In future, police officers and prosecutors, the judge reserved to deal more easily with blood samples than in the past. It has the auto and Travel Club Germany (ARCD) out. In accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) is the arrangement of a blood sample to determine the blood alcohol concentration to really only one judge.
This reservation may also be left by the prosecutor or the investigating police officers at risk by delaying the investigation success in mind. In a paper published in this week's non-acceptance decision (2 BvR 1596/10 and 2 BvR 2346/10) on two interlinked exercises now, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the officers reach trials, the judge or prosecutor for a permit must document not mandatory.
In the presented cases, the complainant had been convicted of drunk driving to a fine. The convictions were always based on results of the investigation by the police on site arranged blood samples. According to the officials of a judicial or prosecutorial call has not been reached, which is why they made the arrangement itself.
In their constitutional complaints alleging a violation of the alcohol sinners of their basic rights to effective judicial protection and to due process of law and to physical integrity. The taking of a blood sample without a warrant was out of sight of the applicant to evidence illegally.
The 1st Chamber of the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court adopted the constitutional complaint for decision. The reason given was that it applies the principle that the court to explore the truth and to be based on the evidence of this all important facts and evidence. A lack of documentation alone can not lead to a recovery prohibition.
The same is true of the lack of a judicial or prosecutorial night-call duty. Since, according to § 81a, both the prosecution and the investigating police officers at risk of delay, to order a blood sample have standing, the result was in court. The judge reserved a decision based on the legislature, but not a constitutional requirement, the judges justified their award.
(Ampnet / jri) 
This reservation may also be left by the prosecutor or the investigating police officers at risk by delaying the investigation success in mind. In a paper published in this week's non-acceptance decision (2 BvR 1596/10 and 2 BvR 2346/10) on two interlinked exercises now, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the officers reach trials, the judge or prosecutor for a permit must document not mandatory.
In the presented cases, the complainant had been convicted of drunk driving to a fine. The convictions were always based on results of the investigation by the police on site arranged blood samples. According to the officials of a judicial or prosecutorial call has not been reached, which is why they made the arrangement itself.
In their constitutional complaints alleging a violation of the alcohol sinners of their basic rights to effective judicial protection and to due process of law and to physical integrity. The taking of a blood sample without a warrant was out of sight of the applicant to evidence illegally.
The 1st Chamber of the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court adopted the constitutional complaint for decision. The reason given was that it applies the principle that the court to explore the truth and to be based on the evidence of this all important facts and evidence. A lack of documentation alone can not lead to a recovery prohibition.
The same is true of the lack of a judicial or prosecutorial night-call duty. Since, according to § 81a, both the prosecution and the investigating police officers at risk of delay, to order a blood sample have standing, the result was in court. The judge reserved a decision based on the legislature, but not a constitutional requirement, the judges justified their award.
(Ampnet / jri)
No comments:
Post a Comment