SURVEY: Do you believe the police have the right to hold a person's passport?

[slapout]

If the purpose is to prevent a person leaving the country, the police have not prevented their own citizens from leaving the country while on bail.

I have never been asked to turn my passport over to police, retailers yes and I laugh at them, refuse, and offer a copy.

If the police were involved I would do the same or offer to turn it over to its proper owner, a representative of US government. This would get you access to your consulate which the police are susposed to allow anyway.

I had this debate with a customs official in Peru who was trying to get some drinking money. He knew enough to back off quickly and send me on my merry way.

[tomacht8]

This has probably the police recently copied from the motorcycle rentals.
Since passports are indeed very often required as collateral.
Unfortunately, like then after small scratches, horrendous amounts are demanded or extorted.
Best not to give the passport out of hand.

With the copy of the passport and a copy of the landing card, the police, motorcycle lenders or a landlord can report someone at the Immigration and can block the person from leave the country anyway.

Edited February 7, 2016 by tomacht8

[Thongkorn]

Police nor anyone else has a legal right to hold a persons passport, as its not the persons passport its the persons Government passport. the only time is if they have been arrested and is being held to stop them absconding.

AS for giving your passport out for any reason is just plane stupid, and illegal, If the motor bike rental will not except seeing the passport and taking a copy then dont hire the bike , done this many times, if people did this they would soon learn. after all they take Thais ID card copy's becasue its illegal for a Thai not to carry there ID card. whats good for them is good for Falang/Farang.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Thongkorn

[kennw]

The question as posted is wrong, by international law the Thai police do not have the right to hold a passport because it is the property of the government of holding national not the national person.

[F4UCorsair]

Passports are the property of the issuing government. Period. They should be seized by NO LEGITIMATE THIRD PARTY. The Thai government, Army, police or motorcycle vendor can not legally retain them. Being stupid enough to voluntarily surrender one does not legitamatize its seizure.

But, have a look around you. Where are you? That's right...

Better tell the courts that.

[Dumbastheycome]

If the person have been charged with a crimminal offence yes. If no charges have been laid the police can under Thai law detain such a person untill charges can be brought against him/her, no need to take a passport. If the offence is non-crimminal of nature, the claimant must obtain a court interdict/order for the confiscation of the defendant's passport.

Why confuse the issue?

If a person has committed a serious offence they can be arrested.

If they are detained under suspicion they are "detained".In these circumstances confiscation of a passport is unrequired.

If ":Bailed" then and only then after negotiations with the Diplomatic Reps of the issuing country who agrees in order to prevent fleeing outcomes of upcoming prosecution.

Mandatory confiscation of Passports is an offence against Nation, not individual.

[JohnnyJazz]

If there are relatively minor damages involved and the police take your passport, you could end up overstaying your visa, missing a flight home and other consequences.

Edited February 7, 2016 by JohnnyJazz

[Bantex]

They should not be retaining anyone's passport unless for a very serious crime/offence. Next thing is they'll be making a charge to get it back and it'll turn into another money making scam.

[Smokin Joe]

Passports are the property of the issuing government. Period. They should be seized by NO LEGITIMATE THIRD PARTY. The Thai government, Army, police or motorcycle vendor can not legally retain them. Being stupid enough to voluntarily surrender one does not legitamatize its seizure.

But, have a look around you. Where are you? That's right...

Better tell the courts that.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that in a foreign country their home country law doesn't apply.

If you are in a foreign country and commit a crime, you can have your passport, along with anything else you are carrying, confiscated. You also can be put to death and if it is all legal by that country's laws there is nothing your home country can do about it.

I would personally think that if a foreign country can legally arrest you, try you and kill you, for something that is not a crime in your home country, then holding your passport is a pretty trivial matter in comparison

[stickylies]

If it's legal yes.

If not legal no.

Simple basically...

[Bantex]

If you read the notes in a UK passport you will discover that the passport does not belong to the holder as it clearly states "This passport remains the property of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and may be withdrawn at any time."

Most other issuing countries will have something similar.

If the holder is abroad, the passport can be used to identify the holder in addition to or instead of any other document. The issuing Government and only a court judge (if abroad) can order the passport to be retained.

[losworld]

haha even more ridiculous is motorcycle rental companies holding a passport.

[manarak]

They are breaking international law by doing so.

please point me to the books of international law.

[manarak]

The reason for bringing up minor offenses, is because I think it is a slightly different situation is someone has been involved in a serious criminal offense. In those cases, I would assume that the person would be detained pending further legal action, or allowed out on bail.

If there are relatively minor damages involved and the police take your passport, you could end up overstaying your visa, missing a flight home and other consequences.

It's hard to say what constitutes a 'minor' offense, but that's something that might be worth discussing.

I didn't vote.

AFAIK, passports can be held by authorities as provisioned in the criminal procedure code and as a condition for release on bail.

posters here complaining about breach of "international law" don't know what they are talking about. there is no such law, Thai police is only subject to Thai Law, except for provisions of international treaties.

A court can certainly decide to confiscate a passport.

As for the legality of Thai police confiscating passports outside of bail or criminal code procedures, I guess we will have to wait for the first court case to be brought against police.

Edited February 7, 2016 by manarak

[Basil B]

Firstly passports are the property of the issuing authority...

They are not the property of the holder, and while in Thailand one is subject to Thai laws so the Thai police may well be justified in taking of passports.

To understand this more one should read all the various international conventions on passports going back a hundred years, then Thai law.

In my opinion if the Thai police do take someone's passport they should:

• Issue a receipt for it
• Issue a replacement document of ID
• Inform the Issuing Embassy/Consulate or Embassy representing the interests of the Issuing country in Thailand
• on the next day or as soon as possible the police must hand the passport to the safe keeping of the courts and the holder should be able to contest this
• The hold should be able to go to court at any time to request the passport back

These days I see no point in taking someone's passport except for very serious crimes as all the police have to do is inform Immigration and their details would be entered onto the immigration computer, maybe a form informing someone that it had been actioned and how to appeal it would be in order, also issue a receipt when travel restrictions had been lifted.

Better still in the case of minor offence they should be told if they leave the country and do not attend a trial they may not be allowed back in, could save a lot in banging people up for minor offences.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Basil B

[Maestro]

Removed a nonsensical post.

[Basil B]

Yes if an offence has been committed and the person is a flight risk. No if it's being held to sort private issues as is mostly the case.

My views are the administrative cost of a court case, and possibly cost to imprison a person out ways the option to allow a person to leave and if they freely admit the offence and leave the country then they could be barred from re-entering for x amount of yours, if they leave and do not sign a confession they maybe barred for life.

The sort of offences I describe as minor are:

• DUI
• Possession of drugs for personal use
• Assault, but not ABH
• Criminal damage where the offender has fully compensated the victims

Basically any offence where the perpetrator commits an offence where the sentence of the courts would likely be less than 50,000B and/or 6 months in jail.

Thailand is better ridding itself of such persons rather than detaining them.

[jacko45k]

I voted no as the 'yes' option includes 'minor offences'.

But whether they have the 'right' or not, they hardly put you in a position to discuss your rights.

[happy Joe]

YES - if the purpose is to prevent a criminal offender from leaving the country.

Yes, even for minor charges..

After committing an offense a traveler whatever wants to leave the country to avoid having to answer for his act. It is perfectly legitimate for the authorities to block departure until compensation.

The argument stating that cannot be confiscated at the pretext that it is owned by the emetrice authority is completely ridiculous. Passport seisure is not an appropriation and should be seen as a temporary use ban.

[Suradit69]

I have always been told it is a violation of international law to hold a persons passport that only the goverment that you got the passport from has the right to take it. Please corect me if I am wrong.

In the past it was quite common for hotels to hold the passports of guests.

Can you quote this alleged international law? Who exactly was "always" telling you about it?

[Khon Kaen Dave]

On my passport it states that 'This passport remains the property of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom'.So basically its not my property.

Only a document that allows me to travel.The passport also says that 'In the name of her Majesty,to whom it

may concern,to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance,and to afford the bearer such

assistance and protection as may be necessary.The question is.To how much of a degree is this statement applicable?

I agree that in certain circumstances,such as individuals who may be flight risk due to a pending serious

crime,that has not yet proved them guilty or innocent.,then yes! i do agree that the Passport should be held.But i think that the

correct embassy or consulate should be IMMEDIATELY informed and the PP handed over to them for their keeping.

I do not believe that a passport should be summarily taken from a person,on an 'it suits us basis'

I also believe that once a person has been relieved of their PP,an official document should be issued to

them (if on bail)to as proof of their passport status.But,this is Thailand and they can do what they bloody well

want,when they want.The British Embassy is as weak as piss water regarding these events as been stated so many

times.After all,as a representative of her Majesty's government,it real belongs to them.

KKD

[LannaGuy]

a friend had his passport confiscated for 2 years on the most minor matter (an alleged defamation) and had to apply to a judge every time he left the country on business its a disgraceful abuse

Edited February 8, 2016 by LannaGuy

[gemguy]

The Police can hold my official passport photo copy as long as they like.

As a matter of fact, I will gladly give that to them to keep.

Cheers

Edited February 8, 2016 by gemguy

[jpinx]

The idea of taking the passport from a foreigner is to prevent him travelling, but as someone said above, it is possible to get around that. If they want to stop you travelling they only need your passport details and redflag you on their computer system. On this basis there is no reason to take your passport. You could carry a copy, maybe a certified true copy by your embassy, but the average street cop will not know anything other than the little book, so it's best to take him back to his police station to sort it out. Chances are he will relent long before it gets that far. As for renters, etc -- no chance - they can ONLY have a copy.

[hawker9000]

Passports are the property of the issuing government. Period. They should be seized by NO LEGITIMATE THIRD PARTY. The Thai government, Army, police or motorcycle vendor can not legally retain them. Being stupid enough to voluntarily surrender one does not legitamatize its seizure.

But, have a look around you. Where are you? That's right...

Better tell the courts that.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that in a foreign country their home country law doesn't apply.

If you are in a foreign country and commit a crime, you can have your passport, along with anything else you are carrying, confiscated. You also can be put to death and if it is all legal by that country's laws there is nothing your home country can do about it.

I would personally think that if a foreign country can legally arrest you, try you and kill you, for something that is not a crime in your home country, then holding your passport is a pretty trivial matter in comparison

Points for being articulate, but irrelevant to the poll question that was actually asked. No one's claiming that the RTP don't do exactly as they please.

Offering to turn the pp over instead to a consular official from your own country sounds like a good idea.

Edited February 8, 2016 by hawker9000

[Colabamumbai]

Interpol ordered the Indian police to confiscate my passport in 1973 and they did. I am a Canadian, but was not wanted for charges in India, nor was I ever deported to Canada. My government wanted to restrict my travel.

[thhMan]

For it to be a proper vote, there needs to be a proper Police force in Thailand... or you may as well give it too any criminal you see fit

[gandalf12]

The court should ask the police to hold a persons passport if he feels there is a risk they may leave the country but it should not be up to the police. Their job is to catch criminals not judge people as well

[Basil B]

Interpol ordered the Indian police to confiscate my passport in 1973 and they did. I am a Canadian, but was not wanted for charges in India, nor was I ever deported to Canada. My government wanted to restrict my travel.

Interpol mealy passed on a request by your country, they can not order any country or police force to do anything.

[FruitPudding]

Absolutely