Supreme Court: “Unlawful Arrest During Urine Test... Cannot Punish Even If ‘Fake Urine’ Was Submitted”

Police Handcuff Acquaintance and Demand Urine Sample During Drug Search

First and Second Trials: "Obstruction of Lawful Official Duties" Guilty

Supreme Court: "Compulsory Investigation Unlawful, Emergency Arrest Invalid"

The Supreme Court has ruled that if the police’s arrest procedure itself was unlawful, a person cannot be punished for “obstructing the performance of official duties by deception,” even if they submitted someone else’s urine as their own in response to a police drug test request. The crime of obstructing official duties can only be established when the police are carrying out their duties lawfully.

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

According to the legal community on April 29, the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Ma Yongjoo) overturned the lower court’s conviction of a self-employed man in his 50s, Mr. A, who was indicted on charges including obstruction of official duties by deception, and remanded the case to the Seoul Eastern District Court.

In June 2024, Mr. A had checked into a hotel in Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi Province with an acquaintance, Mr. B. Around midnight that day, a drug courier left 5.76 grams of methamphetamine in their hotel room. Mr. B used some of the drugs and put the remainder in his bag. Later, police officers who were chasing the courier found the two and arrested Mr. B on the spot for possession of methamphetamine.

At the time, Mr. A, who was in the hotel room, appeared suspicious by keeping his hands in his pockets. The police handcuffed both of Mr. A’s arms, searched him, and demanded a urine test. When Mr. A refused, the police urgently arrested him on suspicion of aiding and abetting a drug offense. While detained, Mr. A secretly submitted another inmate’s urine sample several times in response to repeated police demands for a urine test, received a negative result, and was released. Prosecutors charged Mr. A with obstruction of official duties by deception, arguing that he had deceived the police with “fake urine.”

The courts of first and second instance ruled that the police’s demand for a urine test was a lawful exercise of duty and found Mr. A guilty.

However, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts’ decisions, finding the police investigation process to be unlawful. The bench stated, “After escorting the suspect caught in the act, the police handcuffed Mr. A for a considerable period, searched his body, and continued to demand a urine test. These actions amounted to de facto compulsory investigation, constituting an unlawful arrest and search,” adding, “The subsequent emergency arrest was also illegal.”

The Court further explained, “Because the demand for a urine test to confirm drug use was made during an unlawful arrest, the police’s request was also unlawful. Therefore, even if Mr. A used deception to obstruct official duties, the crime cannot be established when the police request itself was unlawful.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.