Abuse of Authority Scales

In: Análisis On: Sunday May 31 2026

In Peru, a society that defines itself as democratic, public order and citizens’ rights must coexist in balance. Within this context, the National Police of Peru plays an essential role: safeguarding public peace, security, and social coexistence. However, when an intervention involving a cannabis user or a citizen exceeds the limits established by law or disregards their fundamental rights, it may constitute a situation of abuse of authority.

Talking about abuse of authority does not mean being opposed to public safety. On the contrary, it means strengthening public security while respecting the constitutional framework.

Abuse of authority is expressly recognized as a criminal offense under Peruvian criminal law

The offense of abuse of authority is criminalized under Article 376 of the Peruvian Criminal Code [1], which penalizes any public official or public servant who, by abusing their powers, commits or orders arbitrary acts that exceed legal limits, thereby violating fundamental rights or exercising state authority in a disproportionate manner to the detriment of an individual.

The Problem with Interventions Based on Assumptions

In certain situations, some police or municipal security officer interventions involving cannabis users who consume cannabis in public spaces, such as streets or parks, are often justified on grounds such as flagrante delicto, disturbance of public peace, or the protection of public spaces and community coexistence.

However, there is an ongoing debate regarding when such interventions genuinely comply with due process and when they instead result in violations of fundamental rights. Among the rights most frequently implicated are:

The right to the free development of personality, Article 2(1) of the Constitution [2];
Freedom of movement, Article 2(11) of the Constitution [3];
Individual liberty, Article 2(24) of the Constitution [4];
The principle of legality, Article 2 of the Criminal Code [5];
Non-punishable possession, Article 299 of the Criminal Code [6].

This tension between security and rights is also reflected within the institutional culture itself. According to the Police Perception and Self-Perception Census 2023 [7], which collected the opinions of more than 90,000 police officers, 77.4% indicated that their first response to the suspected commission of a crime is to intervene immediately. While this practice is consistent with the nature of police duties, it also highlights the importance of ensuring that every intervention is guided by clear standards of legality, proportionality, and respect for fundamental rights, rather than relying solely on subjective suspicions, stigma, or assumptions, particularly where there is no specific conduct by the individual that effectively harms a legally protected area or the common good.

Figura-1 predisposicion hacia la intervencion

Grounds for Intervention

The Peruvian Criminal Code establishes both criminal offenses and minor offenses related to the disturbance of public peace and the disruption of public order. These provisions are intended to protect public safety and social coexistence.

Minor Offenses Against Public Peace and Public Morality:

Article 449 regulates disturbances of public peace committed while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; [8]
Article 452 sanctions minor disturbances of public peace or disruptions of order during public events. [9]

Offenses Against Public Health:

The illicit drug trade is criminalized under Article 296 of the Peruvian Criminal Code, which establishes custodial sentences for individuals who cultivate, produce, process, transport, facilitate, or store cannabis for commercial purposes without Goverment authorization. [10]

However, these provisions are intended to sanction conduct that causes a demonstrable harm to social coexistence, public peace, public safety, or public health. Stigma, appearance, or personal assumptions about a cannabis user are not, by themselves, sufficient grounds to justify a police or municipal security officer intervention.

Scales of Abuse of Authority

1. Discrimination or Profiling of the User

A police officer or municipal security officer acting lawfully and responsibly does not criminalize cannabis consumption itself, but may have concerns associated with the surrounding circumstances or potential consequences of the act:

They believe that smoking cannabis in a public space may pose a risk of disturbance or constitute an offense against public morality.
They associate cannabis use with a subjective suspicion of illicit drug trafficking, influenced by stigma and personal beliefs rather than evidence.
Their actions aim to prevent the spread of consumption or protect the surrounding environment, although such actions may sometimes be based more on prejudice than on concrete facts.

In this context, the first scale of abuse arises when an intervention is driven more by prejudice or stereotypes than by specific conduct. This may occur when a person is stopped or questioned because of their appearance, clothing, age, manner of speaking, or because they are arbitrarily associated with the use of other substances.

The need to strengthen these criteria is particularly important given that 30.3% of police officers report having received incomplete or insufficient training regarding current legal regulations, while 3.5% indicate that they received no such training at all. This situation reveals shortcomings in the legal and procedural training of officers responsible for conducting interventions.

Figura-2 Preparacion recibida sobre normas legales

At this point, an important debate arises regarding the disproportionate use of authority and the risk of turning subjective suspicion into a basis for intervention. In many cases, a lack of knowledge about citizens' rights can lead to interventions grounded more in stigma and assumptions than in verifiable facts.

As a result, some citizens feel the need to request explanations regarding the procedure, question the legal grounds for an intervention, or record the actions of law enforcement officers. However, 34.5% of police officers report feeling uncomfortable when citizens challenge their interventions, while 6.4% indicate feeling uncomfortable when those interventions are recorded.

Figura-3 Incomodidad en su labor policial

It is evident that, within the police institution, there is a degree of intolerance toward citizen oversight, transparency, and adherence to due process. Far from constituting a lack of respect for lawful authority, questioning and recording an intervention are legitimate mechanisms for safeguarding individuals against potential arbitrariness and form part of the exercise of citizens' rights.

2. Violation of Rights Through Administrative Sanctions

A second level of abuse arises when administrative fines are imposed or municipal regulations are enforced in a manner that conflicts with higher-ranking legal norms. The Peruvian legal system is governed by the principle of normative hierarchy, commonly illustrated through the Kelsenian Pyramid, which means that a municipal ordinance cannot contradict higher-ranking norms such as the Constitution, statutes, or legislative decrees.

Figura-4-Pirámide-de-Kelsen-aplicada-al-ordenamiento-jurídico-peruano

For this reason, legal controversies arise when certain interventions or municipal administrative fines attempt to restrict conduct that may fall within areas not criminalized under national legislation, as is the case with the doctrine and jurisprudence surrounding non-punishable possession under Article 299 of the Peruvian Criminal Code.

In this context, it is essential that interventions and administrative sanctions be supported by a sound understanding of the applicable legislation. A lack of clarity regarding the limits of governmental authority can generate conflicts between citizens and public officials, particularly when rights, jurisdictional powers, and the scope of legalty are at issue. Not every unpopular or socially disapproved behavior automatically constitutes a legal violation.

3. Corruption, Abuse, and Evidence Planting

The most serious level of abuse of authority occurs when an intervention involving a cannabis user ceases to be aimed at protecting the public and instead becomes an arbitrary, extortionate, or even corrupt practice.

A police officer or security agent who does not act in accordance with the law may:

Disregard or ignore existing legal provisions (Article 299 of the Criminal Code) and assume that all possession or consumption constitutes a criminal offense.
Take advantage of a user's lack of legal knowledge by generating fear, intimidation, or pressure.
Engage in abusive practices such as:

Arbitrary accusations,
Extortion ("If you don't give me something, I'll take you in"),
Theft ("I'll take what you have" or "confiscate" it without preparing an official report),
Planting false evidence, such as placing cannabis in a person's backpack to justify an intervention.

According to the 91.5% of police officers, themselves acknowledge that there are members of the institution who engage in unlawful conduct. This finding suggests that the problem is recognized from within the organization itself and highlights the concern faced by cannabis users and other citizens who may feel pressured to submit to acts of corruption or other unlawful practices.

Figura-5 Percepcion interna sobre conductas irregulares

These practices not only violate fundamental rights, but also undermine public trust in the institutions responsible for providing security. It is therefore not surprising that 60.5% of police officers believe that sanctions for misconduct are either ineffective or only occasionally effective, while 43.8% consider permanent dismissal from the institution to be the most appropriate response to acts of corruption.

Figura-6 Confianza en los mecanismos disciplinarios

While this data reflect an internal concern for strengthening mechanisms of oversight, integrity, and transparency within the institution, only 20.1% of police officers consider reporting a colleague who has engaged in unlawful conduct to be part of their professional duty. There is even a minority who regard reporting a corrupt colleague as an act of disloyalty, highlighting the existence of cultural barriers that hinder accountability within the institution.

Figura-7 Percepcion del policia que denuncia a otro por corrupcion

What Is the Real Purpose of an Administrative Fine for Cannabis Use?

Another important aspect is understanding the nature of administrative sanctioning proceedings. In theory, their primary purpose should not be revenue generation or the economic punishment of the individual, the real purpose is the promotion of regulatory compliance and social coexistence.

Likewise, an administrative fine constitutes a formal allegation of wrongdoing that may be challenged through:

Written defenses or responses to the charges,
Administrative appeals,
Administrative review procedures,
And even judicial proceedings when the individual believes that their rights have been violated.

A cannabis user, like any other citizen, retains the right to defend themselves and to challenge the legality or proportionality of an administrative accusation.

The Importance of Legal Support and Internal Oversight

In the face of potential abuses, timely legal support enables an individual subject to an intervention to submit a defense, seek review by supervisory bodies, or file complaints before competent oversight institutions, such as the General Inspectorate of the National Police of Peru and the Ombudsman's Office. The role of these institutions is not to hinder public order, but rather to ensure that the exercise of authority remains within the procedures and limits established by Peruvian law, protecting both citizens and the public officials responsible for maintaining public safety. This objective is consistent with the principle of legality, which constitutes the primary limitation on the State's punitive power, as penalties may only be imposed for conduct that has been previously defined as a criminal offense by law.

The importance of these legal support and internal oversight mechanisms lies in their contribution to strengthening the legitimacy of the police institution and promoting a more efficient, professional, and rights-respecting approach to law enforcement. Their role becomes even more relevant in interventions related to drug or substance use, a type of conduct that, under the Peruvian Criminal Code, is not itself subject to criminal sanction.

A review of national records from the Ministry of the Interior (MININTER), published through statistical reports of the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics (INEI) [13], reveals a sustained decline in this type of intervention between 2016 and 2021, from 7,728 to 3,430 recorded cases. Although the number increased to 4,714 recorded interventions by 2024, it remains below the levels observed prior to 2016, reflecting a gradual transformation in intervention criteria and in the allocation of enforcement resources by public authorities.

These records of interventions related to drug use provide insight into their impact on users' right to the free development of personality and underscore the importance of having oversight mechanisms, review procedures, and safeguards that guarantee the right to defense. When the legal basis for an intervention or sanction is lacking, the ability to appeal to oversight bodies, submit defenses, or challenge decisions becomes a fundamental safeguard for protecting human rights and strengthening the legitimacy of police action.

An Opportunity to Strengthen Authority

A better understanding of the legal framework, combined with stronger institutional oversight mechanisms and citizens that are better informed about their rights, can contribute to further reducing unnecessary interventions and promoting more balanced actions that respect the rule of law.

To achieve this goal, strengthening trust between citizens and law enforcement agencies is essential, particularly considering that only 49.4% of police officers believe that the public values or appreciates their work, reflecting a relationship marked by distrust. This gap undermines the ability to build a cooperative relationship between citizens and law enforcement and becomes especially significant when a cannabis user is subjected to an intervention based on the alleged commission of an offense or crime that ultimately cannot be substantiated. Such situations reinforce perceptions of injustice and weaken the institutional legitimacy of the police

Opportunities for improvement are recognized by a significant proportion of police officers who acknowledge shortcomings in the legal training they have received, admit the existence of colleagues who engage in unlawful conduct, and question the effectiveness of certain internal oversight mechanisms. In this regard, strengthening legal knowledge, interpersonal skills, conflict-resolution capabilities, and communication with citizens is essential to improving the quality of interventions and helping to rebuild public trust.