Summary of "24/11/2025 - SESSÃO DO ÓRGÃO ESPECIAL"

Judicial Session on Rio de Janeiro State Law No. 10.14141/2023

The video covers a judicial session focused on the constitutionality of Rio de Janeiro State Law No. 10.14141/2023, which regulates procedures for photographic identification of suspects in criminal investigations. The session features oral arguments from prosecutors representing the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Ministério Público), the Legislative Assembly’s prosecutors, and other legal representatives, followed by the judges’ deliberations and votes.

Key Points and Arguments

1. Context and Background

The law was enacted in October 2023 in response to concerns about wrongful convictions in Brazil stemming from unreliable photographic identifications used by police.
It aims to impose stricter procedural safeguards on photographic identification during police investigations to prevent miscarriages of justice, particularly protecting vulnerable and marginalized populations.

2. Public Prosecutor’s Office Arguments

Presented by Dr. Marcelo Pereira Marques

The law is manifestly unconstitutional on both formal and substantive grounds.
Formal unconstitutionality:
- Criminal procedural law is an exclusive federal competence under Article 22 of the Constitution.
- The state law improperly legislates on criminal procedure, introducing new formalities and restrictions not present in the federal Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP).
- The law prohibits police authorities from requesting pretrial detention based solely on photographic identification, contradicting federal law and Superior Court of Justice (STJ) jurisprudence that allows such detention if properly justified.
- It imposes restrictions on police investigations and interferes with the principle of reasoned conviction by dictating evidentiary standards for judges, exceeding legislative authority.
- Additional constitutional issues arise regarding the processing of personal data and legislative initiative, as the law was proposed by parliamentarians rather than the state executive, violating norms on administrative organization.
Substantive unconstitutionality:
- The law unduly restricts due process and the rule of law by limiting police and prosecutorial powers, potentially harming public safety.

3. Legislative Assembly’s Prosecutors’ Arguments

Presented by Dr. Dante Tomás and Dr. Pedro Assunção

The law is a legitimate exercise of the state’s concurrent jurisdiction over procedural matters, specifically administrative police procedures during the pretrial investigation phase.
It does not contradict federal law but supplements Article 226 of the CPP by establishing good practices to avoid wrongful identifications.
The law aligns with binding STJ jurisprudence (repetitive theme 1258) that invalid photographic identification cannot serve as sole evidence for conviction or detention.
There is no imminent danger or harm caused by the law; it has been in effect for over two years without reported negative impact on criminal prosecution.
The law does not violate the principle of reasoned conviction because it targets police procedures, not judicial decisions.
No violation of data protection laws or legislative initiative rules occurred; the law does not create new bodies or duties but formalizes existing police practices.
Suspending the law risks increasing wrongful indictments and detention, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups.

4. Judges’ Deliberations and Vote

The rapporteur judge partially granted the injunction to suspend the part of Article 1, paragraph 1, final part of the law that prohibits pretrial detention requests based solely on photographic identification, citing overreach into federal jurisdiction and conflict with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The rapporteur emphasized that photographic identification, if valid under Article 226 CPP, should not be categorically excluded as a basis for preventive detention.
Other provisions of the law were not found unconstitutional at this stage.
Some judges dissented, arguing the law merely regulates police procedures and does not prohibit detention requests based on photographic identification combined with other evidence.
A review was requested to avoid premature ruling on the merits.
Ultimately, the session ended with a unanimous partial acceptance of a separate appeal related to a different matter (remuneration for quilombola culture promoters), not directly connected to the photographic identification law.

Conclusion

The court’s preliminary decision partially suspended the prohibition on pretrial detention requests based solely on photographic identification, recognizing the exclusive federal competence over criminal procedure. However, the broader law regulating police identification procedures remains in effect pending further judgment. The debate highlights tensions between state-level attempts to address wrongful convictions and the constitutional limits on legislative competence in criminal procedural matters.

Presenters and Contributors

Dr. Marcelo Pereira Marques (Public Prosecutor’s Office)
Dr. Dante Tomás (Prosecutor, Legislative Assembly)
Dr. Pedro Assunção (Prosecutor, Legislative Assembly)
Judge Mônica Félmo (Reporting Judge)
Judge Joaquim Domingos de Almeida Neto
Other judges including Antônio Amado, Cláudio Brandão, Milton Fernandes, Gisel, Mauro Dig, Marcos Ibrahim, and others