<p>The purpose of this paper is to explore what objects that can be seized and how the management of a seizure should be conducted. Ability to take enforcement against an individual should be carefully weighed against the rights and freedoms that exist. Seizure is one of the various restraints that exist, and the regulation on which they appear is mainly in the Code of Judicial Procedure, Chapter 27<sup>th</sup>. To be able to apply coercive measures, it is fundamental prerequisite that a criminal investigation is initiated, but there exist some significant exceptions to this. There are also rules about who has the right to provide for the seizure, the decision can be taken by a prosecutor, an investigator, a police officer or, in special cases, the court. The purpose of a seizure is mainly to secure the subject of a criminal investigation, to secure objects that have been arrogated or to secure future forfeiture. Therefore it is only possible to seize objects that are relevant to a criminal investigation, and it is only movable property such as written documents or electronic objects that can be seized. Items that have been seized should be handled in accordance with the laws that exist. A protocol shall be established and supervision shall be exercised over the seizure and a seizure should end when it is no longer relevant to the criminal investigation. The regulation has recently changed and that created new improved opportunities, but despite that, the area is complex and constantly evolving technology makes it difficult.</p>
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA/oai:DiVA.org:oru-10907 |
| Date | January 2010 |
| Creators | Alros, Madelaine |
| Publisher | Örebro University, School of Law, Psychology and Social Work |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, text |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds