By Jean Claude Salomon, University René Descartes Paris V, Visitng professor
at Sam Houston State University. Crime
analyst and security consultant., Former Attaché de Mission IHESI ( FrenchMinistry of Interior)
Abstract
Police ethics
in France: A twenty one years overview
In
Since then, a
number of events and changes have occurred, impacting on the implementation and
use of the police code of ethics.
The Socialist
party lost power, especially after the 2002 presidential election. A breakdown
of the major police union federation which was left of center and partly
responsible for the introduction of the code of ethics resulted in a weakening
of police unions in general and a shift towards the right of those remaining.
Immigration became a major political issue beginning in the early 1990’s. In
the aftermath of the 9/11 bombings, France as well as other countries has
increased stricter security measures and restricted some civil liberties.
We will look at
the introduction of a police code of ethics in France, its initial application
and the new events that have strongly impacted on police ethics since then.
Police ethics is an ongoing and dynamic process, as will be clearly developed,
resulting today in a shift from ethics to security, as will be illustrated.
Excessive use of
force, racial profiling and sensitivity to communities are currently important
issues not only to the police but to the public in general, especially after the
events of September 11th and their aftermath. Recent events in the
UK as well as elsewhere in Europe and North America illustrate the difficulties
of reconciling police ethics and the general trend towards increased security
concerns on the part of governments and their police forces.
It is
appropriate, against this back ground, to look at the history and application
of police ethics in France over the past twenty years. The introduction of
police ethics in France was regarded at the time as an important step in
increasing professionalism. But what has happened since, especially in the
context of increased security concerns, not only with terrorism but crime in
general? This paper would like to cover some of the issues raised and suggest
some perspectives.
The advent of a
socialist government beginning in 1981 marked new relations concerning police
and justice in France. The major act was the abolition of the death penalty.
Policing was also seen as in need of reform.
This began with the policy of a more ambitious program of initial and in
service training, with the aim of having a more professional, better qualified
and more open minded police, closer to the population. During the same period,
however, France experienced urban violence on what was then felt to be an
important scale. This development also created new pressures on policing and
relations with the public.
French police
unions during this new period were also quite active and busy lobbying. This
was notable concerning the Fédération Autonome des Syndicats de Police (FASP), an autonomous federation of police
unions, close to the then socialist government. This federation included the
majority of police officers of lower ranks, simple police officers and
sergeants. The command structure (Commissaires) remained of this outside of this
federation as they had and still have their own union, marked on the right.
For the FASP, one of their objectives was to
increase their power within the police. It is in this context that they lobbied
for a code of ethics, which in theory more clearly defined their relations and
power in regards to their authorities.
A further reason
for introducing police ethics in the French police was rooted in its history
though this was both a justification and a real necessity. One of the key
articles (article 17) refers to orders considered to be illegal by a police
officer. Though not referred to specially, this article has its roots in the
police activities during the Vichy regime (1941-1944) with the persecution of
Jews as well as resistance movements.
It also has its
roots in two other lesser known events, the Algerian War and in particular the
events of October 1961 with the death of an unknown number of Algerian workers
(estimated at over 200), mostly drowned in the Seine River by the police of the
Prefecture de Police de Paris. The
second event was the kidnapping of Medhi Ben Barka in October 1965 by several
police officers in conjunction with the secret services of Morocco.
The French Police
Nationale only
had rules and regulations and a legal framework based on the “Code de
Procédure Pénale”, the code of penal procedure which
regulates police activity in regards to arrests, searches, seizures and
interrogations and all legal activity of policing dealing criminal
investigations.
The other fundamental text is the « Déclaration des droits
de l’homme et du citoyen de 1789 ». In the French Constitution, this
text is in the preamble and is posted in police stations throughout France.
Dominique Monjardet[1]
rightly points out both the importance of this context and the contradictions
with the police laws of 1986 and 1995. Its Article
Prior to the introduction
of this police code of ethics, nothing existed in the way of police ethics in
France. It should be noted however that
the Gendarmerie Nationale, a French military police force
has always had a military code as well as rules and regulations.
The Gendarmerie
Nationale, the
French military police force, initially charged with policing rural areas, had
its own rules and regulations long before its civilian cousin. The oldest is the « Decrét organique du 20 mai, 1903 portant règlement sur le service de la
gendarmerie ».
More important, is the « Règlement de Discipline
Générale des Armées de 1975 ». This set of regulations applies to
all military personal, including the Gendarmerie. Article 8, introduced ten years
before the police code of ethics, and specifies that a military has the
obligation to refuse orders contrary to French laws.
Another element
influenced the introduction of a police code of ethics. This external element
was updating French police regulations to European norms. The main element
remains the “Resolution 690 (1979) on the Declaration on the Police
of the Council of Europe”. This is the reference in regards
to police activities for the member states.
Several other
documents also constitute references, notably the “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, Resolution 39/46 of December
Officially, the
French National Police have a police code of ethics since March 1986, “Code de Déontologie de la Police Nationale, Decret, n°86.592”. This code of ethics contains 20
articles, divided into four sections. Section 1 deals with the general
principles governing the National Police in regards to its role, its relations
to the government and the principals of the Constitution.
In the 2d section
(Titre I), the role of the police as a
civil servant invested with specific powers of police, including the use of
force, powers of detention but also the obligation to respect all persons
regardless of race, religion and political beliefs and individual liberties of
police officers are clearly defined.
The 3 d
section (Titre II), deals with the rights and obligations of police officers
concerning issuance of authority, orders and execution or non execution of the
above.
The 4th
section (Titre III), concerns the control of the police by the judicial
authorities as well as by the internal inspection services.
In his analysis
of the mandate of the police and Article 12 mentioned, Dominique Monjardet
quite rightly raises the classic question “Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?”[3]
who will guard use from the guardians? This question is at the core of police
ethics as we shall see.
Regarding the
code of ethics, Dominque Monjardet raises another important point. The first
two articles of the “Code de Déontologie de la Police Nationale” reverse the priorities of the police function. Article 1
states that the essential mission of the police is to assure public order, the defense of the institutions and the protection of persons and
property.
Then article 2
states that the police operate in respect to human rights, in accordance with
the “Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen”, the Constitution and international agreements and laws[4].
Once the Code in place,
it was incorporated in the training programs, was posted in police stations
through out France and became part of police ethics. However, this was not
quite the way things developed. Police ethics as other elements of police
culture are part of an ongoing, dynamic process.
In mentioning
police culture, we refer to an old debate about the nature of police culture, a
debate which is not part of this paper and which we think has since been
recognized as founded by most sociologists working on policing. None the less
police culture does exist and is governed by a set of rules which this author
considers to be fairly universal, based on over twenty years of work within the
police in France but also with other police services, both in the field and in
the academic arena.
It is one thing
to decide a policy and implement it within an organization such the police. It
is quite another to make it work and function on a daily basis for a long
period of time.
Training is an
example in point. You can train young, new police recruits, with good scholarly
backgrounds. But once the training is over and they are out in the field, a new
training process begins, much more profound. All of the issues regarding use of
force, sensitivity and respect are confronted by the reality principal, which
is not taught in police schools.
When out in the
streets with colleagues, a new training process occurs. So it is with police
ethics. Training is one thing, been out in the streets applying ethics is
another thing. It is very significant that when French police officers talk
about the “Code”, they always refer to the “Code de Procédure
Pénale” and never the “Code de
Déontologie”.
This
contradictory situation, in France, is compounded by the difficulty of changing
governments, political ideologies and priorities. Between May 1981 and June
2005, France has had 13 ministers of the interior, most of whom served on
average of two years, during 6 changes of political orientations. During this
period, a gradual change began with the fight against crime becoming a priority
over that of police ethics as we shall see shortly.
More important
still, we are now, not only in France but worldwide, in a situation where the
priority is the fight against terrorism. It is the ultimate current priority
and this entails, necessarily, encroachment of civil liberties and thus impacts
on the use of police ethics.
After the
publication and posting of the March 1986 decree, a police code of ethics
became a reality. The minister of the Interior (in charge of police) was
happy to have a more responsible police,
the police unions were happy with new relations with their hierarchy and the
public was reassured to have a police respectful of law and the interests of
citizens.
As the years
moved, on however, the code began to become forgotten, no longer linked to
practical everyday policing. « Fine, we have a code of ethics; we don’t
need to prove anything ». And so the code became a formal reference, no
longer rooted in practice.
And France once
again experienced a new « Alternance », a change in party majority
which governed France. The new minister of the Interior, Charles Pasqua (March
1986-May 1988) and again (March 1993-May 1995) decreed that the police were too
hampered by laws, and questions of human rights in their fight against crime.
The police should
be freer in their fight against criminals, so the code of ethics was fine but
not a priority. The minister, in his wisdom decided to give orders, written,
public, that the police should have a free hand in their fight against crime.
He officially announced that he would cover any « incident » as the
priority of fighting crime was the right one.
Yet at the same
time he gave token recognition to the code of ethics by distributing to the 120,000
police officers a plastic laminated copy of the code of ethics with one minor change. It only contains the first twelve
articles. In other words, sections 3 and 4 are missing and notably article 17.
It also became
clear that in itself, the code of ethics was not sufficient but needed to be
complemented by a police complaints authority to impose a form of compliance to
the code of ethics and insure its practice.
In passing, it
should be noted that the idea of creating a form of police complaints authority
had been in process for some time before this minister’s coming into office.
The author and one of the speakers at this conference, among others, researched
complaints authorities in other countries and supplied several reports.
Dominique Monjardet was among those who made several suggestions and remarks
concerning implementing a similar authority in France, in relation to the code
of ethics.
A brief history
of the variations of ethics commissions is in order. The first attempt began in 1993 with the Conseil Supérieur de l’activité
de la Police Nationale, Décret du 16 février 1993. This commission was charged with a limited oversight of
police activities. The change of government in May of the same year, with a
right of center government resulted in a new decree abolishing the February
decree. The founding members of the original Conseil received
summonses for the first session on the same day as the newspapers announced the
decree abolishing the Conseil (7 mai 1993)[5].
The new minister then proposed a new
commission, with even more limited powers, the Haut Conseil
de Déontologie de la Police, Décret 93-1081 du 9 septembre 1993. The powers were limited to publishing a yearly report
(never published) and useful proposals for the police, notably in regards to
training. Complaints were strictly excluded for the activities of this Conseil, in spite of the title
mentioning ethics.
This Conseil was in turn abolished by a decree of August 2000 by the new
minister, close to the socialist party who returned to office in 1997. And a new commission, the Commission
Nationale de Déontologie de la Sécurité was established by a law 2000-494 of the 6th June, 2000.
This new
commission, still in activity, has several differences over the previous
commissions. First, this commission can and does receive complaints, though
through a complicated process. Second, activities and complaints concern all
the security forces, not only the Police Nationale but also the Gendarmerie
Nationale, the
municipal police and private security.
Since its
creation this commission has received more and more complaints, in particular
charges of racial profiling and excessive use of force against visible
minorities.
The fact that a
code of ethics was the production of a larger reform program on the part of the
socialist government that came to power in 1981 greatly influenced its focus.
Again, this was only one component of the reform project which was essentially
focused on training, initial and in service.
Amongst the new
structures added to the already existent police schools, was a new in-service
training center near Paris at Gif sur Yvette (Centre
Nationale d’Etudes et de Formation de la Police Nationale), a training center in Clermont-Ferrand which was also
responsible for producing training material and foreign language training and l’Institut
des Hautes Etudes de la Sécurité Intérieure (IHESI).
This last
structure was quite unique in that it combined several activities, all with the
aim of increasing police professionalism and increased awareness of security
issues. L’IHESI was designed with two major poles, high level training and
awareness programs and research on public policies concerning security.
The training
component had in the early planning been designed as a sort of command course
for senior police officers (commissaries divisionnaires) with the intention of providing them with a training
program enabling them to then become directors of the various services in the Police Nationale.
When created
however, it was decided to enlarge the scope of the training program to include
senior level civil servants from other administrations, members of parliament
and representatives from the private sector, including persons from the media,
religious leaders and lawyers. The premise behind this new orientation was that
internal security should become a common concern like defense, which has since 1945 its own training program mixing military,
other administrations and the private sector. Of course, in this context,
ethics generally was included and l’IHESI served as the focal point for planning concerning a
complaints authority.
This was also the
period where the police unions were extremely active, prompting the specialized
press to say that the “vice minister” of the interior was the then secretary
general of the FASP, the majority police union and which had lobbied for the
code of ethics. Two of its member produced an annotated version of the “Code de Déontologie de la Police
National”[6] in support of the original goal.
In spite of its
importance, the FASP experienced several severe setbacks, due to lack of
financial transparency, leadership conflict, conflicts between member organisations
and strong pressure from C.Pasqua, minister of the interior during the
period March 1993-mai 1995. The end
result was the dissolution of this federation of unions in 1996 followed by
bankruptcy in 1997[7].
Thus the main support for police ethics finally ended though one or two unions
still place ethics as a priority.
These events were
parallel to the demise of the various socialist governments who had initially
supported and advocated a police code of ethics. The change beginning in May
2002, with the return of the right, has strongly impacted on lowering standards
regarding police ethics.
The introduction
of the French police code of ethics came at a time when social, political and
security issues had not yet caused current public and political concern. With
these new concerns, political pressure resulted and security, immigration and
now terrorism are part of the political arena.
This in turn, has
had as a consequence increased pressures on policing and in particular the
minister of the interior has become high profiled, in part due to the strong
personality and publicity on the part of the current minister, N.Sarkozy (May
2002-March 2004 and from June 2005 to present).
As with one of
his predecessors, his focus has been on resultants, including increasing the
number of irregular immigrants been expulsed and lowering crime rates. Though
this paper is not focused specifically on these issues, much can be said about
the manipulation of crime statistics and can also be said about the treatment
of immigrants in irregular situations.
During this
period, immigration and fear of crime became major political issues, in
particular due to high profile media management of crimes which were in turn
used during the political campaign for the spring 2002 elections.
Immigration has
increasingly become a major priority for the new governments in place since
2002. N.Sarkozy clearly designated objectives for increased controls and higher
rates of expulsions. As of the summer of 2005, several European governments have
decided to proceed with combined flights of illegal immigrants to their country
of origin.
This in turn has
for effect increased racial profile based identity checks in public spaces with
resulting concern by members of visible minorities as well as French nationals
from overseas departments. Police training in this area, coupled with police
ethics has little impact on practical day to day policing. As says Thomas
Feltes[8],
a fool with a tool is still a fool.
In their book “Police, Les
mal-aimés de la Républiqué”[9],
Jean-Pierre Corcelette and
Frédéric Abadie approach this period, with numerous examples, statistics and
interviews with police of all ranks. One of the critical French TV programs,
“Arrêt sur Image”[10]
analyzes French TV. During September 2001, at the height of the election
campaign, the three major French TV chains showed 158 news subjects on
insecurity and only 60 after the elections.
One of the results of this was of course
the first ballot surprise with the extreme right candidate Jean-Marie LePen in
second position behind the out going president, Jacques Chirac but before the
socialist candidate, Lionel Jospin. Again, crime and insecurity were the major
issues of both rounds of the presidential election with the consequences of
mobilizing the police and police unions, with a stance on being “tough on
crime”. Against this backdrop, ethics has become a minor concern and policy in
policing.
H.Packer[11]
correctly identified more than 30 years ago the underlying conflict of crime
control on one hand and due process on the other hand as well as group think
phenomenon in police culture. His model, below, clearly indicates the
foundations of the persistent conflict with “results” policing versus “rule
abiding” policing in which police ethics is totally linked.
|
Crime Control Assembly-line justice |
Due Process Obstacle-course justice |
|
Efficiency (of operation) Magnitude (speed and finality) Expertness (few restrictions on fact
finding) Factual guilt (we know you did it) Presumption of guilt (a mood of
confidence) |
Error (possibility of mistake) Quality control (no emphasis on
finality) Skepticism (moral, utilitarian
restriction) Legal guilt (prove it in a court
of law) Presumption of innocence (mood of
doubt) |
Perspectives
As elsewhere, France is also
experiencing changes in governance. The more obvious one concerns privatisation
of public services, in particular certain aspects of policing. F.Ocqueteau[12]
has recently written on this aspect and this can be seen simply with passenger
screening at French airports, until a few years ago, the monopoly of the State.
In the sphere of private security,
ethics is much more difficult to implement simply because of high turnover
coupled with low recruitment standards and work conditions. To these
conditions, one has to add the essential point concerning private security, the
practice of selecting the lowest bidder in most cases. All these conditions
combined make it very difficult to apply a code of ethics in the private
sector.
In the works will also be the shift
in power accorded to mayors regarding police policies applied to their cities.
Since this is still a project, subject to ministerial approval, little can be
said. This project has been in discussion for over a year and subject to review[13].
When the new security law incorporating these new powers will be voted, the
role of the mayor will increase and with it local political pressure on the
police for more and speeder results. This in turn should affect the application
of police ethics again, simply by granting greater priority to results rather
than police conduct regarding the public.
Intelligence gathering by law
enforcement agencies in general is in total contradiction with police ethics.
By its very nature, intelligence and surveillance are intrusive activities,
regardless of combating organized crime, terrorism or radical political
activities. The secrecy involved, the lack of accountability and the covert nature
go against most rules of police ethics, in France as elsewhere.
Gary Marx especially has written at
length on the subject and the problems of accountability involved[14].
Gary Marx in his various writings gives considerable attention to such police practices
as undercover work, infiltration, covert surveillance and sting
operations.
Police ethics, in France as in other
countries is increasingly under strain due to terrorism. The recent shooting of
an innocent in London is a case in point of excessive use of force,
indiscriminate police operations and lack of ethics in what already appears to
be a cover up by the Metropolitan Police authorities.
This raises the question of the
exact role and place of police ethics under increasing pressures. In the best
conditions, as was the case of the introduction of police ethics in France, it
rapidly appeared that the original expectations were undermined by existing
police culture, expectations of police performance in terms of the fight
against crime and weakened support for the original aims.
Added to this already difficult
setting, we’ve seen additional pressures rendering the day to day application
of ethics more problematic. There remains the external component, in the form
of a complaint’s authority, which serves to remind police officers that ethics
exist as well as the rule of law. In the future, perhaps more attention should
be focused on this aspect, in addition to ethics itself. And where it is
possible, a civilian oversight body would also give additional support to
police ethics though one should keep in mind a central aspect of police
culture, “them or use”. Civilian oversight is always faced by this essential
dimension of police culture, for good or bad.
Police ethics is also about trust,
as developed by Sara.E.Stoutland[15].
For her, trust is a four point question addressed by the local population
towards their police, in Boston but also pertinent for France.
1 - Do they share our priorities and
motivations?
2 - Are they competent?
3 - Are they dependable in
fulfilling their responsibility?
4 - Are they respectful?
An overview of police ethics in
France illustrates some of the dilemmas one finds in most police services
throughout the world. In France, the introduction of ethics was part of a
program of modernisation and professionalisation of a police traditionally
based on order maintenance. Accountability, associated with
policing in North America and the United Kingdom not only has no equivalent in
the French language but was until recently an unknown concept, especially
applied to the police.
These are additional obstacles to change that are inferred
by the introduction of a code of ethics and its application. In the end, the main issue remains power within the
organisation and among the various components. Dominique Monjardet[16]
quite rightly indicated why several reform policies didn’t work, because of the
danger of disturbing the delicate balance of power which was shared by the
police unions at the time as well as the police hierarchy. And, last he asks as
to the need for a code of ethics, which he considers to be a “meta law”[17],
which is meant to explain what is not in the existing laws but which will also
call for new interpretations.
Annexe 1
Annexe
2
Décret
n° 86-592 du 18 mars 1986
portant
code de déontologie de
Le
Premier ministre,
Sur
le rapport du ministre de l'intérieur et de la décentralisation,
Vu
la loi n° 66-492 du 9 juillet 1966 portant organisation de la Police Nationale
;
Vu
la loi n° 83-634 du 13 juillet 1983 portant droits et obligations des
fonctionnaires ;
Vu
la loi n° 85-835 du 7 août 1985 relative à la modernisation de la Police
Nationale ;
Le
Conseil d'Etat (section de l'intérieur) entendu,
Décrète:
TITRE
PRELIMINAIRE
Art.
1er. - La Police Nationale concourt, sur l'ensemble
du territoire, à la garantie des libertés et à la défense des institutions de
la République, au maintien de la paix et de l'ordre publics et à la protection
des personnes et des biens.
Art.
2. - La Police Nationale s'acquitte de ses missions
dans le respect de la Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, de la
Constitution, des conventions internationales et des lois.
Art.
3. - La Police Nationale est ouverte à tout
citoyen français satisfaisant aux conditions fixées par les lois et règlements.
Art.
4. - La Police Nationale est organisée
hiérarchiquement. Sous réserve des règles posées par le code de procédure
pénale en ce qui concerne les missions de Police judiciaire, elle est placée
sous l'autorité du ministre de l'intérieur.
Art.
5. - Le présent code de déontologie s'applique aux
fonctionnaires de la Police Nationale et aux personnes légalement appelées à
participer à ses missions.
Art.
6. - Tout manquement aux devoirs définis par le
présent code expose son auteur à une sanction disciplinaire, sans préjudice, le
cas échéant, des peines prévues par la loi pénale.
TITRE
1er
DEVOIRS
GENERAUX DES FONCTIONNAIRES DE
Art.
7. - Le fonctionnaire de la Police Nationale est
loyal envers les institutions républicaines. Il est intègre et impartial : il
ne se départit de sa dignité en aucune circonstance.
Placé
au service du public, le fonctionnaire de Police se comporte envers celui-ci
d'une manière exemplaire.
Il a le respect absolu des personnes, quelles que soient leur nationalité ou
leur origine, leur condition sociale ou leurs convictions politiques,
religieuses ou philosophiques.
Art.
8. - Le fonctionnaire de la Police
Nationale est tenu, même lorsqu'il n'est pas en service, d'intervenir de sa
propre initiative pour porter assistance à toute personne en danger, pour
prévenir ou réprimer tout acte de nature à troubler l'ordre public et protéger
l'individu et la collectivité contre les atteintes aux personnes et aux biens.
Art.
9. - Lorsqu'il est autorisé par la loi à utiliser
la force et, en particulier, à se servir de ses armes, le fonctionnaire de
Police ne peut en faire qu'un usage strictement nécessaire et proportionné au
but à atteindre.
Art.
10. - Toute personne appréhendée est placée sous la
responsabilité et la protection de la Police ; elle ne doit subir, de la part
des fonctionnaires de Police ou de tiers, aucune violence ni aucun traitement
inhumain ou dégradant.
Le
fonctionnaire de Police qui serait témoin d'agissements prohibés par le présent
article engage sa responsabilité disciplinaire s'il n'entreprend rien pour les
faire cesser ou néglige de les porter à la connaissance de l'autorité
compétente.
Le
fonctionnaire de Police ayant la garde d'une personne dont l'état nécessite des
soins spéciaux doit faire appel au personnel médical et, le cas échéant,
prendre des mesures pour protéger la vie et la santé de cette personne.
Art.
11. - Les fonctionnaires de Police peuvent
s'exprimer librement dans les limites résultant de l'obligation de réserve à
laquelle ils sont tenus et des règles relatives à la discrétion et au secret
professionnels.
Art.
12. - Le ministre de l'intérieur défend les
fonctionnaires de la Police Nationale contre les menaces, les violences, les
voies de fait, les injures, diffamations ou outrages dont ils sont victimes
dans l'exercice ou à l'occasion de leurs fonctions.
TITRE
II
DROITS
ET DEVOIRS RESPECTIFS DES FONCTIONNAIRES
DE POLICE ET DES AUTORITES DE COMMANDEMENT
Art.
13. - L'autorité investie du pouvoir hiérarchique
exerce les fonctions de commandement. A ce titre, elle prend les décisions et
les fait appliquer ; elle les traduit par des ordres qui doivent être précis et
assortis des explications nécessaires à leur bonne exécution.
Art.
14. - L'autorité de commandement est responsable des
ordres qu'elle donne, de leur exécution et de leurs conséquences. Lorsqu'elle
charge un de ses subordonnés d'agir en ses lieu et place, sa responsabilité
demeure entière et s'étend aux actes que le subordonné accomplit régulièrement
dans le cadre de ses fonctions et des ordres reçus.
Le
fonctionnaire de Police doit exécuter loyalement les ordres qui lui sont donnés
par l'autorité de commandement. Il est responsable de leur exécution ou des
conséquences de leur inexécution.
Art.
15. - L'autorité de commandement transmet ses
ordres par la voie hiérarchique. Si l'urgence ne permet pas de suivre cette
voie, les échelons intermédiaires en sont informés sans délai.
Art.
16. - Hors le cas de réquisition, aucun ordre ne
peut être donné à un fonctionnaire de Police qui ne relève pas de l'autorité
fonctionnelle de son auteur, si ce n'est pour faire appliquer les règles
générales de la discipline.
Art.
17. - Le subordonné est tenu de se conformer aux
instructions de l'autorité, sauf dans le cas où l'ordre donné est manifestement
illégal et de nature à compromettre gravement un intérêt public. Si le
subordonné croit se trouver en présence d'un tel ordre, il a le devoir de faire
part de ses objections à l'autorité qui l'a donné, en indiquant expressément la
signification illégale qu'il attache à l'ordre litigieux.
Si l'ordre est maintenu et si, malgré les explications ou l'interprétation qui
lui en ont été données, le subordonné persiste dans sa contestation, il en
réfère à la première autorité supérieure qu'il a la possibilité de joindre. Il
doit être pris acte de son opposition.
Tout
refus d'exécuter un ordre qui ne répondrait pas aux conditions ci-dessus engage
la responsabilité de l'intéressé.
Art.
18. - Tout fonctionnaire de Police a le devoir de
rendre compte à l'autorité de commandement de l'exécution des missions qu'il en
a reçues, ou, le cas échéant, des raisons qui ont rendu leur exécution
impossible.
TITRE
III
DU
CONTROLE DE
Art.
19. - Outre le contrôle de la chambre d'accusation,
qui s'impose à eux lorsqu'ils accomplissent des actes de Police judiciaire, les
personnels de la Police Nationale et les autorités administratives qui les
commandent sont soumis au contrôle hiérarchique et au contrôle de l'inspection
générale de l'administration et, s'agissant des seuls personnels de la Police
Nationale, également à celui de l'inspection générale de
Art.
20. - Le ministre de l'intérieur et de la
décentralisation est chargé de l'exécution du présent décret, qui sera publié
au Journal Officiel de la République française.
Fait
à Paris, le 18 mars 1986.
Par
le Premier ministre
Laurent FABIUS
Le Ministre de l'Intérieur et de la Décentralisation
[1] Monjardet, D (1996) Ce que fait la police – Paris, Editions
[2] Author, translation
[3].Monjardet,D (1996)
[4] Monardet, D (1996)
[5] Author (1998) interview with a member
[6] Porra, S & Paoli, C (1991) Code annoté de déontologie policière – Paris, L.G.D.J.
[7] Author, personal notes
[8] Feltes, T (2003) – Immigration, integration and
insecurity : the roleof police ethics and police training – Lecture,
CEPOL Police Science Conference, Solna,
[9] Corcelette, J-P & Abadie,F (2003) Police, Les mal-aimés de la République –
Paris, Balland
[10] Arrêt sur Image, October 7, 2002, France 5
[11] Packer,H (1968) The
limits of the criminal sanction – Palo Alto, Stanford University Press
[12] Ocqueteau, F (2005) Police, entre Etat et marché – Paris, Presses de Sciences Po
[13] Author (2005) personal notes with advisor to the minister
[14] Marx,G
(1985) Police undercover
work :ethical deceptions or deceptive ethics ? in Heffernan,W
& Stroup, T (1985) Police ethics:Hard
choices in law enforcement –New York, John Jay Press
[15] Stoutland,
S (2001) The multiple diemsion of trust
in resident/police relations in Boston- in Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol 38, N°3, August
2001
[16] Monjardet, D (1996), page
222
[17]Montjardet, D (1996), page 288