Bern police law Federal court blows back canton of Bern in vehicle searches

The Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland has ruled against parts of the revised Bern police law, effectively halting certain practices used by the cantonal police force. The court partially upheld a complaint filed by several left-wing parties, human rights organizations, and the association of Democratic Lawyers in Bern. As a result, the Bern police must stop using body cameras and cannot conduct automated vehicle checks until data from non-matching license plates can be securely deleted. The ruling was announced following deliberations held in Lausanne. The dispute centered around three key provisions of the Bern police law. First, the automatic scanning of license plates of passing vehicles and their comparison with databases raised concerns over mass surveillance. According to the court, storing data from non-matching entries for up to 60 days violates constitutional protections. Therefore, the canton must remove this provision from its law before the practice can continue. Until then, the police are prohibited from using automated vehicle checks. Additionally, the recording of images of vehicle occupants is also now banned. Second, the use of body-worn cameras by police officers sparked controversy. While the court acknowledged the general principle supporting body cameras, it emphasized that their primary purpose, supporting criminal investigations, is a federal responsibility, not a cantonal one. This means that if the law had stated that body cameras were primarily for preventive purposes, they could still be used. However, under the current wording, their use is restricted. Third, the proposed regulation allowing video surveillance in designated “hotspots” even against the wishes of local municipalities was another point of contention. The court did not support the challenge to this provision, stating that the complainants were not directly affected. If local cities such as Bern or Biel had been impacted, they should have filed the complaint themselves. The decision marks a significant step in protecting fundamental rights, according to Selma Kuratle of the Democratic Lawyers in Bern (DJB). She expressed satisfaction with the ruling, emphasizing that the court had clearly drawn a boundary against the arbitrary storage of movement data. This, she argued, represents an important victory for civil liberties. The ruling is seen as crucial not just for security in Bern but throughout Switzerland. In response, the Canton of Bern's Security Department stated it would take the court’s decision into account. It noted that the court confirmed the cantons' right to use automated vehicle checks. Despite the restrictions imposed by the ruling, the department indicated it would work quickly to address the legal shortcomings identified by the court. The ruling highlights ongoing tensions between public safety measures and individual privacy rights. While the canton maintains that such tools are essential for effective policing, critics argue that they pose risks to personal freedoms. The case underscores the need for clear legal frameworks that balance security needs with constitutional guarantees. The Federal Supreme Court’s decision has set a precedent that may influence similar laws in other Swiss cantons. Legal experts suggest that the ruling could prompt broader discussions on how to regulate modern policing technologies while ensuring compliance with constitutional standards. The outcome also reflects the judiciary’s role in mediating between state interests and individual rights. The canton of Bern faces the task of revising its police law to align with the court’s requirements. This includes removing the provision on automated vehicle checks until secure deletion mechanisms are in place and clarifying the permissible uses of body cameras. These changes are expected to be implemented swiftly to ensure continued lawful enforcement practices. The ruling has sparked further debate among political groups and civil society regarding the appropriate scope of police powers. While some welcome the reinforcement of privacy protections, others caution that overly restrictive regulations might hinder necessary investigative capabilities. The situation illustrates the complex interplay between technological advancements in law enforcement and the preservation of democratic values.