When Can Japanese Police Legally Stop and Question Me or My Employees on the Street?

Encounters with police officers on the street for questioning, known in Japan as shokumu shitsumon (職務質問), are a relatively common aspect of maintaining public order and initiating investigations. While designed as a tool for crime prevention and preliminary inquiry, the authority of police officers to stop and question individuals is not unlimited. It is governed by specific legal provisions, primarily Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Police Duties Execution Act (警察官職務執行法, Keisatsukan Shokumu Shikkō Hō, hereinafter "PDEA"). Understanding the circumstances under which these encounters are legally permissible is important for anyone residing in or doing business in Japan, as well as for employers whose personnel might be subject to such questioning.

The Legal Basis: Article 2(1) of the Police Duties Execution Act

The PDEA provides the primary legal foundation for police officers to stop individuals and ask questions. Article 2, paragraph 1 states:

"A police officer may stop and question any person for whom there is sufficient reason, judging rationally from their unusual conduct or other surrounding circumstances, to suspect that they have committed or are about to commit some crime, or any person who is deemed to possess information regarding a crime which has already been committed or is about to be committed."

This provision serves a dual purpose. Primarily, it's an administrative police activity (行政警察活動, gyōsei keisatsu katsudō) aimed at preventing and suppressing crime. However, shokumu shitsumon also frequently serves as a crucial initial step or starting point (捜査の端緒, sōsa no tansho) for formal criminal investigations. In some instances, the questioning may evolve or overlap with voluntary questioning conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP Article 197).

Who Can Be Stopped and Questioned?

According to PDEA Article 2(1), police questioning can target two categories of individuals:

1. Persons Suspected of Criminal Activity: Individuals for whom there is "sufficient reason" (相当な理由, sōtō na riyū) to suspect they have committed, or are about to commit, "some crime" (何らかの犯罪, nanraka no hanzai).
2. Persons Believed to Have Information (Potential Witnesses/Informants): Individuals who are "deemed to possess information" (知っていると認められる者, shitte iru to mitomerareru mono) about a crime that has already occurred or is about to occur.

The Grounds for Stopping and Questioning: "Unusual Conduct" and Rational Judgment

For the first category (suspected offenders), the officer's suspicion must be based on a rational judgment derived from:

• "Unusual Conduct" (異常な挙動, ijō na kyodō): This refers to behavior that is unnatural, strange, suspicious, or out of the ordinary in the given context. It can encompass a person's speech, actions, demeanor, attire, or the items they are carrying if these appear incongruous or alarming.
• "Other Surrounding Circumstances" (その他周囲の事情, sonota shūi no jijō): This includes a wide array of contextual factors such as the time of day or night, the specific location (e.g., a high-crime area, a deserted street late at night), the environment, and any recent incidents or alerts known to the officer (e.g., a recent nearby burglary, a description of a wanted person). An officer’s prior knowledge or information received can also contribute to these circumstances.

It's important to note that for the second category (potential witnesses/informants), the requirement of "unusual conduct" does not apply. The officer only needs a reasonable basis to believe the person possesses relevant information.

The Standard of "Rational Judgment" (合理的に判断して, gōriteki ni handan shite)

The PDEA mandates that the officer's decision to stop and question must be based on a "rational judgment." This is a critical safeguard against arbitrary or purely subjective stops. The standard is not simply what the individual officer personally felt or suspected, but rather whether a reasonable police officer, possessing the same information and experience, would have formed a similar suspicion in the same circumstances. This judgment must be objectively justifiable from a societal common-sense perspective. Courts will assess the rationality of the officer's judgment based on the concrete facts and circumstances as they appeared at the time of the questioning, to the extent that these could be normally ascertainable by an officer on the scene.

"Some Crime" – No Need for Specificity

The phrase "some crime" (何らかの犯罪) indicates that officers do not need to have a specific offense in mind when initiating questioning. A general suspicion that some form of criminal activity is afoot, has occurred, or is about to occur is sufficient, provided it's grounded in the aforementioned rational judgment based on unusual conduct or circumstances. The gravity of the suspected offense (whether minor or serious) is also not a limiting factor for initiating questioning.

The term "sufficient reason to suspect" (疑うに足りる相当な理由) implies that there must be objective circumstances that point, with a considerable degree of probability, to a link between the individual and a crime, thereby justifying the intrusion of questioning.

The Act of "Stopping" (停止させて)

Article 2(1) empowers police officers to "stop" (停止させて, teishi sasete) individuals for the purpose of questioning. The wording suggests that this authority may go beyond merely requesting voluntary cooperation and can involve a degree of compulsion to halt an individual's movement, short of a formal arrest. The permissible extent of force used to effectuate such a stop is a separate but related issue, generally governed by principles of necessity and proportionality.

Limitations and Individual Rights During Shokumu Shitsumon

While PDEA Article 2(1) grants the authority to stop and question, Article 2(3) provides important limitations:

"Persons provided for in the preceding two paragraphs shall not, unless pursuant to the provisions of laws and ordinances concerning criminal procedure, be detained, taken to a police station, police box or residential police box, or compelled to answer questions against their will."

This provision underscores that shokumu shitsumon, as an administrative police function, is, in principle, voluntary. Individuals cannot be forced to accompany officers to a police station (though they can be asked to do so under specific conditions outlined in PDEA Art. 2(2) if on-the-spot questioning is disadvantageous to the person or obstructs traffic) or compelled to answer questions. Any detention or compelled answers must rely on separate legal grounds found in criminal procedure law, such as those pertaining to formal arrest.

While not explicitly stated in the PDEA for shokumu shitsumon, the general principle in Japanese law is that individuals are not obligated to answer questions from the police during such encounters. They have the right to remain silent, and a refusal to answer, by itself, should not typically escalate the grounds for suspicion to the level of arrest, although it might prolong the interaction.

Judicial Interpretation: Drawing the Line Between Lawful and Unlawful Questioning

Japanese courts have had occasion to interpret the scope of shokumu shitsumon. Case law helps illustrate the application of the "rational judgment" standard.

• Example of Unlawful Questioning: Kyoto District Court, July 22, 1968 (Shōwa 43.7.22)
  In this case, a plainclothes police officer observed a man looking at a theater billboard around 10:00 AM. The officer deemed the man's "shabby" attire (old rubber boots on a clear day, carrying a paper bag filled with old newspapers) and his act of viewing the billboard at that hour as "unnatural" and suspicious. When the man began to walk away as the officer approached, the officer pursued and attempted to question him, leading to an altercation.
  The Kyoto District Court ruled the officer's attempt to question the man was illegal. The court found that:
  1. Looking at a theater billboard mid-morning was not inherently unnatural or suspicious.
  2. The man's attire, while perhaps modest, was not sufficiently unusual to objectively suggest he had committed a crime.
  3. Since the officer was in plain clothes, the man would not have known he was a police officer; thus, his walking away could not be construed as a suspicious attempt to flee from law enforcement.
     The court concluded that the officer's decision was based on purely subjective observations lacking objective, rational grounds.
• Example of Lawful Questioning: Supreme Court Decision, September 26, 1989 (Heisei 1.9.26), Hanrei Jihō No. 1357, p. 147
  Here, a uniformed police officer was directing traffic when an individual (the defendant) spat, and the saliva landed on the officer. The officer, perceiving this as potentially intentional, immediately stopped the defendant by taking hold of his chest/lapel area to question him about the incident.
  The Supreme Court upheld the lawfulness of the officer's actions. It reasoned that being spat upon, even if claimed to be accidental, would prompt any reasonable person to inquire as to the reason. For a uniformed officer engaged in official duties, such an act could reasonably give rise to suspicion that the individual might intend further acts of assault or obstruction of public duty. Therefore, the officer was justified in stopping the individual for questioning, and the minimal physical contact used to achieve the stop was considered a permissible adjunct to initiating the shokumu shitsumon.

Key "Watershed" Points for Legality (違法と適法の分水嶺)

The legality of police questioning on the street often turns on the following:

• Objectivity over Subjectivity: The officer's suspicion must be grounded in objective facts and circumstances, not merely on a hunch, intuition, or personal bias. Officers must be able to articulate the specific observations that led to their judgment.
• Totality of the Circumstances: The decision to question should not be based on a single isolated factor but on a comprehensive assessment of all available information, including the individual's behavior, attire, possessions, the time and place, any recent crimes in the vicinity, and any information already possessed by the police.
• Rational Connection: There must be a rational link between the observed conduct or circumstances and the possibility of "some crime" being involved.

Implications for Individuals and Businesses

For individuals, including employees of domestic or international businesses, an encounter involving shokumu shitsumon means that police believe there are legally sufficient grounds to stop and ask questions. While cooperation is generally advisable and can often resolve matters quickly, it's important to understand that:

• The questioning itself, if initiated based on the PDEA criteria, is a lawful police activity.
• There is generally no obligation to answer questions posed during shokumu shitsumon.
• Under the PDEA, one cannot be compelled to go to a police station or be detained solely for the purpose of shokumu shitsumon against their will. Any such compulsion must be based on separate criminal procedure laws (e.g., arrest with a warrant, or grounds for a warrantless arrest).

Businesses should be aware that their employees, particularly if their duties involve public-facing roles, driving, or being present in various public locations, might be subject to such questioning if their conduct or the circumstances appear unusual to an officer.

Conclusion

Police questioning on the street, or shokumu shitsumon, is a recognized and necessary police power in Japan, aimed at proactive crime prevention and initial investigation. However, this power is constrained by the Police Duties Execution Act, which requires officers to base their decision to stop and question on a rational judgment derived from objectively observable "unusual conduct" or "other surrounding circumstances" that suggest a link to "some crime" or possession of information about a crime.

While officers have a degree of discretion, this discretion is not unfettered and is subject to judicial review to ensure it remains within the bounds of objective reasonableness. The balance lies between enabling police to effectively carry out their duties and safeguarding individual freedoms from arbitrary interference. For both individuals and businesses, a basic understanding of these legal parameters is conducive to navigating such encounters appropriately.