This is an editorial comment.
The Supreme Court has recently acquitted a police prosecutor who was charged with gross negligent misconduct after deciding to examine the contents of a mobile phone without court authorization.
It is with deep concern that we receive the final decision from the Supreme Court to acquit the police prosecutor who was charged with gross negligent misconduct in connection with an illegal search.
The case concerned a jurist who had decided to examine the contents of a mobile phone without obtaining the necessary court order. This acquittal is more than just a single legal outcome; it is a signal that seriously threatens the human rights and legal protection that we hold as the very foundation of the constitutional state.
Judicial review is not a bureaucratic obstacle – it is the very lifeblood of the protection against state abuse of power.
The main rule is crystal clear: Searches, especially of deeply personal spheres such as a mobile phone, require a prior judicial decision. The prosecution authority only has the right to bypass this principle when there is «danger in delay»; meaning, in acute emergency situations where evidence is at risk of disappearing.
When the Supreme Court, in a case where it was argued that there was no such acute danger, chooses to acquit the defendant, the threshold for holding power holders accountable is set dangerously high.
Legal Protection Comes Second
The core of the criticism is that the decision gives police jurists an unfortunate «license to fail» when it comes to using the most intrusive coercive measures. A misjudgment of whether there is «danger in delay» is not just a small discretionary misstep. It is a violation of the right to privacy (ECHR Article 8) and an attack on the very right citizens have to be protected against arbitrary interference from the authorities.
By not prosecuting gross negligence in such core situations, the Supreme Court signals that it is acceptable to prioritize emergency competence over judicial review. This blurs the absolutely necessary boundary between police authority and the rule of law. The individual is left as the vulnerable party, with a weakened protector behind them.
We expect the country’s highest court to be the foremost protector of the minority and fundamental rights. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court in this judgment has done the opposite: they have given the powerful an unnecessarily large margin of error, and thus sent a disturbing signal that legal protection comes second. This is a dark chapter for the development of law in Norway, and we demand that the police and prosecution tighten their practices and respect that the law applies to everyone – including those whose task it is to enforce it.