Police delayed reporting a colleague who smelled of alcohol

The car that was overturned in a ditch early Sunday morning belonged to a police officer.

He was found in the police station’s break room, difficult to wake up and reeking of alcohol.

The on-duty investigation officer waited until Monday to report the police officer – and the investigation was later closed due to lack of evidence.

At 6 a.m. on a Sunday morning in March last year, a police patrol was sent to the scene of a traffic accident in the Bergslagen police region. At the scene, a car had overturned into a ditch. The patrol noted that the car belonged to a police colleague.

The colleague called the patrol. He said he had slept over at the police station and that his car must have been stolen.

According to him, the car had been parked on the roof of the police station, outside the shell shelter. But one of the police officers on patrol had seen a similar car parked inside the shell shelter on Saturday evening.

Smelled strongly of alcohol

Another patrol found the policeman in the police station’s rest room. He was difficult to wake up, and there was a strong smell of alcohol in the room.

The patrols contacted the police’s on-duty investigation officer. He told them to file a report of car theft and fleeing the scene of a traffic accident and that a prosecutor would not be involved. No further action was taken on Sunday.

Only on Monday, the same on-call investigation officer wrote a report about drunk driving and leaving the scene of a traffic accident, with the colleague as a suspect. The report was sent to the Department for Special Investigations, SU, which handles cases where police officers may be suspected of crimes.

The police colleague was informed of the suspicion, but the investigation was later closed due to lack of evidence.

Registered too late – warned

An investigation into misconduct was opened against the on-duty investigation officer but was closed because the prosecutor did not believe that he had committed a crime that could be prosecuted.

The case has now been examined by the Police Authority’s Human Resources Board. The board notes that the on-call investigation officer himself said that he already believed on Sunday that information indicated that the colleague could be suspected of a crime. He should therefore have immediately filed a report with the Swedish Police.

The Human Resources Board writes:

“The committee takes a serious view of your actions, which have meant that SU and the special prosecutor’s office have been deprived of the opportunity to act and decide on relevant measures in the case. However, the penalty may, in an overall assessment – albeit with hesitation – stop at a warning.”

“The committee takes your actions seriously, which have meant that SU and the special prosecutor’s office have been deprived of the opportunity to act and decide on relevant measures in the case. However, the penalty may, in an overall assessment – albeit with hesitation – stop at a warning.”