I just read the news and even after many years does Switzerland still have surprises on offer: Two guys were checked by the cops in canton BE, had “typical tools in their cars, burglers would use, like a wrench, a screwdriver, gloves, some wire…” With the exception of a piece of gardening hose all the sort of stuff I have in my toolbox as well.
What surprised me: They will be fined. They did not do any burglary (yet) and the police has no concrete suspicion what they exactly planned to do. But apparently is it illegal to carry tools with you if you cant explain why. If the cops suspect that you are carrying the tools to do something unlawful can you get fined… apparently 350 CHFs per person in this case.
I have had my trunk searched by cops before and was wondering what they were after… now you know.
Doesn't everyone carry a small tool kit in the car containing those things?
Heck, I even carry several pieces of garden hose, part of my canine first aid kit. Garden hose is one of the things you can use to make an emergency splint in case of injury while hiking.
Can be “Swiss Army Knifes” be used for robbery or theft? Shit, I already ate the sausage and drank the wine, I cannot explain to the police anymore any reason to carry this tool.
The 20min article says they couldn’t explain why they had the equipment and that’s why they got fined. If you can explain then there isn’t an issue. If necessary you can take it to court.
This is not unique to Switzerland, it is certainly also the case in the UK and probably in other countries as well.
The charge in the UK is called ‘going equipped’ and you need to be able to give a reasonable explanation as to why the items are in the car should you be stopped and searched.
I would hope that the police would use their judgement when deciding whether or not a person should be charged with ‘going equipped’.
I suspect an older lady with a dog and a reasonable explanation as to why she has those things would arouse less suspicion than a couple of blokes dressed in black driving around late a night with the same items would.
But according your link does the prosecution in the UK need to show that "That tool was intended for use in the course of a burglary or theft". This intention is the key bit and seems to be missing in the Swiss law. I just find it rather extreme to put the task on anyone to explain why they have tools that normal people need in every day life. I for one had no idea about it... I was less than amused when some cops searched my gym bag once. If I had some tools instead would I have no idea that I am at risk of getting fined. There is a very high chance that if some KaPo asked me why I had a screwdriver in my car I had replied with "to tighten screws that are lose" or similar...
When I studied law many moons ago, one of the first exercises was to go to the high court and listen to any random case you liked and then compare your experience to what was reported in the paper.... The purpose exercise was to demonstrate how unreliable newspaper reports of court cases are! First of all the reporter in almost always not a lawyer and does not understand the nicer points of the law, they may not have sat through the entire case (in my case there was only one reporter in court and he only came to hear the defence summation) and they are subject to the editor and the available space in the media. So I would not put too much reliance on a newspaper report alone.
I'd imagine the context in which they were stopped most likely played a big part in the process and we know nothing of that. Then there is the fact that one of them does not even live in the country and most people don't bring their work tools on holiday...
"Going equipped" charges are usually levied in case where the police know a lot more about the chaps, these guys may be well known to the police, listed on the Schengen system etc...
My guess is that there is a lot more to this than what we know...
If I read the room correctly, no one is defending those guys.
Replies are more about "what if I give a smart ass answer to an apparently stupid question from Bernese police officer?" because ignorance of this cantonal law.
This is one of those offences designed to target dodgy individuals, not just any person on the street.
I worked in the police for 10 years and to proceed against someone for an offence like this would require the appropriate suspicion and context. And in any case, like every citizen, they have a right to dispute the charge before a court.
I understand the idea... I just dont agree to laws that are vague and allow cops to decide who is dodgy and who not. Yes, I, as a middle class guy residing in Switzerland who speaks the local language would be able to dispute the charge in court. The two guys from Georgia driving through Switzerland? Not a chance. They'd need professional help. Even if they can afford it: would you hire a lawyer for a 350 CHF fine?
Not hosepipes, true (but I learnt something from meloncollie's post, today) but when going on holiday, especially if by car, is precisely when I'd be even more inclined to take along some tools than when driving locally around where I live.
However, your point about journalism is well taken, and yes,
The law isn't vague. It simply says if you are in possession of tools, you need to explain why you have them. Again, I am sure there was appropriate context to the way police proceeded. If this was abused we would certainly here more about it.
When I go on holidays, I take my bicycles and a tool box with bicycle tools. Reason: if one of my bikes breaks, I can fix it.
I remember once being involved in a pursuit with a car thief on a stolen motor bike. He crashed, and the only reason he didn't break his shins was because he had bolt cutters down one leg and a slide hammer down the other!
Of course it is... it boils down to the cops believing your explanation, which is entirely subjective. "Why do you have a full set of tools in your car?" "Because I drive a land rover..." might or might not work, there is no clear cut.
That is has nothing to do with vagueness, rather subjectivity. But again, the police merely report the accusation. The courts determine if that accusation is valid beyond reasonable doubt.
Many laws are open to subject determination, not just this one.
My first real job involved me driving a Transit van containing equipment & tools that could gain access to anywhere and chemicals that could literally kill 1000s. But if I had a Swiss army knife, there would have been a price to pay.
Yeah and I fully agree to that. Having a kitchen knife in your kitchen is ok, carrying on you when going to a club less so. But I for one was not aware that a simple screw driver is in any way a critical item to have in a car ... I guess its because I grew up in the country side. We used to fix things... and literally anyone had tools around.
I want to believe that one must carry more than a screwdriver and a wrench in order to get suspected. Standard items contained in factory-provided car toolsets must be excluded, for example.
One of my neighbours works in the border force and most of their work these days is in the form of mobile patrols.
He told me of one incident where they stopped a white van, with Belgian number plates, with 4 blokes inside. On examination, the blokes all had Romanian passports and they were "equipped". The van and the blokes were given a very thorough check, including the Schengen register of undesirable personalities (whatever it's called).
I can't remember if he told me what happened to them, but frankly at first sight it looks pretty suspicious.