Law regulation and practical implementation of observation as operational method of detective work

Detektivska dejavnost je v Evropi in drugod po svetu zelo različno regulirana. Vsekakor ima poseben položaj, saj detektivi pri svojem delu lahko posegajo v človekove pravice in temeljne svoboščine. V Republiki Sloveniji je detektivska dejavnost urejena z Zakonom o detektivski dejavnosti (2011), ki med drugim določa tudi upravičenja, ki jih lahko detektivi uporabljajo. Zakon je z definiranjem upravičenja »osebne zaznave« sicer odpravil marsikakšno dilemo o dopustnosti opazovanja in mejo jasno definiral, ko je določil, da se pri tem ne sme posegati v zasebni zaprti in zasebni ograjeni prostor. Vendar smo pri predstavitvi in razčlenitvi termina osebna zaznava ugotovili, da gre za pojem, ki zajema širok spekter aktivnosti, znotraj katerega sta sicer tudi opazovanje in sledenje. Termina osebna zaznava in opazovanje smo primerjali tudi glede na poimenovanja v tujini. Ugotovili smo, da v tujini ne uporabljajo termina osebna zaznava, ampak se večinoma pojavljajo pojmi opazovanje, nadzor in sledenje. Pri opazovanju gre za planirano, sistematično in prikrito opazovanje oseb, predmetov in objektov. Zato bi ga lahko opredelili tudi kot aktivni proces zaznavanja. Ugotovili smo, da sta za uspešno zagotovitev dokaznega gradiva v določenih primerih nujno potrebna opazovanje in sledenje gibanja določene osebe, da bi se odkrilo in dokumentiralo kršitve in na tak način zbralo zadostne dokaze, ki bi pozneje v nadaljnjem postopku zdržali tudi morebitne sodne presoje. Zato bi lahko rekli, da je opazovanje del detektivske preiskovalne dejavnosti za zagotovitev dokazov in rešitev primera. Tudi za slednje je neizogibno potrebno upravičenje detektiva in absurdno je prepričanje, da detektiv pri svojem delu ne sledi, razen če to ni neizogibno potrebno za pridobitev določenih informacij.Detective activity in Europe and around the world has been regulated to various degrees. It is clear that this branch has a special standing, while at their work detectives can interfere with human rights and fundamental freedoms. In the Republic of Slovenia detective activity is regulated by Detectives’ Activities Act (2011), which amongst others specifies the entitlements that detectives have. By defining the justification of »personal perception« the law has eliminated some dilemmas on the admissibility of observation and clearly defined the limits by determining that a detective should not interfere with private space and private enclosed space. However, we discovered that the meaning of the term personal perception is very broad and it includes a wide range of activities, amongst which are also monitoring and tracking. We sought terminological counterparts for personal perception and monitoring. We discovered that abroad the term personal perception is not usedinstead of that a phrase surveillance, monitoring and tracking appears. Surveillance describes planned, systematic and concealed observation of people, objects and facilities. Due to this, it could be defined as an active process of perception. We found that in certain cases a successful insurance of evidence denotes the necessity of monitoring the movement of a specific person in order to discover and document the violations and through that gather sufficient evidence that could withstand potential future judicial review. It can be said that monitoring presents a crucial part of detective investigation activity while it ensures sufficient evidence used to resolve a case. Additionally, tracking is inevitably necessary for a detective and the belief that a detective does not perform tracking in order to gather specific information is absurd