THE JUSTIFICATION OF POLICE COUNSELING AS A MEANS OF CRIME PREVENTION IS FOUND IN PRUSSIAN LAW OF THE 18TH CENTURY, BUT THE BOUNDARIES OF COUNSELING REMAIN UNDEFINED. ONE OF THE MAJOR LEGAL QUESTIONS REGARDING POLICE COUNSELING SERVICES IS WHETHER THEIR EXHIBITION OF SECURITY PRODUCTS OF A PARTICULAR MANUFACTURER INTERFERES WITH FREE COMPETITION IN THAT AREA. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT SUCH EXHIBITS DO NOT CONSTITUTE UNFAIR COMPETITION BECAUSE THE POLICE ARE NOT INTENTIONALLY ADVERTISING THE PRODUCTS, AND EVEN THOUGH THE POLICE RECOMMENDATION MAY REPRESENT POSITIVE ADVERTISING, THE PRODUCTS ARE EVALUATED OBJECTIVELY RATHER THAN FROM THE SLANTED VIEW OF THE PRODUCER. THE COMPANIES WHOSE PRODUCTS ARE NOT DISPLAYED CAN ONLY SUE FOR DAMAGES IF THE POLICE FAIL TO REACH ON OBJECTIVE OPINION OF THE PRODUCTS DISPLAYED ON THE BASIS OF TESTS CONDUCTED BY THEM OR IF THEY MISREPRESENT THE PRODUCTS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR COUNSELING SERVICES. MOREOVER, COMPANIES CANNOT SUE FOR INCLUSION OF THEIR PRODUCTS IN THE LISTS MAINTAINED BY THE POLICE, BECAUSE THE LISTS ARE KEPT FOR STRICTLY INTERNAL COUNSELING PURPOSES WITH NO LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR THE COMPANY. FINALLY, THE POLICE CANNOT BRING SUIT AGAINST FIRMS WHICH STATE IN ADVERTISING THAT THEIR PRODUCT IS ENDORSED BY THE POLICE BECAUSE THE STATEMENT IS NOT MISLEADING; IN SUCH CASES, ONLY ANOTHER PRODUCER OF SUCH PRODUCTS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE CRIMINAL POLICE CAN TAKE ACTION. --IN GERMAN. (KMD)