One year after the reform of the Hessian Law on Public Safety and Order (HSOG) came into force, Interior Minister Roman Poseck gives a clearly positive interim assessment. According to the minister, the expanded powers of the police have been effective, are being applied comprehensively and have made Hesse safer. This assessment points to a central security policy debate of the present: how much state power is necessary to ensure security – and at what point does it come into conflict with the principles of the rule of law?
It is undisputed that the security policy environment has changed. Threats have become more diffuse, ranging from traditional crime and extremism to hybrid dangers such as espionage, sabotage and drone operations. The state faces the challenge of responding to these developments without undermining its own constitutional substance. The Hesse reform clearly focuses on expanding the scope of police action – technically, organisationally and legally.
The police as a preventive security authority
What is striking is the significant shift in the role of the police: away from traditional hazard prevention and law enforcement, towards a preventive security authority with far-reaching powers of intervention. Video surveillance systems, AI-supported analysis, weapon-free zones with random checks, restraining orders with penalties, electronic ankle tags and the expanded use of body cameras – all these instruments aim to identify and prevent risks as early as possible.
The police are thus increasingly becoming the central actors in preventive regulatory policy. This development is not problematic per se, but it does have consequences. Prevention always means acting on suspicion, prognosis and risk assessment – in other words, in an area where uncertainties are inherent in the system. The more police action is shifted to this preliminary stage, the greater the responsibility of the police to act in a proportionate, transparent and legally sound manner.
Technology as an amplifier of police power
The reform makes it clear that technical systems have become a decisive factor in police action. AI-supported video analysis, hessenDATA based on Palantir, bodycams in homes, drone detection and defence – all of this significantly expands the scope of police perception and intervention. The reference to concrete successes, such as the rapid location of a missing teenager, is legitimate and important. At the same time, the usefulness of individual cases must not obscure the structural effects.
Technology is changing not only what the police can do, but also how they act. Algorithms, data analysis and automated evaluations influence decision-making processes, set priorities and structure suspicions. This shifts responsibility in part from individual officers to systems whose functioning is only partially comprehensible to outsiders – and often even internally. The assurance that this is not about mass surveillance but targeted measures is politically reassuring, but it does not replace the need for continuous monitoring and independent evaluation.
Security and sense of security
A central argument for the reform is to strengthen the subjective sense of security, especially in so-called fear zones. Video surveillance systems, weapon-free zones and increased police presence are intended to create trust. There is an ambivalence here: visible security measures can be reassuring, but they can also signal that an area is dangerous. The police are thus caught between the promise of protection and the stigmatisation of certain places and population groups.
Unprovoked checks in weapon-free zones or the consistent enforcement of exclusion orders raise questions about equal treatment and social impact. Security policy that primarily functions through control risks losing trust in the long term – especially where it is perceived as selective or socially one-sided.
The police between their mandate and pressure to perform
The reform of the HSOG significantly strengthens the police – legally, technically and in terms of personnel. At the same time, expectations are growing: the police are expected not only to react, but also to anticipate risks, guarantee security and resolve social conflicts. This threatens to overload the institution. Police action cannot solve social, migration policy or societal problems, but can only address their security-related symptoms.
A strong police force is indispensable for a robust constitutional state. However, its strength is not measured solely by the number of powers it has, but by its embedding within clear legal boundaries, effective parliamentary control and social acceptance. Precisely because the Hesse police now have particularly far-reaching instruments at their disposal, the question of transparency, evaluation and accountability becomes all the more urgent.
Conclusion
The Hessian police law reform marks a clear security policy course: more prevention, more technology, more options for intervention. It is indisputable that these instruments are being used and are proving successful in operational terms. However, whether they make Hesse safer in the long term cannot be measured solely by figures, individual cases or application statistics. The decisive factor will be whether it is possible to permanently combine the increase in police powers with constitutional control, social trust and a clear separation between security policy and social policy.
As the Home Secretary rightly points out, security is an ongoing task. That is precisely why it must not be understood solely as a question of powers, but as a balancing act between protection and freedom – a balancing act that the police, in particular, must perform on a daily basis.
