Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 181

Summary: - A police officer may arrest, without a warrant, persons accused of misdemeanors committed in flagrante delicto. Article 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Trials. - The meaning of an offense committed in flagrante delicto. - The police officer making the arrest may preliminarily search the arrested person to divest him of weapons and anything that might be used to resist or to harm himself or others, and deliver them, after their seizure, together with the arrested person, to the investigator. Article 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Trials. If, during this search, he incidentally finds objects connected with the offense, useful to its investigation, or whose possession or custody constitutes a punishable offense, he must seize them. - Apprehending the appellant while committing the offense criminalized by Article 35 of Law 67 of 1976 concerning Traffic—driving a vehicle with only the front plate—which is a misdemeanor committed in flagrante delicto, permits the police officer to arrest him without an order from the investigator and to search him as a precaution. The challenge alleging the invalidity of the arrest and search is unfounded. Rule: Since the import of what the judgment established—as explained above—is that the police officer—the officer involved in the incident—saw the appellant driving his vehicle with a single metal plate, as it lacked the rear plate, an act constituting the offense criminalized by the second paragraph of Article 35 of Law No. 67 of 1976 concerning Traffic, which is a misdemeanor, and since the offense was thus committed in flagrante delicto, the police officer was entitled to arrest the appellant without an order from the investigator. The police officer was also entitled to conduct a preliminary—precautionary—search of the appellant pursuant to the right referred to in Article 51 of the aforementioned Code of Criminal Procedure and Trials. If this lawful search incidentally resulted in the discovery of the seized hashish, the police officer was thereafter entitled to search his private vehicle. Accordingly, the procedures for arresting the appellant and searching his person and private vehicle were lawful procedures, all conducted in accordance with the law, and reliance may be placed on the evidence resulting from them and on the testimony of the person who conducted them. Since the challenged judgment reached this same conclusion in justifying the procedures for arresting and searching the appellant and rejecting his plea of their invalidity, the criticisms the appellant raises against the judgment in this respect are unfounded.