and became a "dynamic" executive body of the National Socialist terror regime.

In addition to the security police , from which the Reich Security Main Office was created by merging with the security service of the Reichsführer SS on October 1, 1939 , there was also the Reich Security Service , which was responsible for the personal protection of Adolf Hitler and later other high-ranking Nazi representatives. In addition, with the commander of the security police , to whom several commanders of the security police were subordinate, the inspector of the security police and the chief of the security police to a confusing variety of official titles.

Occupation and the immediate post-war period

In February 1945, at the Yalta Conference , the Allies made the decisions that have decisively shaped the image of the police structure to this day. The focus was initially on “disempowering” the security apparatus through denazification , decentralization and demilitarization . In the post-war years, the Western powers ultimately relied on building a police structure based on democratic models and largely limiting police powers to enforcement tasks.

The most radical changes took place in the British zone of occupation. According to Art. 1 MilReg VO No. 135, the police were regarded as a non-military institution, the main tasks of which were to protect life and property, maintain law and order, prevent and investigate criminal offenses and deliver criminals to the courts had. Characteristic for the process of so-called "depolizarization" were a reduction in the police's sphere of activity and a spin-off of the administrative police ( regulatory administration ). The separation of the police and the administration of public order took place in the western occupation zones, however, with different intensity and purpose. In general police law, after the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, the West German states and West Berlin resumed the rule of law tradition before 1933. The young state police laws were conspicuously based on the Prussian PVG of 1931. Its “system of the general clause” now also found its way into police law in the southern German states.

In contrast, in the Soviet Occupation Zone ( SBZ ) the process of “denazification” was not the start of the establishment of a police administration in the rule of law. Rather, under the influence of the Soviet occupation organs, the course was set for a tightly controlled security apparatus in order to prepare and secure a communist party dictatorship. The symbol for this was the creation of a state security service ( Stasi ), which had extensive preventive police access and was not subject to judicial control. The general police law of the GDR was formally based on the Prussian PVG of 1931. The police general clause, however, was ideologically charged and aimed at the “protection of the socialist state and society” (§ 1 Law on the Duties and Powers of the German People's Police 1968). This gave the GDR police authorities extensive scope for intervention.

The police concept today

The term “police” can be defined in different ways. A distinction with regard to the material, formal and institutional terms of the police is indicated.

Material police term

The substantive police term includes state activity associated with coercive violence, which aims to ward off dangers from the general public or the individual that threaten public safety or order ( defense against danger ).

  • State security activity, independent of the administrative organization.

Institutional (organizational) concept of the police

The police concept in the institutional or organizational sense is based on belonging to a certain group of authorities, namely the police authorities. These are the public administration bodies that are part of the organizational area of ​​the police. This area is designed differently according to the historical development in the individual countries. A distinction must be made between the separation system and the unit system.

  • The administrative authorities assigned to the organizational area of ​​the police.

Formal police term

The formal police term describes the state functions carried out by the police authorities. Under the formal aspect, what is taken as the sum of police tasks and responsibilities is perceived by the public administration bodies that are institutionally (organizationally) determined as police.

  • All tasks that the police perform in an institutional sense.

The relationship between police and regulatory authorities

The various police terms gain importance when classifying the “ regulatory authorities ”. These are not assigned to the organizational area of ​​the police, but perform police tasks. A distinction between police and regulatory authorities only takes place at the state level (organizational sovereignty of the states); federal law is always based on the material police concept.

The separation of police and public order administration

The separation of police and regulatory authorities by the occupying powers, which was supposed to counteract the abuse of police force (de-policing), was carried out differently in the individual occupation zones and also when the corresponding state regulations were issued in the new federal states and is therefore found in different ways overall in today's state legislation Expression again - however, they can be divided into two structural systems, the unitary system and the separate system.

Separation system

In the separation system, there is an institutional distinction between the police authorities and the regulatory authorities (as a result of de-police). Only the police authorities are referred to as "police" in the separation system, even if the law enforcement authorities perform material police functions.

The regulatory authority is generally responsible for averting danger. In contrast, the competence of the police is limited to emergency cases, administrative assistance, enforcement assistance and special responsibilities.

The regulatory authorities are designated differently in different countries that follow the separation system: “Regulatory authority” in Berlin, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate and Schleswig-Holstein; “Administrative authorities of the danger prevention” in Hamburg, Lower Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt; "Security Authority" in Bavaria; "Security authority" in Hessen.

Specialist offices (e.g. health department ) not only have a general administrative function, but also act as regulatory offices for their subject area and are therefore responsible for averting dangers.

Unit system

In the uniform system, the tasks of averting danger are performed by a uniform authority (Prussian system). Thus the formal and the material police concept are identical here. The entire authority is called the police.

The police are divided into the police authorities (or police administration authorities) and the law enforcement service (or law enforcement police). The police authorities in turn are divided into general and special police authorities.

The police authorities are fundamentally responsible for police tasks. They take on the task of monitoring the individual areas of public life for existing dangers.

If the police authority cannot be reached or cannot be reached in time, the police enforcement service is responsible for urgent interim measures that cannot be postponed. In addition, the law enforcement service performs tasks specifically assigned to it. For certain areas there are parallel responsibilities (e.g. eviction), sole responsibility of the police authorities (confiscation) or sole responsibility of the police enforcement service (data comparison with police files).

The municipal enforcement officers of the municipal security service are not members of the police enforcement service, but belong to the local police authority . But they have the role of police officers in the context of their tasks, which are limited to the community area.

The states of Baden-Württemberg, Bremen, Saarland and Saxony are assigned to the standard system.

Comparison of separation and unit systems

The tasks of the police enforcement service in the unit system are similar to those of the police in the separation system.

The areas of responsibility of the police authorities in the unitary system are the same as those of the regulatory authorities in the separate system.

The public perception of the separation system (North Rhine-Westphalia)

The design of the separation system in North Rhine-Westphalia has to differentiate between the police and the regulatory authorities. The difference in public perception is less due to the area of ​​responsibility than to the various means of action.

The police typically fight obvious dangers quickly and unbureaucratically "on site" and at the same time perform the tasks according to § 163 StPO . Their characteristics are:

  • External sales,
  • Factual proximity,
  • Speed ​​of action,
  • Orality and formlessness.

The regulatory authorities, on the other hand, typically work bureaucratically and administratively at their desks and combat dangers that do not materialize immediately. Their characteristics are:

  • Back office,
  • Non-material,
  • Fight against danger through a disposition,
  • Writing and formality.

This image of the performance of tasks corresponds to the usual three-way division of the police in Prussia into criminal, protection and administrative police. Today it is widely spoken of a division of the police into the enforcement and administrative police (regulatory administration). However, this classification is not absolute (and therefore partly misleading). Even with the so-called “prison police”, administrative police tasks (internal administration, weapons and assembly law) continue to be carried out, and the so-called “administrative police” (order administration) undoubtedly perform enforcement police tasks. Since many municipalities in North Rhine-Westphalia started setting up uniformed field services at the end of the 1990s due to the widening staff shortage at the state police and the resulting security problems in the cities, this old classification is no longer tenable. Basically, there are two independent police authorities in North Rhine-Westphalia, each of which carries out enforcement and administrative tasks.

The responsibilities of the police and regulatory authorities (North Rhine-Westphalia)

Both the police and the regulatory authorities have been given the task of averting danger. This raises the question of the delimitation of responsibilities in countries with a separation system. Subsidiarity and specialty apply so that the general and special police and regulatory authorities perform the task of averting dangers comprehensively and without overlapping . The specific law is to be applied before the general, and more thorough desk security is preferable to less thorough on-site security. At the same time, it is better to act less thoroughly on site than not at all, or if the general law is applied rather than none at all. Only in exceptional cases do parallel responsibilities exist.

The action of the police is subsidiary to the action of the regulatory authorities to avert danger. In principle, danger prevention tasks are to be assigned to the regulatory authorities. The police will only be active in the area of ​​hazard prevention if at least temporary action cannot be postponed and the action of the regulatory authorities does not appear to be possible or not possible in time (emergency or emergency competence of the police, right of first access). Police intervention is particularly useful when a regulatory authority lacks the necessary powers, enforcement officers, material resources or specialist knowledge.

If the police act, they base their provisional measures not on the actually relevant regulatory authorities, but on their own powers. If the police have acted, they must inform the regulatory authority so that they can initiate further steps if necessary. In addition, the police must provide enforcement assistance to the regulatory authorities.

The tasks of the preventive fight against criminal offenses and the preparation for future danger prevention, which emerged in the extension of the traditional assignment of tasks, are exclusively the task of the police according to North Rhine-Westphalian state law (§ 1 PolG NRW). The North Rhine-Westphalian police are responsible, in addition to hazard prevention, for researching and prosecuting criminal offenses and administrative offenses ( § 163 StPO, §§ 53 to 55 OWiG ) as well as monitoring road traffic. The North Rhine-Westphalian regulatory authorities are responsible, in addition to hazard prevention, for researching and prosecuting administrative offenses and for monitoring stationary traffic. Measures by the regulatory authorities (as police in the material sense) are not excluded by federal law in the context of research into criminal offenses ( Section 163 StPO). However, there is no corresponding allocation of responsibility under state law.

Ordnungspolizei Hessen

In Hesse there has been since December 15, 2004, after the Hessian Security and Order Act (HSOG) was changed to the effect that municipal auxiliary police officers of the regulatory office use the designation "Ordnungspolizeibeamter" and their authorities are thus allowed to use the name "Ordnungspolizei". The background to this regulation are changes in the area of ​​responsibility of many Hessian public order offices or local administrations, which are increasingly taking on classic enforcement police tasks.

Darmstadt municipal police and Frankfurt city police

The Frankfurt City Police and the Darmstadt Municipal Police have a special position in Hesse. The employees are on an equal footing with the state police officers (Section 99 HSOG, auxiliary police officer). As part of their tasks, these have the powers of law enforcement officers and thus have the same tasks and powers as the Hessian police . All auxiliary police officers trained in Hesse have these powers through Section 99 (4) and Section 114 (1) HSOG.

The original designation as "Ordnungspolizei" turned out to be of little advantage because the term is historically burdened by its use during the Nazi era (see Ordnungspolizei ). After corresponding complaints, on November 2, 2005, the labels were removed from the vehicles already labeled "Ordnungspolizei" in the cities of Frankfurt am Main and Darmstadt . Meanwhile, the public order office of the city of Frankfurt am Main is called " City Police " and " City Police - Traffic Monitoring ". The Darmstadt Public Order Office was renamed “ Darmstadt Municipal Police ”.

literature

  • Hans Boldt / Michael Stolleis, History of the Police in Germany , in: Lisken / Denninger (Ed.), Handbuch des Polizeirechts, 4th edition Munich 2007, pp. 1–41.
  • Volkmar Götz, General Police and Regulatory Law , 13th edition, Göttingen 2001.
  • Volkmar Götz, § 2 The concern for public safety and order , in: Jeserich / Pohl / von Unruh (ed.), Deutsche Verwaltungsgeschichte Vol. 5, Stuttgart 1987, pp. 426-450.
  • Jonas Grutzpalk u. a .: Contributions to a comparative sociology of the police; Potsdam: University Press 2009 [1]
  • Peter Guttkuhn: On the police history of Lübeck . In: Police, Traffic and Technology (PVT). Trade journal for police, traffic, motor vehicle u. Arms, information, security and Forensic science, environmental protection. 36 (1991), No. 2: pp. 50-51.
  • Johann Jacob Moser: Neues teutsches Staatsrecht , reprint of the 1773 edition, Volume 16. 6 “From the State Highness in Police Matters”, Osnabrück, 1967.
  • Franz-Ludwig Knemeyer, Police and Regulatory Law , Munich 8th edition, 2000.
  • Stefan Naas, The Origin of the Prussian Police Administration Act of 1931 , Tübingen 2003.
  • Andreas Schwegel, The Concept of Police in the Nazi State , Tübingen 2005.

Individual evidence

  1. Art. "Police" in the German legal dictionary  ; see. also on the meaning of the word Grimm's dictionary: “from the 15th to the 17th century. The police were understood to mean the government, administration and order, especially a kind of moral supervision in the state and municipality and the related ordinances and rules of procedure, including the state itself, as well as state art, politics. "
  2. Volkmar Götz , General Police and Ordnungsrecht, Göttingen 13th edition 2001, para. 6th
  3. Johann Jacob Moser, Neues teutsches Staatsrecht, reprint of the 1773 edition, volume 16. 6 “From the state sovereignty in Polizey things”, Osnabrück 1967, p. 2: “§ 2 I mean here by the word: Polizey the one sovereign Rights and duties, including institutions flowing from them, which intend to put the subjects' outward conduct in common life in order and to maintain them, as well as to promote their temporal happiness. "
  4. Volkmar Götz, General Police and Ordnungsrecht, Göttingen 13th edition 2001, para. 9.
  5. Boldt / Stolleis, History of the Police in Germany, in: Lisken / Denninger (ed.), Handbuch des Polizeirechts, Munich 4th edition 2007, para. 49-51.
  6. Stefan Naas, The Origin of the Prussian Police Administration Act of 1931, Tübingen 2003.
  7. ^ Andreas Schwegel, Der Polizeibegriff im NS-Staat, Tübingen 2005.
  8. Boldt / Stolleis, History of the Police in Germany, in: Lisken / Denninger (ed.), Handbuch des Polizeirechts, Munich 4th edition 2007, para. 61-65.
  9. Volkmar Götz, § 2 The concern for public safety and order, in: Jeserich / Pohl / von Unruh (ed.), Deutsche Verwaltungsgeschichte vol. 5, Stuttgart 1987, p. 427 ff., 447 ff.
  10. ^ Franz-Ludwig Knemeyer, Polizeirecht- und Ordnungsrecht, Munich 8th edition 2000, para. 16.
  11. a b c Hartwig Elzermann, Erwin Wagner, Sven Richter, Manfred Möckl: Police law / trade law . Wiesbaden 2015, pp. 16-19 ISBN 978-3-8293-1201-1
  12. Kugelmann: Police and regulatory law. Springer Verlag, 2nd edition 2011, ISBN 978-3-642-23374-6
  13. ^ Stephan, Deger: Police Act for Baden-Württemberg. Comment. Boorberg Verlag, 7th edition 2014, ISBN 978-3-415-05247-5