Art. 13. It will also be incumbent upon the police authority:
I – to provide the judicial authorities with the information necessary for the instruction and trial of cases;
II – carry out the steps requested by the judge or the Public Prosecutor’s Office;
III – comply with arrest warrants issued by the judicial authorities;
IV – represent about preventive detention.
Information, diligences, warrants and representation
Comments: In four paragraphs, article 13 of the CPP lists the duties of the police authority. It is incumbent upon the police authority, ex officio or by judicial request, to provide the information necessary for the investigation and judgment of cases (item I). It is also responsible for taking steps requested by the judge or directly by the Public Prosecutor’s Office (item II). Among these, locating witnesses, denounced, carrying out searches and seizures. The police authority must also comply with the arrest warrants issued by the judge (item III) and, finally, represent about the preventive detention (item IV). Thus, in the course of the initiated investigation, if the police authority understands that the requirements that authorize preventive detention are present, it must represent the judge in a reasoned manner, so that the arrest is decreed. It may also, if the requirements of the Law n. 7,960, of December 21, 1989 , represent the judge so that the temporary arrest is decreed.
Examination of mental insanity: The examination may be ordered even during the investigation phase, upon representation by the police authority to the competent judge ( article 149, paragraph 1 ).
Requisition as an order: On this subject, see the subheading Requisitions from the judicial, ministerial and police authorities are to be fulfilled in the heading Relations between the police and the public prosecutor’s office , in comments on Article 4.
Flavio Meirelles Medeiros: Preventive Prison in Six Stages
Ada Pellegrini Grinover: Ethics, abuse of process and resistance to judicial orders: the contempt of court . s3.amazonaws.com.
The investigated party’s pretense of expressing a prior opinion on the MP’s request is unavoidable: The fact that the investigations of the inquiry are not carried out in adversary proceedings does not prejudice the exercise of full defense ( Inq 3.387 AgR, rel. min. Dias Toffoli, judgment on 15 -12-2015, judgment published in the DJE of 26-2-2016 – Bulletin