Section 92 — Search of private place: warrant rule
Statutory text (Thai original)
ห้ามมิให้ค้นในที่รโหฐานโดยไม่มีหมายค้นหรือคำสั่งของศาล
เว้นแต่พนักงานฝ่ายปกครองหรือตำรวจเป็นผู้ค้น และในกรณีดังต่อไปนี้
(๑)
เมื่อมีเสียงร้องให้ช่วยมาจากข้างในที่รโหฐาน
หรือมีเสียงหรือพฤติการณ์อื่นใดอันแสดงได้ว่ามีเหตุร้ายเกิดขึ้นในที่รโหฐานนั้น
(๒) เมื่อปรากฏความผิดซึ่งหน้ากำลังกระทำลงในที่รโหฐาน
(๓)
เมื่อบุคคลที่ได้กระทำความผิดซึ่งหน้า
ขณะที่ถูกไล่จับหนีเข้าไปหรือมีเหตุอันแน่นแฟ้นควรสงสัยว่าได้เข้าไปซุกซ่อนตัวอยู่ในที่รโหฐานนั้น
(๔)
เมื่อมีพยานหลักฐานตามสมควรว่าสิ่งของที่มีไว้เป็นความผิดหรือได้มาโดยการกระทำความผิดหรือได้ใช้หรือมีไว้เพื่อจะใช้ในการกระทำความผิด
หรืออาจเป็นพยานหลักฐานพิสูจน์การกระทำความผิดได้ซ่อนหรืออยู่ในนั้น
ประกอบทั้งต้องมีเหตุอันควรเชื่อว่าเนื่องจากการเนิ่นช้ากว่าจะเอาหมายค้นมาได้สิ่งของนั้นจะถูกโยกย้ายหรือทำลายเสียก่อน
(๕) เมื่อที่รโหฐานนั้นผู้จะต้องถูกจับเป็นเจ้าบ้าน
และการจับนั้นมีหมายจับหรือจับตามมาตรา ๗๘การใช้อำนาจตาม
(๔)
ให้พนักงานฝ่ายปกครองหรือตำรวจผู้ค้นส่งมอบสำเนาบันทึกการตรวจค้นและบัญชีทรัพย์ที่ได้จากการตรวจค้น
รวมทั้งจัดทำบันทึกแสดงเหตุผลที่ทำให้สามารถเข้าค้นได้เป็นหนังสือให้ไว้แก่ผู้ครอบครองสถานที่ที่ถูกตรวจค้น
แต่ถ้าไม่มีผู้ครอบครองอยู่ ณ ที่นั้น
ให้ส่งมอบหนังสือดังกล่าวแก่บุคคลเช่นว่านั้นในทันทีที่กระทำได้
และรีบรายงานเหตุผลและผลการตรวจค้นเป็นหนังสือต่อผู้บังคับบัญชาเหนือขึ้นไป
English translation
No search shall be made in a private place without a search warrant or a court order, except where an administrative or police officer conducts the search and in the following cases:
(1) When there is a cry for help from inside the private place, or a sound or other circumstance indicating that some grievous incident is occurring in that private place;
(2) When an offence is found being committed in flagrante in the private place;
(3) When a person who has committed an offence in flagrante, while being pursued for arrest, flees into, or there is firm ground to suspect that he has entered to hide himself in, that private place;
(4) When there is reasonable evidence that property the possession of which is an offence, or which has been obtained through the commission of an offence, or which has been used or is possessed for use in committing an offence, or which may serve as evidence to prove the commission of an offence, is concealed or located therein, together with reasonable cause to believe that, owing to the delay in obtaining a search warrant, such property would be removed or destroyed beforehand;
(5) When, in that private place, the person to be arrested is the householder, and that arrest is made under an arrest warrant or under Section 78.
In exercising the power under (4), the administrative or police officer conducting the search shall hand over to the occupier of the searched place a copy of the record of the search and the inventory of the property obtained from the search, together with a written record stating the reasons that made the entry to search possible. If there is no occupier at that place, such document shall be handed to that person as soon as it can be done, and the officer shall promptly report the reasons and the results of the search in writing to his superior.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
This is the cornerstone provision of Chapter 2 (Search), governing entry into a private place (thi rahothan). It fixes the warrant requirement as the rule and lists the only five situations in which administrative or police officers may search without a warrant, the most litigated being (4), the urgent risk that evidence will be moved or destroyed. The final paragraph, which requires a written record for the occupier and a report to a superior whenever (4) is invoked, is a safeguard against abuse of warrantless entry. It operates together with Section 96 on night searches, Section 78 on arrest without warrant, and Sections 102 to 103 on how a search must be conducted and recorded.
Why this matters in practice
For anyone whose home or premises is searched, this section is the first thing to check: was there a warrant, and if not, does the search fit one of the five exceptions? Evidence gathered from an unlawful warrantless search can be challenged, but the courts read exception (4) broadly in drug and weapons cases where items could be moved quickly. If your property was searched and you are unsure whether the entry was lawful, it is worth reviewing the search record and reporting duties with a lawyer before trial. See what to know before you go to court in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3578/2563 (2020)
Evidence seized in a warrantless search that fits the Section 92(4) exception, where there is reasonable cause to believe the property would be removed or destroyed before a warrant could be obtained, is lawfully gathered and admissible against the accused.
The court held that ammunition seized without a search warrant was validly obtained under the Section 92(4) exception because there was reasonable evidence the property was there and cause to believe it would be moved or destroyed before a warrant arrived. The evidence was admissible to convict the accused, and the accused's petition on this point failed.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4316/2560 (2017)
Where suspects are staying only temporarily in a resort room and could remove the drugs at any moment, the situation is one of extreme urgency that lets officers enter and search without a warrant under Section 92(4) together with Section 96(2).
Because the two accused were staying only temporarily at a resort and could remove the methamphetamine before a warrant could be obtained, the court treated it as an extremely urgent case allowing a warrantless search under Section 92(4) and Section 96(2). Finding the drugs in plain possession was a flagrant offence, so the officers could also arrest without a warrant.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 10060/2558 (2015)
The same urgency reasoning applies where suspects in a rented room could leave with the drugs before a warrant is obtained the next day; officers may search without a warrant under Section 92(4) and Section 96(2), and may then arrest for the flagrant offence.
The court found an extremely urgent case where the accused, staying in a room, could leave with the methamphetamine before a warrant could be obtained the following day, causing loss of key evidence. Officers lawfully searched without a warrant under Section 92(4) and Section 96(2), and the drugs found made it a flagrant offence permitting arrest without a warrant under Section 78(1) and Section 80.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Can Thai police search my house without a warrant?
Generally no. Section 92 requires a search warrant or court order, but police may search without one in five listed situations, such as a crime in plain sight, hot pursuit, or an urgent risk that evidence will be removed or destroyed.
What must police do after a warrantless search under the urgent exception?
When police search under exception (4), they must give the occupier a copy of the search record and the inventory of seized property, plus a written statement of reasons, and promptly report to their superior.
Is evidence from an unlawful search still usable in court?
It can be challenged as unlawfully obtained, but Thai courts often uphold warrantless searches that fit the Section 92 exceptions, especially in drug and weapons cases, so the lawfulness of the entry should be examined carefully.