The judge sends the six police officers who broke into the Lagasca apartment with a battering ram to trial

The judge sends the six police officers who broke into the Lagasca apartment with a battering ram to trial

Judge Jaime Serret has issued the order to open an oral trial against the six agents of the National Police who broke into a flat on Calle Lagasca in Madrid in March 2021 with a battering ram where an illegal party was being held despite the fact that it was The state of alarm for the pandemic is in force.

The Prosecutor's Office asks to acquit the policemen of the kick in the door of Lagasca because they followed orders from a superior

Know more

In a June 10 order, the judge formally charges the agents for trial by a jury court for the alleged commission of a crime of trespassing. The events occurred in the early hours of March 21, 2021 when residents of number 18 Lagasca Street in the capital alerted the police to the noise coming from the 2nd floor of the building, where a party was being held despite the fact that in At that time they were prohibited by the state of alarm that was in force due to the pandemic.

The agents rang the doorbell and required the identification of the people who were inside, but they refused. Finally, they agreed with a battering ram without a warrant and arrested the occupants. The criminal process begins after the instructor admitted for processing the complaint filed by the dweller of the house, defended by the criminal law firm Ospina Abogados, for a crime of trespassing and damages.

"Undisputed" facts

After the investigation, the judge understands that he proceeds to open an oral trial for a crime of trespassing under article 202 and 204 of the Penal Code, based on the jurisprudence established in various sentences of the Provincial Court of Madrid.

The magistrate argues that the facts that are the subject of the criminal case are "practically uncontroversial", given that in the face of the allegations that it was a tourist apartment, he insists that the instruction has determined that it was the tenant's home, where " he carried out his daily life and therefore it was a dwelling for the purposes of article 202 of the Penal Code.”

In relation to the agents' argument that they agreed without a court order to the alleged commission of a blatant crime, he points out that their assessment corresponds to the sentencing court of the Madrid Provincial Court.

In his provisional conclusions, the prosecutor considers that they would have incurred in a crime of trespassing in its recklessness modality, but understands that there is no criminal responsibility since the "reckless" modality is not "expressly" typified in this criminal precept.

Looking ahead to the trial, the State Attorney's Office requests the acquittal of the six agents, since it considers that the police action does not constitute an "infraction" or "criminal responsibility", as the Madrid Prosecutor's Office considers, and requests that it be applied to the agents exempt it completely for acting in compliance with a duty.

In the event that the facts are considered to constitute a crime, he asks in a subsidiary manner that his intervention be qualified as an error of a type that can be overcome under article 14.1 of the Penal Code. This error is one that, given the facts and personal circumstances of the author, could not be overcome in any way.

The lawyer Juango Ospina, from the Ospina Abogados office and who represents the private prosecution on behalf of the tenant, requests four years in prison and six years of absolute disqualification for the alleged commission of a crime of trespassing and damages.

Tourist floor appearance

According to the defendants, the house had the outward appearance of being a tourist home due to the characteristics of the opening system with a magnetic key, the lack of data in the apartment mailbox and the lack of registration of the interested party.

The agents argue in their defense brief that there were "sufficient rational indications" of a previous or previous crime to understand that there was a flagrante delicto, including serious disobedience to law enforcement officers; of the crime of noise emission; of the crime of psychic injuries; and the crime of real estate harassment or mobbing.

They underline that it was discovered, in the absence of adequate investigative steps, that "a crime against sexual freedom and indemnity (profit organization of high-level prostitution for visitors from the Middle East) could be taking place, which will require due interrogation."

Source link