KUWAIT CITY, Oct 15: In a significant ruling, the Criminal Court cautioned police and traffic officers against searching suspects without obtaining permission from the Public Prosecution. The court stressed that “observing a suspect in an abnormal state does not equate to sufficient evidence of the crime of possessing narcotic or psychotropic substances.” As a result, the court acquitted an individual who was charged with possession of narcotic substances (hashish) and psychotropic substances with the intent to trade and use. According to the case file, a police officer stopped the defendant at a security checkpoint after noticing his strange behavior. Upon requesting identification, the officer found that the defendant did not have his driver’s license. As a precaution, the officer searched and then ordered the defendant to board the patrol car, after which he retrieved the confiscated items. The court stated that, although the officer correctly stopped the accused at the security checkpoint, he should have ceased further procedures at that point. The discovery that the accused did not have a driver’s license, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to three months under Article 3 of Traffic Law No. 3/1982, did not warrant the search that followed.
Misdemeanor
Although this misdemeanor allows the police officer to issue a traffic ticket, it does not justify arresting and searching the accused solely for lacking a driver’s license, as this offense is not listed among the cases warranting arrest under article 4(4) of the traffic law. The conditions outlined in Article 5(5) of the Criminal Procedures and Trials Law did not apply to the accused. The court explained that the police officer’s testimony did not indicate that he asked the accused for his name and address, or that the accused refused or provided an unconvincing statement about his identity. There was also no mention that the accused gave a false name or address, or that he refused to go to the police station without explanation. Furthermore, the officer did not claim that the accused was taking measures to conceal his presence or that there was strong evidence suggesting he was attempting to escape. Also, while a police officer can search an accused person and their vehicle without a warrant from the public prosecutor if they observe the accused in an abnormal state, this alone does not constitute sufficient evidence of a crime, such as possession of narcotic or psychotropic substances.
Moreover, the officer did not state that the accused was known to him, nor did he provide any serious indications that warranted the arrest or search of the accused without a legal basis. The court concluded by stating that the actions taken by the police officer in terms of the arrest and search were conducted in circumstances not permitted by law. As a result, the arrest of the accused, the search of the accused and his vehicle, and the subsequent actions, such as sending him to the Public Prosecution for a urine test by the General Department for Criminal Evidence, were deemed illegal and invalid, especially since the accused did not admit to having consumed the narcotic or psychotropic substance. During the court session, the counsel representing the defendant Lawyer Abdul Mohsen Al- Qattan explained the circumstances of the case, insisting that the arrest and search procedures were invalid due to the lack of a case of flagrante delicto, the absence of elements constituting the alleged crimes, and the implausibility of the incident itself.