26 Visits to places of detention Drammen police custody (22 October) The NPM visited Drammen police station on 22 October 2014. The police station houses Southern Buskerud Police District’s primary police custody facility, and has a total of 18 cells. The police district was notified of the visit four weeks ahead of time, and was asked to submit specified information. The visit to the custody facility in Drammen was well arranged by the police. The overall impression was that the facility is solidly led and run. Between 2009 and 2013, the police district was penalised with fines on four occasions, three of which concerned the Drammen custody facility. The sanctions have resulted in several measures that have contributed to a higher degree of professionalism in police custody tasks. One aspect of the police response has been to raise the status of duties performed by custody officers within the police service. During its visit, the NPM examined the police’s handling of serious incidents and use of force. The general impression was that officers in the facility work thoroughly and methodically when the risk of violence and injury is greatest. It was found that body searches take place after individualised assessments. The NPM found some recordkeeping weaknesses in the supervision of high-risk detainees. In 2012, the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs fined the police district after a detainee had been handcuffed to two metal rings in the wall. The metal rings in that cell have since been removed. Excessive use of handcuffs was not shown to be a problem in the custody facility. Because police custody is unsuitable for lengthy stays, the NPM looked closely at police efforts to ensure transfer to prison within two days. From 1 September 2013 to 1 September 2014, 112 people spent more than two days in the custody facility. The NPM took special notice of the fact that two minors spent almost three days in the facility in the summer of 2013. As for efforts to ease the time spent in custody cells, the records contained little indication of measures taken or considered to alleviate the effects of isolation. In the NPM’s conversations with detainees, no complaints were made regarding access to the local accident and emergency unit. The unit’s special routine for treating detainees appeared to be sound. It emerged, however, that the police are usually present in the room when the medical examination is conducted. The NPM also found some weaknesses relating to detainees’ right to have Norway’s National Preventive Mechanism – Annual Report 2014 relatives or third parties notified of their admission to custody, as well as their right to contact defence counsel and receive information about their rights as persons taken into custody or arrested. The custody facility’s premises were inspected. In the intake room, behind a bench along the wall, three metal rods mounted on the wall were observed. It was stated that these were no longer in use and could be removed. Most cells lack direct daylight, and none has a clock. It also emerged that cell lighting is generally left on 24 hours per day for supervisory purposes, including the ability to monitor detainees by video if necessary. Several persons in custody felt that the lighting was bothersome at night. The custody facility lacks a suitable area where those in detention can have access to fresh air.