Uruguay
Uruguay Reopens Debate Over Nighttime Raids Amid Divided Views Among Criminal Law Experts
After new signals from the governing coalition and the opposition to revisit the issue, six specialists consulted by Caras y Caretas set out arguments for and against it. The debate returns to the Constitution, the measure’s effectiveness and the risks to guarantees.
The possibility of authorizing nighttime raids in Uruguay returned to the political agenda after President Yamandú Orsi said the issue should be analyzed if it can help improve public safety. According to Caras y Caretas, the debate resurfaced after the proposal by the president of the National Party Board, Álvaro Delgado, to create a multiparty commission to study a new popular consultation on the matter.
The current constitutional wording, in Article 11, establishes that the home is inviolable and that at night no one may enter without the consent of its head, while during the day it may only be done by express order of a competent judge, in writing and in the cases provided for by law. That clause became the center of the debate after the October 2024 plebiscite that rejected the authorization of nighttime raids.
According to Caras y Caretas, Orsi said there are divided opinions and that he is not unwilling to evaluate measures that could help on security matters. In the same vein, Interior Minister Carlos Negro publicly stated that a proper assessment of the risks and the measure’s effectiveness is needed, and noted that there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other. Presidential prosecretary Jorge Díaz also said he was willing to discuss the issue with arguments and warned against “magic solutions.”
Among the criminal law specialists consulted by the weekly, opposing positions emerged. Marcelo Domínguez rejected the initiative, arguing that it is unconstitutional and that, in his view, it would not have a real impact on security. He also pointed to operational difficulties for the Police, especially in neighborhoods with poor lighting, unlit passageways or homes without numbering, and warned about the possibility of mistakes.
By contrast, Gustavo Bordes defended authorization under strict regulations. He argued that several European countries have this tool and that the problem in Uruguay is not legal but practical. He also noted that there are already cases in which nighttime entry is allowed, such as flagrancy cases, gender-related complaints or when the head of the household authorizes access.
Rodrigo Rey, for his part, came out against it. As he explained to Caras y Caretas, in situations linked to drug sales it is already possible to act, and in other crimes such as homicides or fraud, nighttime raids would not add much. He added that, in drug cases, much of the evidence is usually on cellphones and considered that this type of operation can even facilitate the destruction of evidence.
For Juan Manuel González Rossi, authorization would not solve the public safety problem, although it could improve the efficiency of some investigations. Even so, he warned that that possible advantage should be weighed against the risk of reduced guarantees and mistaken raids.
Former prosecutor Enrique Moller, cited by Caras y Caretas in a personal capacity, said he was in favor of incorporating the tool through a constitutional reform and with conditions clearly defined by the legislature. He stated that this is a procedural instrument the State should have, always under precise regulation and with judicial guarantees safeguarded.
In a more cautious position, Germán Aller, director of the Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, said his final assessment will depend on seeing a possible bill or reform text, because so far this is a political debate. He also noted that in countries where nighttime raids exist, their use would be scarce or nonexistent, and mentioned concerns related both to the greater resistance that an intervention in darkness can generate and to records of police abuse and human rights violations in other countries.
Thus, the debate returned to the center of the scene with limited agreement: the discussion remains open, but without a clear expectation that a possible authorization would by itself bring a decisive change in public safety.
Sources
About this note. Written by El Notero with the assistance of artificial intelligence, based on what was published by the cited outlet. El Notero did not conduct its own reporting on this event.
