Police and prosecutorial appeals for information and wanted notices: Three cases of online and offline ‘vigilantism’ and their legal consequences

Description

1. Purpose In the context of criminal investigations police and prosecution can appeal to the public for information to further their case. This decision cannot be taken lightly in the current digital society. The decision requires a balancing exercise between the rights and safety of the suspect (and other people involved), specifically the right to privacy, the interest of criminal investigations, such as the identification of the suspect or witnesses, and public pressure to fight crime. Nowadays the prosecutor can choose between a wide range of (new) media and modes of communication to ask for information. Next to wanted notices on paper posters and broadcasts on television, appeals for information are published on websites, social media platforms, apps and digital screens. Citizens can, and do, modify and share these appeals. Citizens discuss and comment on them. Appeals to the public for information in a digital society can facilitate online and offline public scrutiny, denunciation and harassment. Moreover, different media outlets have different ethics and policies regarding the anonymization of people involved. This necessitates careful consideration by the prosecutor on whether and how to appeal for information. After all, these appeals could lead to DIY– policing or online vigilantism (digilantism), resulting in infringements on the right to privacy and even possibly to misidentification of suspects. The above leads to the question of the content of the decision-making process of the prosecution and the way it is perceived (by other judicial professionals as well as the public). The importance of a considered decision is illustrated by three Dutch cases in which judicial authorities appealed to the public for help in the criminal investigations, resulting in massive (media) attention and consequently affecting the eventual criminal case against the defendants. In two of these cases the prosecutorial decision to involve the public’s help resulted in a violation of the defendants’ rights to privacy and consequently had to be remedied by the court. Both cases led to social, legal and political debate in the Netherlands about the balance between privacy and crime control. 2. Scope We describe the relevant legal framework (Dutch and European human rights law) that the prosecution has to take into account when they appeal for information or share wanted notices. The three cases are mainly Dutch in nature: - Wanted notice including images (and names) of two suspects of a robbery aimed at jewelry store of Stratmann, who dies as a result of his gunshot wounds. - The so-called Kopschopperszaak, a Dutch case with both Dutch and Belgian suspects. A wanted notice including CCTV-footage is broadcasted, leading to an online and offline “witch hunt”. This case received both public and scholarly, which will be included in our analyses (Broekman et al., 2017; Trottier, 2017; Wijkhuijs & de Vries, 2014). - A wanted notice containing CCTV-footage is broadcasted to find a female suspect of thievery of a wallet. Website Dumpert publishes the footage, which goes viral. The suspect eventually commits suicide, presumably as a result of the publicity relating to her case. The incidents happened in 2012, 2013 and 2016 respectively. Two of the cases led to court hearings. 3. Method The three Dutch cases are reconstructed using social and news media as well as transcripts from (anonymized and public) court proceedings. Furthermore, a literature review is conducted to analyze how the current debate regarding this type of criminal investigation is conducted, and how the public and professionals (researchers, judges) evaluate the decisions made by the prosecution. 4. Results The reconstructions of the three cases show the difficulties that the prosecution faces. The political and public pressure to fight crime is strong. Both prosecution as well as the court suggest that every citizen should be aware that cameras are everywhere. 5. Conclusions We argue that safeguarding the privacy of suspects (and other people involved) has become of lesser importance to the prosecution, (part of) the public and the court. The right to privacy remains however part and parcel of a democratic rule of law state and safeguards a fundamental individual right. A critical reflection on the prosecutorial decision to appeal for information in criminal cases should in light of the importance of the right to privacy and its relevance and meaning in the current digital age is necessary. 6. Recommendations We recommend to conduct a privacy impact assessment of the renewed legal guidelines that relate to appeals for information. The results of this privacy impact assessment can be used to inform the public debate.

Period	4 Oct 2018
Event title	Vigilant Audiences: Scrutiny, Denunciation, and Shaming in Digital Media Use
Event type	Other
Location	Rotterdam, the NetherlandsShow on map