the police authority 25 tion to their supervisor as soon as possible. If custody has not already ended, the supervisor must immediately review whether it should continue.28 Immediately after an individual deprived of their liberty has been detained, this must be reported to the responsible officer (usually the custody officer). A supervisor’s review of an individual held in custody is usually performed by a custody officer going to the police custody facility and talking to the police officers who detained the individual. For individuals detained due to intoxication, the custody officer must, in his examination, inter alia, decide whether the detainee’s condition is such that they cannot take care of themselves or that they pose a danger to themselves or others. A similar examination may be needed of individuals held in custody in accordance with Section 13 of the Police Act. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has previously stated that a supervisor should normally meet the detainee and by, inter alia, talking to the individual form an opinion regarding their condition. This measure also constitutes an important prerequisite for the supervisor to be able to ensure that a detainee’s condition is caused by intoxication and not by, for example, a serious illness.29 During the inspections of the police custody facilities in Arvika and Kristinehamn, it emerged that supervisors’ reviews of individuals taken into custody are carried out remotely via telephone. The custody officer in Karlstad carries out the review by talking to the police officers who detained the individual. The custody officer in Örebro conducts a similar supervisors’ review for individuals deprived of their liberty in custody in the police custody facility Karlskoga. This police custody facility has a camera-monitored entry area, which enables the custody officer to see the detainee via image transfer.30 During the inspection of the police custody facility in Luleå, it emerged that the custody officer there is responsible for the reviews of individuals taken into custody in Arjeplog, Arvidsjaur, Boden, Gällivare, Haparanda, Jokkmokk, Kalix, Kiruna, Pajala and Piteå. These supervisory reviews are performed remotely by telephone. Furthermore, it emerged that the custody officers in Luleå sometimes experience difficulties carrying out a proper review solely by telephone because, inter alia, important information is not always communicated to them.31 Following the inspections, the Parliamentary Ombudsman referred to an earlier statement that supervisors’ remote reviews should primarily be made with the use of audio and video transmission. If a supervisory review is performed only by telephone, the supervisor should also regularly speak to the detai28 See Section 15, first paragraph of the Police Act and Section 5 of the Care of Intoxicated Persons Act. 29 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen 1998/99 p. 116. 30 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report p. 4, ref. no. O 47-2019, report p. 3 and 4, ref. no. O 48-2019 and report p. 3, ref. no. O 49-2019. 31 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report p. 6, ref. no. O 2-2019. Supervisors’ remote reviews should primarily be made with the use of audio and video transmission