It's time to rethink municipal "policing".

Since February 20th, when the Supreme Federal Court ruled that it is constitutional for municipal guards to carry out urban security actions, there have been reports of proposed municipal laws changing the names of the (former) municipal guards to now called "Municipal Police." In addition, there have been reports of criticism of these changes from the command of the Military Police of the state of São Paulo, and even the filing of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of these changes before the Court of Justice of the State of São Paulo.

The specific case judged by the STF (Supreme Federal Court) analyzed a decision issued by the Court of Justice of the State of São Paulo, which deemed unconstitutional the law of the municipality of São Paulo (Law No. 13.886/2004) that assigns to the Municipal Guard of that city the function of policing to prevent the commission of crimes and administrative infractions. Therefore, what the Supreme Federal Court was judging was whether municipal legislation could expand the functions of the municipal guard beyond the protection of municipal assets, services, and public spaces, as also provided for in Federal Law No. 13.022/2014 (Statute of Municipal Guards). The STF understood that the challenged municipal legislation is constitutional and, extending this understanding to the entire country, affirmed that ostensive and community patrolling is also within the competence of municipal guards.

In this scenario, the question arises: in practice, what changes in municipal public safety? However, to answer this question, we must first ask ourselves: why did the Supreme Federal Court consider this case so important as to extend the scope of the decision to the entire country (what is called General Repercussion)?

By understanding that municipal guards are integrated into security systems, the actions taken by municipal guards, especially arrests in flagrante delicto and personal searches, become lawful. This means that, for example, a drug seizure carried out by the Municipal Guard will not be considered unlawful simply because it was carried out by them. This was a point of discussion in several cases before the Superior Courts, which disagreed on this possibility, but which has now become moot.

Therefore, from a legal standpoint, the functions of the guards have been effectively expanded, to a greater or lesser extent depending on the reader, in relation to the Guard Statute, which, it should be noted, remains in force. Furthermore, the Supreme Court authorized municipalities to create laws to establish municipal guards with these functions. In other words, a municipality wishing to enact legislation in this regard will not be prevented by challenges of unconstitutionality.

So far, everything seems quite simple. However, the Supreme Federal Court's decision doesn't end there. The same decision determines that the guards must act jointly and harmoniously with other security agencies (Civil and Military Police) as long as – and here lies the point of confusion – the functions of those same security agencies are respected.

Overt patrolling is, by force of law, as well as the Federal Constitution and the constitutions of some states, a function of the Military Police. Thus, at first glance it seems that the STF (Supreme Federal Court) decision mixes, by itself, the competences attributed to the military police and, now, to the municipal guards. However, the Court's decision is more restricted, as it only makes the actions lawful and states that municipal legislation regarding municipal guards as a public security apparatus is constitutional. Therefore, the decision does not address the content of the municipal law, which will certainly be done on a case-by-case basis, but only the municipality's competence to legislate in this regard.

The ongoing debate regarding the proper name for this "new" municipal guard stems precisely from this misunderstanding of the Supreme Court's decision. Changing the institution's name (which conveys a sense of just and legitimate recognition to the members of the municipal guards) fails to comply with the Supreme Court's decision, since the decision itself stipulates that the functions of the military police (such as visible urban patrolling) cannot be encroached upon. Therefore, changing the name without specifying the functions of this new police force is outside the scope of the Supreme Court's decision.

Thus, in truth, a challenge has been launched to municipalities to present a new public security plan which contemplates the new decision of the Supreme Federal Court, without forgetting the legislation already in force. Therefore, it must be remembered that the Statute of the Civil Guards, which derives from federal law and, therefore, must be respected throughout the national territory, remains in force. This means that municipal legislation cannot contradict this federal law and, more importantly, that municipal guards must continue to perform the functions contained in this law.

After this, from a practical point of view, even though it is more Instagrammable for the Municipal Civil Guard to publicize seizures and arrests, there is still a need to guard and protect municipal public property. After all, these guards were established because such a need existed, and it has not been overcome.

Furthermore, the creation of a police force does not happen automatically with a change in the institution's name, but through the production and organization of a legal, political, and administrative structure that encompasses all the necessary requirements. It is necessary to establish a career path for its officers; to establish protocols for action, both for the use of force and for its relationship with other members of the security system; to create autonomous and independent ombudsman offices capable of monitoring and punishing misconduct, and many other measures. Additionally, it is necessary to consider whether this security force will be integrated into the direct municipal administration, in which case, for example, legal representation would be provided through the municipal attorney's offices, or indirectly, in which case the institution will have its own budget and independent administration.

What this means is that rethinking a police force isn't as simple as changing its name, which might make the mayor look "good" but doesn't solve security problems. Therefore, from a political standpoint, it's a challenge, but also an opportunity to present a new public security plan to society, one that addresses the needs of crime prevention and repression, but doesn't stray from the principles of municipal guards: protecting human rights, citizenship, public freedoms, and social progress.

In these times when the issue of security is being discussed also in light of various cases of police abuse throughout the country, municipal guards offer a way to consider a form of public security that goes beyond the ostentatious display of force, which, it seems, has not been achieving the desired effectiveness. It is possible for municipal guards to be integrated into the security system without the stigma and biases of other police forces.

It's time to consider security equipment that is close to the community, capable, for example, of identifying the location of a theft simply by the indication that it occurred "on the corner of Mrs. Maria's house." This would truly fulfill the Supreme Federal Court's decision and a security system that, until now, has focused on a war-like policy that has led to more lives lost than to an effective reduction in crime rates.