Is sampling a form of theft?

Tribunals federale

Tribunal federal

{T 0/2}

1B_71 / 2007 / zga

Judgment of May 31, 2007

I. Public Law Department


Federal Judge F raud, President,

Court clerk Pf ffli.


X .________,



Lieutenancy Liestal,

Rheinstrasse 27, P.O. Box, 4410 Liestal,

Procedural court in criminal matters of the canton of Basel-Landschaft, Kanonengasse 20, 4410 Liestal


Sampling and creation of a DNA profile in the context of criminal proceedings,

Complaint in criminal matters against the decision of the procedural court in criminal matters of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft dated April 2, 2007

The Federal Supreme Court is considering:


The Liestal governor's office is conducting proceedings against X .________ on suspicion of theft and possibly embezzlement. On the occasion of the identification service, the accused refused to give a cheek swab for the purpose of creating a DNA profile. As a result, the Liestal governor's office ordered a sampling and analysis of the sample in order to create a DNA profile on November 20, 2006. On the other hand, X .________ filed a complaint with the procedural court in criminal matters of the canton of Basel-Landschaft, which rejected the complaint with a decision of April 2, 2007. As a justification, it summarized that there was an urgent suspicion that the complainant had committed at least one theft (or stolen goods) of a CX Swiss Military watch. He was charged by a witness for having given this watch as a deposit for two weapons he had bought. Since the complainant could have committed further thefts, the requirements according to the DNA Profile Act for taking a cheek swab or for a blood sample in the event of refusal are met


With a submission dated April 22, 2007, X .________ is filing a complaint in criminal matters against this decision of the procedural court in criminal matters of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft (Art. 78 ff. BGG). The Federal Supreme Court refrains from obtaining consultations


According to Art. 42 Para. 2 BGG, the reasons for a complaint must be briefly set out to what extent the contested decision violates the law. In the present case it does not emerge from the explanations of the complainant to what extent the procedural court should have violated the law when it assumed an urgent suspicion of theft or stolen goods and thus the prerequisites for sampling for a DNA investigation. Profile affirmed. In the absence of a sufficient justification within the meaning of Art. 42 (2) BGG, the complaint is therefore not to be addressed. Since this obviously does not contain a sufficient justification, a decision can be made on it in the simplified procedure according to Art. 108 Para. 1 lit. b BGG


In accordance with the outcome of the proceedings, the federal court costs are to be charged to the complainant (Art. 66 (1) BGG)

Accordingly, the Federal Supreme Court recognizes

in proceedings according to Art. 108 Para. 1 BGG:


The complaint will not be dealt with


The court fee of CHF 500.00 is imposed on the complainant


This judgment is communicated in writing to the complainant, the Liestal governor's office and the procedural court in criminal matters in the canton of Basel-Landschaft

Lausanne, May 31, 2007

On behalf of the I. Public Law Department

of the Swiss Federal Court

The President: The Clerk: