KUWAIT CITY, Oct 15: The Criminal Court acquitted a defendant accused of possessing narcotic substances (hashish) and psychotropic substances for the purposes of trafficking and use, while issuing a notable ruling cautioning Ministry of Interior police officers against conducting searches without permission from the Public Prosecution. The court emphasized that observing a defendant in an abnormal state does not automatically indicate the presence of external signs pointing to the crime of drug possession.

According to the judicial ruling, the incident began when a police officer stopped the defendant at a security checkpoint and noticed he was behaving abnormally. Upon requesting identification, it was found that the defendant did not have a driver’s license. The officer conducted a precautionary search before placing him in the patrol vehicle, leading to the discovery of the seized substances.

The court ruled that, although the defendant was lawfully stopped at the checkpoint, the officer should have ceased further actions after discovering the defendant lacked a driver’s license. The court noted that the defendant did not fit any of the criteria outlined in Article 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Trials. Additionally, the officer did not demonstrate that the defendant had no fixed address, no legitimate source of income, or had attempted to flee.

The court also pointed out that the officer’s testimony failed to indicate that the defendant refused to provide his name and address, gave false information, or declined to go to the police station without reason. The abnormal behavior alone, the court asserted, did not provide sufficient external signs to justify the search. No evidence suggested that the defendant was known to the officer or that there were serious grounds for believing he had committed a felony or misdemeanor. As a result, the search and arrest were deemed unlawful, rendering any evidence obtained through this procedure invalid.

The court further elaborated that the police officer’s actions in arresting and searching the defendant, as well as his car, were not legally sanctioned, nullifying any subsequent procedures, including referring the case to the Public Prosecution and submitting the defendant’s urine sample for analysis. Without a confession of substance use from the defendant, these procedures were considered void. The court acknowledged that the defense’s argument, presented by the defendant's lawyer, Abdul Mohsen Al-Qattan, was valid and supported by the facts of the case.