Who benefits from creating division between São Paulo's police forces?
Em São Paulo, uma disputa silenciosa sobre quem tem o direito de registrar um boletim de ocorrência revelou tensões mais profundas sobre poder, território e identidade institucional dentro das forças de segurança do estado. O secretário Guilherme Derrite recuou de uma decisão que autorizava a Polícia Militar a lavrar TCOs — prerrogativa histórica da Polícia Civil desde 1995 — após reação formal do Conselho da Polícia Civil, que invocou legalidade e soberania jurisdicional. No lugar da mudança, um grupo de estudos: solução provisória que adia o conflito sem resolvê-lo. A história lembra que, em 2009, tentativa semelhante deixou cicatrizes institucionais que custaram à população em qualidade de serviço.
- Uma decisão aprovada numa quinta-feira foi revertida na segunda seguinte — velocidade que revela o quanto a medida tocou em nervos institucionais profundos.
- Delegados da Polícia Civil convocaram sessão de emergência e argumentaram que permitir à PM lavrar TCOs violaria leis orgânicas recentes e a exclusividade constitucional de suas funções investigativas.
- O comandante da PM, por sua vez, chamou a resistência civil de 'campanha de desinformação', sinalizando que a disputa vai além do formulário e envolve prestígio, recursos e narrativa pública.
- Derrite gravou vídeo ao lado do delegado-geral para apelar à harmonia, mas a encenação de unidade não apagou o fato de que ele havia cedido sob pressão organizada.
- Um grupo de estudos com representantes das duas forças e peritos foi criado — solução que compra tempo, mas deixa em aberto se os limites institucionais podem ou não ser redesenhados.
O governo de São Paulo recuou nesta semana de uma reforma policial que havia acendido uma guerra institucional entre as duas principais forças de segurança do estado. Na quinta-feira, o secretário de Segurança Pública, Guilherme Derrite, autorizou que policiais militares passassem a lavrar TCOs — os Termos Circunstanciados de Ocorrência usados para registrar infrações de menor potencial ofensivo. Na segunda-feira seguinte, após sessão de emergência do Conselho da Polícia Civil, Derrite anunciou a suspensão da medida e a criação de um grupo de estudos.
A prerrogativa de lavrar TCOs pertence à Polícia Civil desde 1995. Os delegados argumentaram que transferi-la à PM seria ilegal, violando a exclusividade jurisdicional da corporação e contrariando leis orgânicas aprovadas recentemente pelo Congresso. Rejeitaram também a analogia com uma decisão do Supremo Tribunal Federal que autorizou prática semelhante em Minas Gerais, afirmando que o precedente não se aplicava a São Paulo.
Derrite respondeu com linguagem de conciliação. Em vídeo gravado ao lado do delegado-geral Artur Dian, anunciou um grupo composto por dois delegados, dois oficiais da PM e dois peritos criminais, encarregado de avaliar qual modelo melhor serve à população. 'Quem se beneficia em criar divisão entre as polícias de São Paulo?', perguntou o secretário, apelando à unidade institucional.
O conflito, porém, tem raízes mais antigas. Em 2009, o então secretário Antônio Ferreira Pinto proibiu explicitamente a prática após um período de testes, documentando a deterioração das relações entre as forças e os danos ao serviço público. Esse histórico pesou sobre a reversão desta semana.
Do lado da PM, o coronel Cássio Araújo de Freitas havia comunicado a seus oficiais que a autorização para lavrar TCOs era uma vitória para a população — e classificou a resistência civil como 'campanha de desinformação' movida por interesses individuais. A retórica de unidade coexistiu, assim, com acusações mútuas. O grupo de estudos decidirá se São Paulo avança ou se os limites de 2009 permanecem intocados.
São Paulo's security chief reversed course on a contentious police reform this week, backing away from a plan that had ignited institutional warfare between the state's two main law enforcement agencies. On Monday, the Civil Police Council met in emergency session and formally opposed allowing Military Police officers to file crime reports—a move that had been approved just days earlier. By week's end, Security Secretary Guilherme Derrite announced he would pause the initiative and form a study group instead.
The dispute centers on a bureaucratic form called the TCO, or Circumstantial Crime Report, used to document lower-level offenses. For nearly three decades, since 1995, this authority has belonged exclusively to Civil Police detectives. The Military Police, which handles street patrols and emergency response, wanted to file these reports themselves, arguing it would reduce redundant paperwork and speed up the system. On Thursday, Derrite's office gave the green light. By Monday, after delegates from the Civil Police Council made their case, the secretary reversed himself.
The Civil Police delegates argued the move was illegal on multiple grounds. They contended it would violate the Civil Police's exclusive jurisdiction—a principle they said was reinforced by new organic laws passed by Congress. More pointedly, they rejected the notion that a recent Supreme Court ruling permitting Military Police to file such reports in Minas Gerais applied to São Paulo. The council's position was unambiguous: this was an institutional boundary that could not be crossed.
Derrite's reversal came wrapped in careful language about unity. In a video distributed on social media, he acknowledged the tension and announced the formation of a study group comprising two Civil Police detectives, two Military Police officers, and two forensic experts. This body would evaluate which approach served the public better: the Military Police filing TCOs, or the unified crime report system launched in 2022. "Arguments that the Military Police would be assuming investigative functions that belong to the Civil Police—that is not our desire, and we will not allow it to happen," Derrite said in the video.
The timing of the conflict was not accidental. Derrite had spent the previous week giving speeches that positioned the Military Police as the lead institution in fighting organized crime, working alongside prosecutors. When the Civil Police reacted sharply to the TCO announcement, the secretary walked back those remarks, saying he had meant to credit all police forces, not just the Military Police. In his video message, recorded alongside Civil Police Chief Artur Dian and other council members, Derrite appealed for institutional harmony. "Who benefits from creating division between São Paulo's police forces?" he asked. "I am certain the population does not expect this from us, and they support the effective crime-fighting happening in this state, especially against organized crime."
This is not the first time the Military Police has sought to expand into crime reporting. In 2009, a previous security secretary, Antônio Ferreira Pinto, explicitly prohibited the practice after a trial period. The resolution from that era documented the damage: inter-police relations had deteriorated noticeably, with growing friction that harmed the overall quality of police work and ultimately hurt the public. That history hung over this week's reversal.
Meanwhile, the Military Police's top commander, Colonel Cássio Araújo de Freitas, had sent a message to senior officers characterizing the TCO authority as a victory for São Paulo residents. He framed the Civil Police opposition as a "disinformation campaign" driven by individual agendas designed to fragment the institutions. "Our arguments are truth, numbers, and positive results," he wrote, invoking the constitutional duty of efficiency. He closed with an appeal to unity: the police forces had never been closer, he insisted, united in the same fight against crime. "Let's win!" he urged.
That unity remains untested. The study group will now determine whether São Paulo moves forward with Military Police filing TCOs or sticks with the unified report system. The outcome will signal whether institutional boundaries can be redrawn or whether the lessons of 2009 will hold.
Notable Quotes
Arguments that the Military Police would be assuming investigative functions that belong to the Civil Police—that is not our desire, and we will not allow it to happen.— Security Secretary Guilherme Derrit
Our arguments are truth, numbers, and positive results. The police forces have never been closer, united in the same fight against crime.— Military Police Commander Colonel Cássio Araújo de Freitas
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the Civil Police Council move so quickly to block this? It seems like a straightforward efficiency measure.
Because efficiency isn't neutral when it comes to institutional power. The Civil Police has held exclusive authority over crime reporting for nearly thirty years. Letting the Military Police file these reports doesn't just change a workflow—it changes who has control over the official record of crime in the state.
But the Supreme Court already said Military Police could do this in Minas Gerais. Why wouldn't that apply here?
The Civil Police delegates argued it doesn't. They pointed to new laws passed by Congress that they say made this authority exclusive to detectives. It's a jurisdictional argument, but it's also about whether a federal court ruling overrides state law and institutional tradition.
The security secretary seemed caught off guard by the pushback.
He was. He'd already approved it, and his rhetoric that week had positioned the Military Police as the lead institution against organized crime. When the Civil Police reacted, he had to walk it back and claim he meant all police forces equally. The reversal was a retreat.
What does the study group actually accomplish?
It buys time and creates the appearance of deliberation. But it also signals that the secretary heard the Civil Police's concerns seriously enough to pause. Whether the group recommends the TCO or the unified system, someone will be unhappy.
Is this about crime-fighting, or is it about turf?
Both. The Military Police genuinely believe they could process reports more efficiently. The Civil Police genuinely believe their jurisdiction is being eroded. Neither side is wrong about their own interests. The question is whether those interests align with what actually serves public safety.