In a landmark ruling, the Criminal Court warned police and traffic officers against searching suspects without prior authorization from the Public Prosecution. The court emphasized that “observing a suspect in an unusual state does not constitute sufficient evidence for the crime of possessing narcotic or psychotropic substances.” Consequently, the court acquitted an individual charged with possessing hashish and psychotropic substances with the intent to trade and use.

According to the case details, a police officer stopped the defendant at a security checkpoint after noticing his erratic behavior. When asked for identification, the officer discovered that the defendant did not have his driver’s license. As a precaution, the officer conducted a search and ordered the defendant to enter the patrol car, after which he confiscated certain items. The court noted that while the officer was justified in stopping the defendant at the checkpoint, he should have halted further actions at that point. The fact that the defendant lacked a driver’s license—a misdemeanor punishable by up to three months in prison under Article 3 of Traffic Law No. 3/1982—did not justify the subsequent search.

Although this misdemeanor allows for the issuance of a traffic ticket, it does not justify the arrest and search of the defendant solely for not having a driver’s license, as this offense is not included among the cases warranting arrest under Article 4(4) of the traffic law. The conditions set out in Article 5(5) of the Criminal Procedures and Trials Law did not apply to this case. The court pointed out that the police officer’s testimony did not indicate that he inquired about the defendant’s name and address, nor did it show that the defendant refused to provide that information or gave an implausible statement about his identity. There was no mention of the defendant providing a false name or address or refusing to go to the police station.

Furthermore, the officer did not assert that the defendant was attempting to evade capture or that there was strong evidence indicating such an intent. While a police officer may search an accused person and their vehicle without a warrant if they observe abnormal behavior, this alone does not amount to sufficient evidence of a crime like possession of narcotic or psychotropic substances.

Additionally, the officer did not indicate prior knowledge of the accused, nor did he present credible reasons that would legally justify the arrest or search. The court concluded that the actions taken by the police officer in arresting and searching the defendant were conducted under circumstances not permitted by law. As a result, the arrest, search of the defendant and his vehicle, and the subsequent referral to the Public Prosecution for a urine test were deemed illegal and invalid, particularly since the defendant did not admit to consuming any narcotic or psychotropic substances.

During the court session, the defendant’s lawyer, Abdul Mohsen Al-Qattan, elaborated on the case’s circumstances, arguing that the arrest and search were invalid due to the absence of a case of flagrante delicto, lack of elements constituting the alleged crimes, and the implausibility of the incident itself.