APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF CONTRADICTION AND BROAD DEFENSE IN THE POLICE INVESTIGATION

Abstract

In the police investigation, as a rule, the accused or investigated person has not yet been formally accused, but is being investigated so that this condition takes effect or not, not to mention the possibility that the procedure may serve as a basis for the adoption of serious measures, such as the decree of preventive detention, by the Judiciary. Refuting the application of the adversarial and full defense principles in the investigation phase may represent a situation of imbalance in relation to the exercise of the State's right to punish, although the adoption of certain measures must be admitted so that the criminal prosecution is not compromised, such as preserving the secrecy of an ongoing telephone intercept, for example. Finding a balance between the interests of the indicted or investigated individual and the State in the criminal procedural relationship may represent a fairer path to the realization of the Democratic Rule of Law. From this perspective, the objective of this work is to analyze the possibility or not of applying the principles of contradictory and full defense in the context of a police investigation. The methodology consists of a literature review, through the analysis of doctrine, jurisprudence and academic works, using the hypothetical-deductive method, concluding, in the end, that it is necessary to rethink the inapplicability of the contradictory and the full defense indiscriminately, considering the possibility of violating fundamental rights and guarantees in certain situations.