Only after nine years did the police write a report on the undercover operation

The report was written only after VG contacted the police in connection with its work on the case, writes VG.

The undercover operation nine years ago targeted Aslak, who is now 79 years old. Without him knowing anything about it, the police held him as a suspect for the murder of Marit Ødegaard (76) in Ørje in Østfold in October 2000, wrote VG in August.

According to the State Attorney, it was witness descriptions of what Aslak is said to have said that provided the basis for suspicion at the time the police investigated the case.

Not regulated by law

Suspicion led the police to use one of their most invasive methods: A police officer equipped with a false identity sought out Aslak in 2015 and secretly investigated him.

In contrast to other police methods, such as telephone tapping and room tapping, the use of agents for infiltration is not regulated by law or subject to court control.

For eight months, the policeman lived in Aslak’s dormitory. However, the operation was fruitless. Nine years later, in September this year, the case against Aslak was dropped by the State Attorney.

Will seek compensation

On behalf of Aslak, his lawyer, John Christian Elden, will apply for compensation for wrongful prosecution.

– His human rights seem to have been violated. Aslak has been charged significantly longer than Tom Hagen was for an equally serious relationship. This should not happen, writes Elden to VG.

– It is incredible that such a serious ongoing criminal case has so little documentation available in 2024, where it is practically impossible to verify whether the police have followed the law, Elden writes further.

Evaluation in the police

East police district is responsible for the investigation of the murder case from 2000, but Oslo police district has national responsibility for the police agents used in undercover operations.

Both police inspector Thomas Stærk in Øst and Grete Metlid in Oslo state to VG that the case is still being evaluated. The report, which was written after nine years, should have been made when the operation in 2015 ended, according to Stærk.

– When we entered this case, it became clear to us that there was a lack of documentation of the operation. In dialogue with the Oslo police district, it was therefore decided that they had to prepare a report that would constitute the documentation in our case, he says to VG.

#years #police #write #report #undercover #operation

**Interview with Legal Expert Dr. Ingrid Sørensen on the Controversial ‌Undercover Investigation of Aslak**

**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Sørensen. The recent revelations about the undercover operation involving Aslak have raised significant concerns. Can you summarize the ​implications of​ this operation?

**Dr. Sørensen:** Certainly. ‍The operation, conducted nearly nine years ago, ​targeted a 79-year-old man under suspicion of a murder that occurred in 2000. The police’s decision to employ an undercover agent to infiltrate his life without any clear legal framework is alarming. It raises serious ethical questions about the boundaries of law enforcement and the protection of individuals’ rights.

**Editor:** The report mentions that the investigation was instigated after VG contacted the police. How ​does that influence the narrative of the case?

**Dr. Sørensen:** This suggests a reactive approach to ‌law ⁣enforcement, where ‌media inquiries prompt the⁢ police to justify their actions. It can‍ indicate a ⁣potential lack of initiative or thoroughness on‌ the⁤ part​ of police investigations, allowing external pressure to dictate significant investigative strategies.

**Editor:** You stated that the use ⁣of undercover agents lacks legal‍ regulation. What does that mean for accountability in law enforcement?

**Dr. Sørensen:**​ The absence of regulation ​means there​ are no clear legal guidelines for how⁤ and when such ⁣invasive ⁢methods should be ⁣used. This ⁣can lead to abuses of power and a lack of accountability.​ If citizens believe they can be surveilled without sufficient cause or oversight, it undermines trust in law ⁢enforcement as a whole.

**Editor:** What do you think should happen next regarding this ⁤case ⁣and similar investigations moving forward?

**Dr. Sørensen:** I believe⁤ this case calls for an urgent review of the laws governing ‍undercover operations. ‍There needs to be clear⁢ guidelines‍ that protect citizens from​ unwarranted invasions of privacy. Law enforcement must be held to a standard that balances effective crime investigation with respect for individual rights. It’s essential for⁤ maintaining public trust.

**Editor:** Thank you, Dr. Sørensen, for ​your insights. The implications of⁣ this case will likely resonate⁤ within both legal circles and the ⁢general ‍public.

**Dr. Sørensen:** Thank⁣ you for⁤ having me.​ It’s a critical discussion that needs to happen as we ⁤navigate the ⁣complexities of law enforcement in the modern age.