Razlika med nalogami in pooblastili policije po Zakonu o nalogah in pooblastilih policije in nalogami in pooblastili inšpekcijskih služb po Zakonu o inšpekcijskem nadzoru : diplomsko delo visokošolskega strokovnega študija Varnost in policijsko delo

V Sloveniji, se pogosto pojavlja ugibanje kdo in kdaj lahko uporabi določena pooblastila, da odkrije, prepreči in kaznuje določeno obliko kaznivega dejanja ali prekrška. Tukaj so mnenja zelo deljiva. Predvsem se včasih ugiba med delom in dolžnostjo policije in inšpekcijskih služb. Zato torej namen, ugotoviti iz strokovnega vidika razliko med nalogami in pooblastili policije po Zakonu o nalogah in pooblastilih policije (ZNPPol, 2013) in nalogami in pooblastili inšpekcijskih služb na podlagi Zakona o inšpekcijskem nadzoru (ZIN, 2007). Oboji izvajajo pooblastila tudi na podlagi posameznih konkretnih predpisov posameznih področij. Nas zanima zgolj primerjava njihovih nalog in pooblastil na podlagi t.im. krovnih zakonov. Definicija nalog in pooblastil policije po ZNPPol (2013) sta določena kot ukrep, ki policistom omogoča opravljanje policijskih nalog in poseganje v človekove pravice ali temeljne svoboščine ali druge pravice. Prav tako lahko z ZIN (2007) podobno definiramo tudi pooblastilo inšpektorjev. Pooblastila, katere uporabljajo policija in inšpekcijske službe se razlikujejo. S primerjavo bomo ugotavljali in ugotovili razlike med določenimi pooblastili, čeprav je lahko razumeti, in tudi v praksi se je pokazalo, da se delo policije in inšpekcijskih služb prepletata. Če pogledamo delo obojih nekoliko širše vidimo, da policija inšpektorjem nudi tudi asistenco. Zanimajo nas predvsem razlike pri izvajanju posameznih pooblastil, ki kot takšne zelo globoko posegajo v varstvo človekovih pravic in svoboščin. Eno takšnih pooblastil je izvajanje pooblastila vstopa v tuje stanovanje po 53. členu ZNPPol (2013) in izvajanje pooblastila inšpekcijskih služb pri vstopu v prostore, objekte in k napravam zavezanca po 20. členu ZIN (2007), vstop v poslovne in druge prostore, ki ne pripadajo zavezancem po 21. členu ZIN (2007) in pregled stanovanjskih prostorov zavezanca po 22. členu ZIN (2007). Pri proučevanju oziroma primerjanju pooblastil obeh se bomo nekoliko dotaknili tudi preventivnega dela obeh. Zanimalo nas bo, kakšne oblike preventivnega dela uporabljajo in sploh, ali je ta interes sploh prisoten.There have been many dilemmas lately in Slovenia regarding the use of certain authorizations in order to reveal, prevent and punish a criminal act or offense. Opinions on the matter are varied. A special consideration is given to differences between responsibilities of the police and of the inspection services. The aim of this work is to determine from the expert perspective the differences between responsibilities and authorizations of the police according to the Law on Responsibilities and Authorizations (ZNPPol, 2013) and of the inspection services according to the Law on Inspection Supervision (ZIN 2007). Both the police and inspection services carry out authorizations on the basis of particular regulations in those respective areas. The author of this work is interested primarily in the comparison between responsibilities of the two on the basis of the umbrella laws. Responsibilities and authorizations of the police are defined, according to ZNPPol (2013), as measures that allow policemen the execution of their tasks and infringement upon basic human rights or other civil liberties. The same definition could apply to responsibilities and authorization of inspection officers, according to ZIN (2007). Authorizations, used by the police and those, used by the inspection services, differ from each other. This text will compare the two and determine the differences between certain authorizations, even though it holds true in theory as well as in practice that the work of the two services is often times intertwined. In a broader picture we can see that the police often provides necessary assistance to the work of the inspection services. The author of this text is interested primarily in the differences in execution of particular authorizations which interfere significantly with the protection of human rights and civil liberties. The examples of such authorizations are the authorized entrance of the police into private citizen\u27s apartment according to Article 53 of ZNPPol (2013) and the authorized entrance of the inspection services into spaces, buildings and authorized access to the utilities of a person according to the Article 20 of ZIN (2007), the authorized entrance into business and other areas that do not belong to a person according to the Article 21 of ZIN (2007) and the inspection of residential premises of a person according to Article 22 of ZIN (2007). In the process of examination and comparison of the responsibilities of the police and the inspection services, the author of the text will take a look at the preemptive work of both actors. The two questions posed primarily will be what kind of preemptive strategies both actors use and if the interest in preemptive action is at all present in either or both of the actors