*Translated by google translate

Introduction

I'm sure many of you are aware of the problems with interrogations. In Japan, suspects undergo long interrogations every day for up to 23 days during their arrest and detention. During these interrogations, the police and prosecutors try to force suspects to make statements that fit their own views. If you try to remain silent during an interrogation, you will be persuaded for a long time. It is very difficult to remain silent under such circumstances. In order to ensure that you exercise your right to remain silent, it is necessary not to go to the interrogation in the first place.

So in 2024, the "Association for the Realization of the Right to Refuse Interrogation" was launched. This group created a T-shirt that read, "I refuse to be interrogated." The idea was that suspects could wear this T-shirt and refuse to be interrogated, ensuring that they could exercise their right to remain silent.

However, the Habikino Police Station treated the T-shirt provided by the defense attorney as a "hazardous item" and confiscated it from Mr. A, who was wearing it. As a result, Mr. A lost his emotional support, was unable to remain silent during questioning, and made a statement.

The Habikino Police Station's action of confiscating Mr. A's T-shirt is an attempt to suppress Mr. A's expressive act of refusing to be questioned, a violation of Mr. A's right to remain silent, and an obstruction to his defense lawyer's activities.

Overview of the case

After Mr. A was arrested, he was detained at Habikino Police Station, and even after Attorney Matsumoto was appointed as his defense lawyer, he continued to be forced to make statements by the police during daily interrogations. It is not easy to remain silent, and Mr. A was close to breaking down.

In the midst of all this, Attorney Matsumoto gave Mr. A a T-shirt with the words "I refuse to be interrogated" written on it. The reason for this was that by Mr. A wearing this T-shirt, he would be able to refuse interrogation and exercise his right to remain silent. Mr. A also felt relieved, saying, "I feel like Attorney Matsumoto is with me." Mr. A spent his time wearing the T-shirt.

However, the next morning, a staff member from the Habikino Police Detention Management Division instructed Mr. A to take off his T-shirt, saying, "The message on the T-shirt is questionable," "It could be considered a dangerous item," and "Take it off." The staff member from the Habikino Police Detention Management Division then put the T-shirt in a dangerous items storage facility. Mr. A was unable to refuse questioning that day, and was persuaded to make a statement during questioning, and he made a statement without being able to maintain his silence.

▲ The T-shirt that was given to me

Attorney Matsumoto asked Habikino Police Station to return the T-shirt. However, Habikino Police Station said that they were checking with the Osaka Prefectural Police Headquarters. Attorney Matsumoto then asked the Osaka Prefectural Police Headquarters to allow the T-shirt to be worn. The Osaka Prefectural Police Headquarters responded that they had made a blanket decision not to allow the T-shirt to be worn.

Issues at issue

We argue that refusing to allow people to wear T-shirts that say "I refuse to be interrogated" primarily violates the following rights:

1) Violation of freedom of expression (Article 21, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution)

Mr. A was not allowed to wear or keep the T-shirt because the words "I refuse to be interrogated" printed on it were deemed to be "message-like" and "likely to cause problems in the maintenance of discipline and order in the detention facility and in other aspects of its management and administration" (Article 187 of the Detainee Treatment Act). In other words, possessing a T-shirt with a message on it and wearing it during interrogation disrupts the maintenance of order in the police station. This is a restriction on expressive behavior that focuses on the words "I refuse to be interrogated," and it is exactly the restriction on the content of expression that Article 21, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution is specifically intended to guarantee.

Freedom of expression, the right to convey one's opinions and thoughts to others, is one of the most important human rights. Reflecting on the history of the government using its power to silence voices opposed to war and leading the nation into war, the Constitution places strict restrictions on infringement of freedom of expression, among other human rights. It is extremely dangerous for the police to infringe on the freedom of expression of ordinary citizens, and should not be easily accepted.

2) Violation of the right to remain silent (Article 38, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution)

When you hear the word "suspect," many people may imagine "someone who has done something bad." However, at the stage where a person has only been arrested and detained and no trial has yet taken place, it has not been determined that they have actually committed a crime. There are also cases where people are mistakenly arrested, such as in the case of the false molestation accusation and the Hakamada case.

If the right to remain silent is not respected, there is a danger that the investigative authorities will try to mentally pressure the suspect or use mind control to obtain a confession during interrogations that continue day after day. Without the right to remain silent, the suspect will have to cooperate with the interrogation, and there is a danger that the investigative authorities may resort to torture to obtain a confession. Therefore, the right to remain silent is a very important right that protects the suspect himself.

Mr. A was mentally cornered due to his personality and life in the detention center. In that situation, it was not easy for him to express his intention to exercise his right to remain silent by speaking up to the interrogator. For Mr. A, wearing this T-shirt was the appropriate and necessary way to show his intention to exercise his right to remain silent (his intention to refuse interrogation).

However, the police officer took away the T-shirt, and by wearing the T-shirt, Mr. A was no longer able to express his intention to exercise his right to remain silent. This is clearly a violation of Mr. A's right to remain silent.

3) Violation of the right to counsel (Article 34, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution)

Suspects are guaranteed the right to request a defense attorney by the Constitution. This right to request a defense attorney includes the right to receive assistance from a defense attorney. Naturally, defense attorneys are considered to have the right to provide assistance to their clients regarding their defense strategy (right to defense). This right to defense also includes the right to carry out defense activities without interference from investigative authorities.

Attorney Matsumoto, who is the defense lawyer, met with Mr. A in the detention center and advised him that he had the right to remain silent and that he should use that right. He also advised him to wear a T-shirt as a way to demonstrate his intention to exercise that right, and provided him with a T-shirt. Attorney Matsumoto's advice and provision of the T-shirt was to help Mr. A protect his rights during questioning by the police officers, and Attorney Matsumoto was exercising his right to defense.

The police's confiscating Mr. A's T-shirt and refusing to allow him to wear it also violated Attorney Matsumoto's right to defense.

Plaintiff’s thoughts

Plaintiff A

When I saw or heard on the news that "suspects are remaining silent," I wondered why they wouldn't tell the truth. However, when I was actually arrested and interrogated, I understood what it meant.

During the interrogation, the detective asked me various questions one after another, and I gradually began to lose track of what the truth was. At that time, Attorney Matsumoto came to see me and advised me to remain silent.

However, when I told the detectives that I would remain silent, their attitude changed completely and I was treated as if my silence was a "bad thing." In such a situation, due to fear and anxiety, it was sometimes difficult to remain silent.

Seeing the expression on my face, Attorney Matsumoto handed me a T-shirt that said "I refuse to be interrogated" and said, "Wear this and let's get through this together."

My lawyer couldn't be present during the interrogation. I was always lonely and anxious. That's why when I wore this T-shirt, I felt reassured, as if my lawyer was with me, and I felt like I could remain silent. As soon as I returned to the detention center, I put on the T-shirt and went to sleep.

However, the next morning, when I was wearing a tracksuit-type jacket over my T-shirt, I was suddenly told to take it off because it "contains a message" and "may be considered a dangerous item," and my T-shirt was taken away somewhere.

It's really tough to remain silent in an interrogation room. So, showing the interrogator the words "I refuse to be interrogated" written on my chest and feeling that I was working hard with my lawyer were very important to me in order to remain silent. I'm very sorry that my T-shirt was taken away. I think it would be much easier if I could go to the interrogation room wearing that T-shirt.

I regret that I was not able to remain silent during questioning. I hope that this lawsuit will lead to a society in which it is easier to exercise the important right to remain silent. I would appreciate your support.

Plaintiff Ado Matsumoto (Lawyer)

social significance

Essentially, those exercising power must abide by the Constitution and the law, and restrictions on private individuals must be kept to a minimum in accordance with the Constitution and the law. In particular, when restrictions on constitutional rights are involved, as in this case, careful judgment is required.

T-shirts with the words "I refuse to be interrogated" have been worn in detention facilities under the jurisdiction of the Osaka Prefectural Police Headquarters in the past, but no problems have arisen. Mr. A was simply wearing the T-shirt to very quietly but clearly indicate his defensive stance to the interrogators.

However, officers from Habikino Police Station in Osaka Prefecture confiscated the T-shirt from Mr. A, claiming that wearing it inside a detention facility was a dangerous item in the sense that it would disrupt discipline and order.

The Osaka Prefectural Police Headquarters subsequently decided to ban the wearing of these T-shirts altogether.

The Osaka Prefectural Police Headquarters has removed and restricted the use of language that is inconvenient to them. This is an act of oppression against the expressive acts of Mr. A, and by extension, all people detained at police stations, and also violates their right to defense, including the right to remain silent.

Through this lawsuit, we hope to put a stop to the misuse of police power and further alleviate, at least to some extent, the excessive restrictions imposed on those detained in police stations across the country.

Use of funds

・Costs for writing opinions to constitutional and criminal procedure scholars ・Costs for legal team activities (publication and awareness-raising events for this case)
- Litigation administrative costs (stamps, postage, printing costs, etc.)
・Lawyer's fees ・Plaintiff's transportation costs ・Other research costs

Message from the lawyer in charge

The "I refuse to be interrogated" T-shirt is a way to communicate your defense without bothering anyone.

The T-shirt that Mr. A was wearing was not in itself dangerous. Nevertheless, it was taken away because the letters inscribed on the chest were objectionable to the police. Such actions by the police not only violate the freedom to wear what one wants, but are also illegal acts that violate the freedom of expression, the right to remain silent, the freedom to receive assistance from a lawyer, and the right to self-defense.

This is not just a problem for plaintiff A and plaintiff lawyer Ado Matsumoto, but a problem for the criminal justice system as a whole. We filed this lawsuit because we believe that such excessive police regulation should not be tolerated.

Introducing our lawyers

 Plaintiffs' Counsel

 Iwao Takayama, ZELAS Law Office
Mayu Kawasaki, Hoshida Kasasagi Law Office
Akira Chijiwa, Yabuno, Fujita & Chijiwa Law Office
Takayasu Tsugane, Kollect Plus Law Office
Ayaka Yuasa, Law Office Yui

 Plaintiff A litigation attorney

Matsumoto Aji Kansai Joint Law Office

Conclusion

Please do not think that this incident is something that will happen to you. Anyone can be interrogated if the police suspect them, even if they have not committed a crime.

If you, the person reading this page, are being interrogated (even if you have not committed a crime), you may, after consulting with a lawyer, come to the conclusion that exercising your right to remain silent is necessary for your defense.

The entire legal team will continue to work together until the very end to ensure that everyone can properly exercise their legitimate rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

This lawsuit involves a wide range of specialized issues, so the cost of obtaining expert opinions is expected to be quite high. We would appreciate your support.