CRIMINAL SELECTIVITY AS A DEFECT OF NULLITY IN PERSONAL SEARCHES: AN ANALYSIS OF SUBJECTIVITY IN SUSPECT PROFILING UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION

Abstract

This article analyzes personal searches in Brazilian criminal procedure, focusing on the concept of reasonable suspicion and its relationship with selective enforcement and police profiling practices. The research problem addresses the extent to which the vagueness of this concept contributes to legitimizing police approaches based on subjective and potentially discriminatory criteria. The objective is to examine the compatibility of police actions, when grounded on imprecise elements, with the fundamental rights and guarantees established by the Federal Constitution. The study adopts a qualitative methodology, based on bibliographic and documentary research, including the analysis of legislation, legal doctrine, and case law from higher courts. The findings indicate that the lack of objective parameters for defining reasonable suspicion increases police discretion, fostering selective practices, particularly those related to racial and social factors. It is concluded that the interpretation of this concept must be restrictive, grounded in concrete and verifiable elements, and that strengthening judicial oversight is essential to prevent abuses and ensure the legality of state action.