The six policemen who will be tried for the alleged home invasion committed on March 21, when they broke down the door of an apartment where a party prohibited by the pandemic was being held in Madrid, will argue before the judge that the house where the events occurred «It does not constitute a dwelling, but, on the contrary, it is a flat that It was rented for the exclusive purpose of celebrating parties, in breach of the regulations decreed by the state of alarm ”. The purpose, he argues, the defense of two of them, was solely to celebrate “expressly prohibited” parties.
«These floors, which were used as cover to evade the imposed regulations, constituted, de facto, authentic clandestine premises in which in no case could it be affirmed that acts of privacy were carried out and, therefore, protected by the constitutional right to domiciliary inviolability «, is included in the appeal presented by two of the policemen who today will have to appear before the judge along with their colleagues in the allegations procedure prior to the opening of the trial oral. They face up to two years in jail.
Another of the arguments put forward by these two agents are the statements in which Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska publicly stated that a dwelling is not considered a “dwelling” if it is used to celebrate “illegal parties”. They contribute several articles published in the press and the defense indicates that the minister’s assessment “is not trivial given his impeccable career and extensive experience as a Magistrate, among others, of the National High Court and President of the Criminal Chamber of the National High Court «.
The agents realized at a glance that it was a tourist apartment for celebrations: there was no name in the mailbox, the door of the property had a telematic opening system or the Wi-Fi type that are usually used in tourist apartments and the neighbors themselves corroborated that parties were held from Thursday to Sunday.
Another of the lines of argument are the “manifest falsehoods” of the complainant, a citizen with dual nationality, British and of the Netherlands, and of the main witness, Isabel RI, the woman who confronted the agents. Both argued that the police officers refused to identify themselves but in the recordings provided, both the tenant and the police officers clearly show how the deputy inspector in charge “identified himself clearly, understandably and accurately, on seven occasions, including showing his identification plate through the peephole in the door.”
The defense assures that the complaint presented by Theo J. was nothing more than a defense tool against the proceedings initiated against him. for a possible crime of serious disobedience to the agents of the authority and another of coercion, and thus they explain that he will present a lease that is not signed by either party.
The defense of the two agents asks for the free dismissal, because the rational indications of criminality and the actions of the policemen have declined, which, they say, was adjusted to the law.
The statements before the judge on September 17 of the complainant and the witness, to which ABC had access, show numerous contradictions that are revealed. Isabel R. admits that she met Theo J. that same night and that he invited her and other friends to have a drink in the apartment he had rented. Up to fourteen people gathered. He hides himself in that he does not understand Spanish, he did not know what was happening, and although he had had eight drinks in five hours, they did not affect him.
The representatives of the agents insist on “the repeated, continuous and stubborn refusal to identify themselves, persistently” by those who were in the house, which constitutes a crime of serious disobedience to agents of the authority. That is actually the bottom line. If the refusal to identify oneself, which is an administrative offense, can be interpreted as serious disobedience and if this, which would be a crime, could be flagrant; that is, it requires an immediate response to prevent it from going to more.
For the Provincial Court, there was an “excess”, because if the people who were on the floor only refused to open and identify themselves, there was no “criminal progression” or a bad derivative to tackle urgently. The State Advocacy, which represents a part of the policemen, and the private lawyer who leads the rest disagree: the evil was the problem of the neighbors and on the march the agents acted in the “rational belief” that they should abort a crime of gross and flagrant disobedience that prevented ending the party and evicting.
“There is no doubt,” says the defense, “that the policemen at the time of the events, ex ante, acted protected by law, in the rational belief that they were facing a crime of gross and flagrant disobedience by the form of their commission, and this both by the persistent refusal to identify themselves as to leave the property by non-cohabitants and stop the excessive noise. What was subsequently ruled in this regard by the Madrid Provincial Court, in no way hinders that at the time of the events and from the police perspective, there were those rational indications of criminality that justified the police intervention.
The defenses request the free or provisional dismissal and in a subsidiary way the continuation of the preliminary proceedings, taking more tests, in case the facts constitute a crime of denial of assistance by a public official (carries a fine of three to twelve months , and suspension of employment or public office from six months to two years.
George is Digismak’s reported cum editor with 13 years of experience in Journalism