Distinction between Judicial and Administrative Police

Extract

[...] Thus, according to the finalist criterion, judicial police can be defined as 'the set of activities aimed at finding the authors or evidence of a specific offense' while administrative police has the purpose of participating in a 'general surveillance mission aimed at preventing disturbances to public order'. The author highlights that this criterion is the one to be retained since jurisprudence uses it constantly to operate the distinction between judicial police and administrative police. Thus, jurisprudence has been using it since a decision of the Council of State of 24 July 1953 and was confirmed by the Tribunal of Conflicts in its decision of 22 April 1985. [...]

[...] Thus, determining whether the activity or act in question corresponds to a preventive or repressive activity would allow for the differentiation between judicial police and administrative police. However, the author points out that this criterion is not always easy to implement and that it is 'too schematic' and that there are therefore cases where the distinction between repressive and preventive is not always clear. That is why the author is interested in a finalist criterion. II) The criterion retained and its limits Thus the author is oriented towards a finalist criterion which is validated by its use by jurisprudence but which is not an absolute criterion for operating the distinction between judicial police and administrative police The relevance of the finalist criterion validated by jurisprudence The author ultimately determines that the best criterion for effectively distinguishing administrative police from judicial police is the finalist criterion. [...]

[...] The excerpt of text to be commented is from the Administrative Contentious Proceedings Directory published in September 2005 and deals more particularly with the criterion for distinction between judicial police and administrative police. Thus, this text raises questions about the most relevant criterion for distinguishing judicial police from administrative police. In the first place, the author explains the insufficient criteria for distinguishing between judicial police and administrative police before establishing the criterion that must be retained even if it is not absolute (II). [...]

[...] However, this criterion is not absolute, as highlighted by the author and administrative jurisprudence. The limits of this finalist criterion The finalist criterion is not decisive in all cases. In fact, it is possible that an operation is qualified as judicial police in the absence of any commission of an offense, as highlighted by the decision of the Tribunal of Conflicts of 27 June 1955, and conversely, it is also possible that the protection of an accused or suspect person actually falls within the administrative police responsible for preserving public safety and tranquility (decision of the Tribunal of Conflicts of 19 October 1998). [...]

[...] This organic criterion therefore depends on the quality of the authority or the agent that carries out the act of judicial police or administrative police. If this criterion is usable to distinguish the public administrative establishment from the public establishment of industry and commerce, it is not enough by itself to distinguish the activity of administrative police from that of judicial police. Thus, the organic criterion cannot be retained as a determining criterion since there are hypotheses in which the same authority can exercise missions of judicial police and administrative police such as the "park rangers, mayors and deputies who are also holders of administrative competences or attributions". [...]