Criticism of the Swedish Police Authority for the seizure and search of a mobile phone concerning a suspected minor drug offence (possession for personal use)

Summary of the decision: Due to a suspected minor drug offence of possession for personal use, it was decided to perform an examination in the form of a urine sample. At the same time, the suspect’s mobile phone was seized and searched on site.

Regarding the seizure and search of the telephone, the Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that no specific circumstances have been reported to suggest that, in the event of a positive analysis result, the suspect would rely on a defence that needed to be refuted by referring to the content of the mobile phone. The Parliamentary Ombudsman therefore expresses considerable doubt as to whether there was a sufficiently unequivocal need to seize the mobile phone. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also questions whether the benefit of any supporting evidence recovered from the telephone was likely to be in reasonable proportion to the encroachment on the suspect’s privacy caused by the measure.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s overall assessment is that there were no legal grounds for the seizure and search of the mobile phone. The Swedish Police Authority is criticised for taking these measures regardless.