Extract
[...] At this stage, they were acting within the framework of a flagrancy investigation, since the summons took place immediately. Article 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that 'in cases of flagrant crime or flagrant delit punishable by imprisonment, any person has the right to apprehend the perpetrator and lead them before the nearest judicial police officer.' In this case, Rémy was suspected of having committed a delit punishable by imprisonment. There was no other legal condition to be respected The police, acting within the framework of the flagrancy investigation, could legally summon him. [...]
[...] The placement of Rémy in police custody is therefore regular. Since no information is provided on the compliance with legal requirements during police custody, it is necessary to recall the rules that must be respected for the procedure to be regular. According to Article 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judicial police officer is required to inform the prosecutor of the Republic by any means of the police custody measure as soon as the measure begins. The initial duration of police custody is 24 hours. [...]
[...] However, investigators are subject to the respect of the evidence's integrity. This integrity prohibits them from using an unfair method of evidence (Crim January 1888, Wilson decision). Private parties, on the other hand, are not subject to the principle of integrity of the evidence. In this case, it is Rémy who makes the appeal, Rémy is a private party. However, this ruse was proposed by the police, and not by Rémy. There is therefore a need to question the application or not of the requirement of integrity of the evidence, since it was Rémy who acted, but under the influence of the police. [...]
[...] She informs the police who, although they don't perceive the smell, seize the Play Station, question Rémy and place him in custody. Rémy claims his innocence and denounces Sam. The police offer him to call Sam in order to obtain a confession. The ruse works, and the police proceed to a transcription. Is the procedure regular? To analyze the regularity of the procedure, it is first necessary to determine the framework of the investigation in question In a second time, the regularity of the arrest and the placement in custody must be analyzed (II). [...]
[...] In this case, Rémy was placed in police custody on January 2nd at 22h12, and the investigations ended the next day at 11h16. There will certainly be no extension. Article 63-1 lists the information that the judicial police officer must provide to Rémy. The officer must immediately notify him of his placement in police custody and its duration, the qualification, date and presumed location of the offense, and the reasons motivating this police custody. He must also notify him of his various rights, namely: the right to inform a close relative and his employer, to be examined by a doctor, to be assisted by a lawyer, to be assisted by an interpreter, to consult certain procedural documents. [...]
