The six national police officers charged after forcibly breaking in with a battering ram last March at a party in Madrid in which the restrictions of the state of alarm were breached have defended before the judge that their action was “in accordance with the law,” according to knowledgeable sources. of the content of the interrogation. The agents have defended that they acted with “unity of action” and have not shown regret for their intervention, say these same sources.
Clandestine parties and police excesses: breaking the restrictions does not allow agents to enter a home
The procedure derives from a party in a building in the Salamanca district of Madrid held in March that went viral after a video was released showing the police breaking down the door by force. On July 13, the head of the Court of Instruction No. 28 of Madrid, Jaime Serret, admitted the complaint filed by the owner of the house, a British citizen residing in Spain. The magistrate summoned the agents as he considered that the denounced events had “characteristics that make one presume the possible existence of a crime of breaking and entering.”
The events date back to March 21, when the Police forcibly broke into the aforementioned address. According to the report, in which they were ratified this Friday before the judge, the police justified their intervention in that the young people “were committing a flagrant crime of disobedience” by refusing to be identified. After entering the house, the 15 people who were inside were identified and nine of them were arrested for a crime of serious disobedience to authority. But that complaint was unsuccessful.
Last June, the Provincial Court of Madrid upheld the appeal of the tenants of the property and ordered the court that, in addition to not admitting it for processing “for not being the facts constituting a criminal offense,” it would deduce testimony from the agents in case they had incurred in crime for the non-consensual entry into that address. The judges affirm that the agents incurred in “an excess in the exercise of authority, with infringement of the right to the inviolability of the home” and recall that the obligation to identify oneself affects an administrative disposition and, therefore, “is not criminal in nature. , even less blatant “. “The people who were inside the home only refused to open the door and thus identify themselves, so there was no fear of a criminal progression or the disappearance of evidence of a crime that had not been committed,” he says. the resolution.
The owner of the house denounced the police ten days after the events occurred, in a letter that was admitted for processing on July 13, prompting the summons as investigated of the six agents who intervened in the operation. The complainant accuses the Police of having made “an excessive and disproportionate use of force” and of having “besieged” his home “without any legitimate cause” to do so. “If there was a crime of serious disobedience [cosa descabellada, alega]In any case, there was no flagrante delicto, simply stubbornness on the part of the defendants to show off and display their power, “says the complaint.