Pa r t i I . place of service. Moreover, it is impossible for one police officer to ensure safety and control in the centre. 4. Personal searches of detainees During the visits, the representatives of the NPM face situations in which police officers understand detailed examination – provided for in the Ordinance of the Minister of Justice – as a  personal search. However, applicable provisions neither define nor specify how a detained person should be controlled. 4.3. Good practices Similarly to previous years, good practice was to perform medical examination of all detainees, regardless of the grounds for their detention. This is all the more important, because – as already indicated – the provisions in place do not impose such an obligation103. 4.4. Areas requiring improvement 1. Legality of stay As in previous years, the representatives of the NPM found no major violations in this respect. Having analysed protocols of detention, admission/release orders and duty log books, it can be concluded that, compared to previous years, there was a significant improvement in keeping these documents. The irregularities found included one case of a release order which lacked the time of release104. 2. Treatment During interviews with the representatives of the Mechanism, the vast majority of persons deprived of their liberty voiced no reservations related to their treatment by police officers on duty in PDRs. Not content with the interviews with detained persons or persons brought to sober up, the representatives of the NPM, having analysed CCTV recordings, found a very worrying situation105. One recording presents a police officer talking to a detainee. The camera recording shows that the detained was pushed by the police officer and, as a result, fell to the floor. The representatives of the NPM assessed that such behaviour is unacceptable and recommended the commander to investigate the case and to present investigation findings. PDR in Lipsko. PDR in Kraśnik. 105 PDR in Chrzanów. 103 104 37