Czech law doesn't provide any conditions for the level of care and service provided at sobering-up stations, sometimes referred to as "drunk tanks." In the opinion of ombudsman, this the reason why acceptable standards and basic rights are often violated at these stations.

Sobering-up stations are responsible for the illegal restrictions on personal freedom

Patients of sobering-up stations are not able to decide about their placement, and their stay at the station is involuntary. This stems from the nature of the service and the condition of drunks at the time of admission; this "restriction on personal freedom" has an hours-long duration.

Intoxicated people can demonstrate threatening behavior when detained by the police, or there can be even criminal proceeding conducted. Admission to a sobering-up station, as a form of restriction of freedom, must be always be the result of a physician's assessment at the time, when the captured person arrives at the station. The doctor has the right - but also the obligation - to refuse admission of the person if he finds out that the legal conditions for restriction on freedom are not met. In most of the sobering-up stations that the ombudsman visited, she found out that the staff is not aware that the placement of a person at the station is decided by the sobering-up station itself, not by the police, which is how most people arrive there. This may be the reason why it could happen that the station admits people who demonstrate peaceful and calm behavior, and there is no need to limit their freedom at all in such cases.

The ombudsman criticized in all visited facilities the lack of record keeping about whether the statutory requirements for the placement of the person at the station have been met. It is common for there to be a lack of records showing how a person "directly threatened himself or others, public order or property" as is required by law. At the same time, the ombudsman warned that "inspiring public nuisance" cannot be a reason to restrain personal freedom, and she recommended the Ministry of Health to initiate deletion of this reason from the law.

Security of the recovering and the staff

Those under the influence of alcohol or other drugs often do not control their behavior. Threatening behavior is one of the conditions of placement in sobering-up stations. In most cases, these people are placed in mass dormitories, where the risk of conflict and aggression between recovering detainees increases. The staff is not able to respond quickly on aggressive conduct, even if the rooms in stations are equipped with a functional camera system. The staff is only a few people, mostly women. Moreover, the staff is often not trained in dealing with aggressive people. For example, one station has a capacity of 10 and there is only one nurse during normal working days. Therefore, most of the sobering-up stations rely on the assistance of police, and while the staff is waiting for their arrival, they keep patients locked in collective dormitories.

In accordance with this findings, the ombudsman suggested that sobering-up stations should ensure adequate staffing, in particular men, and they should train them in the use of secure but gentle intervention against aggressive and otherwise restless individuals. An alarm system should also be installed in the bedrooms, to allow those held to summon staff, if necessary. Furthermore, stations should have at least one extra room for aggressive individuals.

Non-transparent use of restrictive measures

Coping with aggressive behavior from people detained at the stations is related with the general use of restraint (especially agitation medication). The ombudsman noted a number of deficiencies and serious misconduct in this area. The staff members at some stations weren't sufficiently familiar with the legal aspects of the use of restraints and lacked internal regulations that govern their use.

In the half of the visited stations, the ombudsman noted cases where restriction took several hours and it was not apparent from the records whether the reason for restrictions persisted. Most cases also lacked documentation about surveillance.

Generally, the ombudsman recommends sobering-up stations to use restraints only after all less restrictive means to calm the intercepted failed. If they have to use any means of restraint, it must be documented, including the reasons for the restraint and its extent. Staff members must examine whether the reasons for use of restrictive measure persists, and, if not, they have to immediately terminate their use.

The ombudsman is also seriously concerned about the use of medication as a way to restrict the movement. Use of medication differed from station to station, from the most reluctant administrations to those that use medication as the sole method to calm aggressive individuals. In this context, the ombudsman highlighted that, according to experts, administration of any psychopharmacological to an intoxicated person may be dangerous and can potentially endanger his or her life. Therefore, the ombudsman prefers the use of mechanical restraint over medication whenever possible.