Successive Police Custody: How to Protect Your Rights When Dealing with the Judicial Police

Imagine yourself as the owner of a beautiful bastide in Grasse, enjoying the scent of orange blossoms. Suddenly, police officers knock on your door for an investigation concerning your tenant. You are taken to the police station for police custody (a measure of deprivation of liberty during a police investigation). After a few hours, you are released, but the next day, you are summoned again for different offences. How long can you be detained in total? Can the law be circumvented by multiplying police custody periods?

This question is not theoretical. undefined in Grasse and Mont-de-Marsan, I have seen property owners or real estate professionals facing police procedures for neighbourhood disputes, suspicions of fraud, or conflicts with tenants. The temptation for law enforcement is sometimes to unduly prolong the deprivation of liberty by invoking separate offences.

The Court of Cassation, in its decision of 17 March 2004, provided a clear answer: no, you cannot be detained indefinitely under the pretext of different offences. Even if the police custody periods are successive and independent, their total cumulative duration must not exceed the legal maximum. Essential protection for your fundamental rights.

The facts: a story that happens every day

Mr Dubois, owner of several flats in Valbonne, finds himself in a Kafkaesque situation. One March morning, police officers from the Grasse police station arrest him for an investigation into illegal works in one of his co-ownership properties. He is placed in police custody for an initial duration of 24 hours. The judicial police officers (OPJ) question him at length about building permits, prior declarations, and relations with his architect.

After 20 hours, the public prosecutor (the magistrate who directs criminal investigations) orders his release, considering the evidence insufficient. Mr Dubois returns home, relieved but exhausted. The next morning, as he prepares his coffee, the same police officers return. This time, they inform him that a complaint has been filed by a former tenant for harassment and threats. New police custody, for these offences distinct from the illegal works.

Mr Dubois is taken to the police station again. The OPJ consider this a new procedure, independent of the previous one. They detain him for an additional 18 hours, bringing the total duration of deprivation of liberty to 38 hours over two days. Mr Dubois, through his solicitor, challenges this practice. He applies to the court to request the annulment of the second police custody, arguing that the cumulative duration exceeds the legal maximum of 24 hours (at the time, since modified).

The court of first instance rejects his request, considering that the two police custody periods concern different offences and are therefore independent. Mr Dubois appeals. The court of appeal confirms this rejection. But our property owner persists and appeals to the Court of Cassation. It is there that the highest French judicial court will decide this delicate balance between police efficiency and protection of individual liberties.

The court's reasoning — analysed

The Court of Cassation, in its judgment of 17 March 2004, makes a reversal of jurisprudence (change in interpretation of the law by judges). Until then, some courts admitted that successive police custody periods for separate offences could each last the legal maximum, even if the person was detained almost continuously. The Court quashes this approach.

The legal basis is Article 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which governs the rules of police investigations), which sets the maximum duration of police custody. The Court interprets this article in a manner protective of fundamental rights. It establishes a simple principle: if a person can be subjected to immediately successive and independent police custody measures, they cannot be continuously detained at the disposal of the OPJ for a total period exceeding the maximum duration authorised by law.

In other words, it does not matter that the offences are separate. It does not matter that the person was released between the two measures (like Mr Dubois). What counts is the total duration of deprivation of liberty. If this duration exceeds the legal ceiling, there is an infringement of the interests of the person concerned. The Court specifies that the two measures, from the point of view of their total cumulative duration, must not exceed the legal maximum duration of a police custody period.

The parties' arguments were divisive. The OPJ and the public prosecutor defended the idea that each offence justifies an autonomous procedure, with its own police custody deadline. Mr Dubois and his solicitor argued that this practice allowed circumvention of the law and created disguised detention. The Court ruled in favour of Mr Dubois, emphasising that exceeding the deadline necessarily infringes the interests of the person. A victory for the protection of individual liberties against procedural abuses.

What this changes for you — concretely

But what exactly does this change for you, property owner, tenant, or real estate professional? Much more than you imagine. This decision creates essential legal security against potential abuses in police investigations.

If you are a landlord in Valbonne and are subject to a complaint for tenant damage, then another for unpaid rent, the police cannot detain you for 48 hours by invoking two separate procedures. The total duration cannot exceed the legal maximum (currently 24 hours renewable once under conditions, i.e., 48 hours maximum for the most serious offences). undefined, I have encountered cases where property owners were kept at the police station for 3 days under the pretext of multiple offences — this practice is now illegal.

If you are a tenant in Grasse and are suspected of illegal occupation then of damage, your rights are protected. Even if released between two police custody periods, the cumulative duration counts. Concretely, if the first custody lasts 20 hours and the second 20 hours, the total of 40 hours exceeds the ceiling of 24 hours (excluding renewal) — the second measure could be annulled, and the evidence gathered during this period risks being excluded from the trial.

If you are a purchaser of a property and involved in an investigation into false documents, then into fraud, this decision protects you. The consequences are tangible: irregular police custody can lead to the annulment of the entire procedure, with damages to follow. I think of a client from Mont-de-Marsan who obtained €5,000 for moral prejudice due to excessive police custody.

Be careful, however: this protection only applies if the police custody periods are immediately successive. If several months elapse between two measures, they will be considered truly independent. But in the often tense context of property disputes, where complaints follow quickly, this jurisprudence is a valuable safeguard.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Scrupulously document each interaction with law enforcement: note the dates, times, names of OPJ, reasons invoked. If you are released between two police custody periods, keep all documents proving your release.
• Instruct a solicitor from the first hour of police custody: since 2011, this right is effective immediately. Your solicitor can monitor deadlines and challenge any abusive extension.
• Systematically verify the legal basis for each police custody: the police must clearly inform you of the offences you are accused of. Vague or changing reasons should alert you.
• In case of successive police custody, immediately calculate the total duration: if it exceeds 24 hours (or 48 hours if regularly renewed), report it to your solicitor for rapid challenge.

Further reading: related jurisprudence and developments

This 2004 decision is part of a broader trend of increased protection of defence rights. Before it, jurisprudence was fluctuating. Some courts of appeal admitted cumulative durations well above the legal maximum, in the name of investigation efficiency. The Court of Cassation put an end to this uncertainty.

Since then, the jurisprudence has been confirmed and specified. For example, in a judgment of 15 December 2010 (no. 10-85.789), the Court recalled that even when offences are complex and multiple, the total duration of deprivation of liberty cannot be circumvented by successive police custody periods. What few people know is that this protection also applies to judicial supervision (an alternative measure to pre-trial detention) and house arrest.

Legislative evolution has reinforced this trend. The law of 14 April 2011 more strictly regulated police custody, with increased rights for the person (access to a solicitor from the beginning, medical examination, etc.). For the future, we observe increasing judicialisation of property disputes, with more frequent recourse to criminal procedures. This jurisprudence therefore remains highly relevant for any property owner or professional in the sector.

Checklist before acting

• If you are summoned to the police station: immediately contact a solicitor specialised in property criminal law. Do not go alone.
• If you are placed in police custody: note the exact time of placement. Request to see your solicitor within the hour. Have the offences you are accused of clearly explained to you.
• If you are released then summoned again quickly: calculate the total duration since the first police custody. If it exceeds 24 hours (excluding regular renewal), challenge it immediately.
• If you believe your rights have been violated: keep all evidence (summonses, official reports, testimonies). Consult a solicitor for a request for annulment and damages.
• Before/after this decision: before 2004, risk of successive police custody without cumulative limit; after 2004, total duration capped at legal maximum, better protection.

Do you find yourself in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of procedure — and often much more. Book an appointment →