The judge sends the six policemen of the ‘kick in the door’ to trial for breaking and entering

by

Related news

After several months of instruction and in one case fully immersed in the controversy of restrictions and parties during the state of alarm, the six agents of the National Police of the case of the ‘kick in the door’ have been sent to trial by the head of the Court of Instruction number 28 of Madrid.

Judge Jaime Serrat, in the order consulted by EL ESPAÑOL, appreciates clear indications of a crime of breaking and entering in the performance of the troops who starred in that episode. And that is why he has decided to seat them all on the dock.

The police came to knock down the door of a house on Lagasca street with a battering ram and broke into it to stop an illegal party during the early hours of March 21. For the magistrate, the facts that are the object of the procedure are “incontrovertidos”. In the course of that police intervention, the agents, “despite the fact that they had neither the consent of the residents nor judicial authorization, they broke down the door, accessed it, and detained its residents.”

For the judge, the refusal to identify themselves to the police by those who were in that apartment would not be an example of any flagrant crime. That kind of disobedience, he says “is not a crime of article 556 of the Penal Code but only an administrative offense.”

Where he does see “solid indications” is in the actions of the agents, and he believes that the way in which those six men operated that morning would be an alleged case of “burglary.”

Thus, the judge concludes the investigation into what happened that night in March, in a state of alarm and with the restrictions of the curfew and the limitation of meetings in force. Now, after the car dated September 19, begins the procedures for them to be judged by a popular jury of the Provincial Court of Madrid.

Procedure

The criminal procedure began after the instructor admitted the complaint filed by the resident of the house, defended by the lawyer Juan Gonzalo Ospina, of Ospina Abogados, for a crime of trespassing and damages.

He did it after the Madrid Provincial Court ordered the judge to investigate the agents, considering that there was “an excess in the exercise of authority, with infringement of the right to the inviolability of the home.”

As a result of the controversy generated, the Minister of the Interior, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, stated that there was no “instruction or recommendation of any kind for the State Security Forces and Bodies to act outside the law”. However, he defended that that action was carried out within the limits of legality.

The judge indicates in the order that “the facts would not constitute a crime of article 534 of the Penal Code, referring to the entry of public officials into homes without respecting legal or constitutional guarantees, since the difference between article 534 and 204 of the Penal Code, it is established that in the first one concurs when there is a cause for a crime and the second when this cause for a crime is not mediated “.

Agents manifested the past September 17 before the judge who acted in accordance with the law and protected by law when considering then that a crime of disobedience was being committed by refusing the tenant and the people who were celebrating an illegal party inside to identify themselves.

Lawyer

The lawyer for the tenant of the house allegedly raided, Juan Gonzalo Ospina, maintains that the agents exceeded their police intervention since there was no criterion of urgency and necessity to access force in the house in the event that it was taking place. a crime, which in his opinion did not occur and if it had occurred it would be an administrative offense.

In a letter, the lawyer informed the judge that he understands that “The investigation phase has been concluded after all the proceedings have been carried out of investigation necessary for the clarification of the defendant facts “.” The domicile is inviolable. Not identifying yourself at home is not a crime and it does not authorize a kick in the door, “he says.” If a flagrant, urgent and necessary crime is not committed, a door cannot be thrown without a court order. And not identifying yourself will never be, despite the refusal, a crime of disobedience “

It concludes that “there are rational, sufficient and objective incriminating evidence to understand that the facts are likely to be classified as constituting the crime of trespassing in relation to a crime of damage.”

The events occurred at ten to one in the morning of the past March 21st. Place: Lagasca street, number 18. About fifteen people continued the party for several days inside a second floor of that portal. A patrol from the National Police by verifying what was happening inside after the complaints of the neighbors.

After repeatedly demanding that the young people identify themselves, without obtaining a response, they heard the whispers of the people who remained inside the house. They spoke to each other, “in a very low tone, as if there were discrepancies between what to do and what not to do.”

After several warnings, “given that it was evident that the people gathered were listening perfectly,” the police proceeded to inform all of them that there was being committed “a flagrant crime of gross disobedience or resistance to law enforcement officials“.

Sensing the agents manipulating the lock, a woman’s voice rose from within. It was about a young woman who addressed them in a video that has already gone viral on multiple virtual platforms. She claimed to be a lawyer and a lawyer, had studies in law, and indicated to the agents that her intervention was not legal, that when they were at an address they did not have to identify themselves to them and that if they wanted they had to obtain a court order. He also told them to leave the place or “they were going to lose their badge.”

The agents explained to the young woman, from the other side of the door, of the legality of the intervention under the Citizen Security Law. She, becoming a spokesperson for the group, said she was “an opponent of a State attorney and well known about the regulations.”

Faced with this prolonged situation, the deputy inspector ordered entry into the house using a battering ram. After breaking down the door, as seen in the video, the policemen entered the house and arrested them all.



Reference-www.elespanol.com

Leave a Comment