Court of Cassation

Local police: when contempt of authority may not be a punishable offence

Mitigation is excluded only in relation to public security functions

by Giovanni Negri

2 July 2026

2' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

Key points

The Supreme Court’s position

2' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

For the offence of insulting a public official, the ground for non-punishment on the grounds of the minor nature of the offence applies only if committed against law enforcement officers in the course of their duties. This does not apply for the municipal police unless they are cooperating, within the scope of their powers, with the State Police, following instructions from the mayor for specific operations. This was reiterated by the Court of Cassation in judgment 24069, filed yesterday.

The Supreme Court’s position

The Court points out that the status of public security officers or judicial police officers does not automatically derive from the performance of local policing duties, but is subject to the conditions laid down in the relevant sectoral regulations.

As regards the status of public security officer, Law No. 65 of 7 March 1986, ‘Framework Law on the Organisation of the Municipal Police’, provides, on the one hand, that municipal police officers shall cooperate, within the scope of their duties, with the State Police Forces, upon instruction from the mayor, when a reasoned request from the competent authorities. The Prefect then grants local police personnel, following notification by the mayor and verification of the prescribed requirements, the status public security officer.

The functions of judicial police, as set out in the same legislation, are, however, limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the local authority to which they belong and to the time during which they are actually on duty.

Having set out the above to outline the relevant legal framework, the Court of Cassation then turns its attention to the specific case (a serious altercation between a woman, who was driving a car, and local police officers over an alleged breach of the Highway Code – a parking offence – coupled with her refusal to produce identification documents), to rule out the possibility that the local police officers, engaged in traffic policing duties aimed at ensuring compliance with the regulations of the Highway Code, do not hold the status of judicial police officers or public security officers.

‘Nor, as the judgment further emphasises, could the hypothetical subsequent assumption of judicial police functions in relation to the investigation of the offence of contempt committed against them be relevant, given that the status of the victim, upon which the applicability of the preclusive clause depends, must exist at the time the offence is committed and cannot be inferred from activities carried out subsequently precisely as a consequence of the offence in question’.”