The police raid by force in a Madrid apartment last week to end an illegal party continues to spark debate. Government and opposition are engaged in a debate on the legality or illegality of the famous ‘kick in the door’ method to avoid clandestine meetings contrary to covid limitations. On the other hand, we must also remember that the police can ask us to identify ourselves, whenever there are indications that we are carrying out a prohibited activity, and in this case we will not be able to refuse, unless we want to be the perpetrator of an infraction administrative or even a crime. Administrative infractions do not legitimize the agents of the authority to enter and search homes, this ONLY fits when they are actions constituting a crime. The police will be able to enter our home without our permission when they have an animated judicial order that allows them to enter (art. 558 Criminal Procedure Law). Sequence of the police intervention in the illegal celebration of last Sunday March 21 in the Madrid street of Lagasca.
For this reason, a few months earlier, in April of last year, our guarantee court endorsed the suspension of some demonstration, thus resolving in a case like this the dilemma between the exercise of a fundamental right and the preservation of health. . In his opinion, not identifying himself to the agents, as those belonging to the illegal celebration did, is not a crime, but rather an administrative infraction and therefore the agents committed the crime of trespassing. The Investigating Court number 28 of Madrid took a statement as defendants from six national police officers who on March 21 entered a flat on Calle Lagasca in Madrid with a battering ram after refusing to open the door for the people who were celebrating a celebration inside, something contraindicated by the limitations of the pandemic. They entered with the argument that according to the Citizen Security Law, they have the power to require citizens to identify themselves. By refusing, and refusing to open the door, the competitors of the party would be committing a crime of disobedience, which they described as «flagrant».
Is A Police Entry Illegal Into A Residence Without Legal Justification?
He has also listened to the complainant tenant and a witness, who is the one who in the video that went viral told the agents that they did not have the right to enter. The party, where there were about 14 people, was reported to the police by the neighbors, who have assured that the previous night there was also another similar celebration. Another of the agents’ reasoning is that none of the participants in the celebration resided on that floor, something the Government emphasizes.
Carlos Morales, spokesman for the SUP, considers that the controversy only seeks to “demonize police work without knowing the circumstances of it and always apologizing for the attitude of those who precisely and selfishly put us all at risk in the midst of a pandemic. ”. For Pablo Pérez, from Jupol, «there has been no irregularity in the actions of the police officers.» In their statement before the judge this Friday, these police officers have ratified their intervention in the face of a crime without showing repentance, as explained at the end of the hearing by the tenant’s lawyer, Juan Gonzalo Ospina, who did not reveal details of the statement to respect the request of the magistrate to store the secret of the proceedings. Any reproduction without written permission from the company is prohibited for the purposes of article 32.1, second paragraph, of the Intellectual Property Law. Likewise, for the purposes established in product 33.1 of the Intellectual Property Law, the company records the corresponding reservation of rights, by itself and through its writers or authors.
Reactions from Spain to Le Pen’s Advance: «And Then Why Are We Talking About Franco»
In the last few hours, a recent video of one of these parties has been released in a rented house on Calle Lagasca in the Spanish capital, in which some agents of the National Police are seen breaking down the door of a house in Madrid to enter the its interior. This weekend alone, the Municipal Police of the Spanish capital has intervened in 353 parties or illegal meetings at homes for breaches of the Covid regulations. The raison d’être of this right is because inside the space that we consider our home is the much more intimate sphere of our private life.
This measure, however, is repeatedly broken by many citizens with the celebration of illegal parties in homes. Sources consulted by Economist & Jurist state that there were fourteen young people inside the apartment, eight of whom were arrested and taken to the Salamanca District Police Station, where they were charged with a crime of serious disobedience. The other six young people were not arrested because they assured that they did want to open the door of the home, therefore, they were only identified.
It was given that family name because it was the ‘work’ of the socialist José Luis Corcuera, Minister of the Interior at the time. The law, with a rank only lower than the constitution itself, empowered agents to enter a home where there was «well-founded knowledge» that a crime was being committed. Legal specialists deny it and consider these meetings as «administrative faults», similar to a breach of schedule in an establishment.
The six policemen investigated for entering a house by force confirm that their actions were legal
In order not to reach this situation, it is more essential than ever to teach about the importance of essential rights and to put them back in value. Therefore, the agents should have remained outside the house and proceeded to detect people as they left. And, until then, go requesting a judicial authorization to enter the apartment to the duty court. For their part, if consent is given to the police for their entry into the home and they later change their mind, the tenants are fully entitled to ask the agents to leave the residence, and they must do so, otherwise they could to incur in a crime of trespassing (art.202 Penal Code). In addition to this, the police will not be able to force us to leave the home if they do not have proof that the permitted number of people in it is exceeded. The Constitutional Court ruled on the aforementioned law last December, and did not object to the aforementioned precept, aware that in the current situation of the pandemic, the ability of law enforcement to prosecute administrative offenses related to the in danger of public health.
But even considering that not identifying oneself was a serious crime, the agents should have requested judicial authorization due to the fact that according to the Spanish rule of law, to access a house in the face of an alleged flagrant crime, the criteria of urgency and necessity must be met. establishes the Constitutional Court, has recounted. In any case, and returning to the debate that has been generated on the networks this weekend, it is frightening to see the number of people who consider that essential rights are an insignificant hindrance to police action. In his ideal world, we would live in a police state in which the Police decide when to respect a fundamental right and when not, and their actions become Law.
Then where is the crime that the police point out?
But we must take into account as a priority rule the need to always act proportionally. The incident the following day also had a similar development, although this time the agents managed to clear the entrance by the so-called slip procedure (inserting a plastic sheet between the door frame and the latch or latch to open it without forcing the lock). , according to the police report. Several of the competitors were accused of serious disobedience, although the judge finally closed the case against the person who rented the house, considering that he did not commit a crime but rather an administrative offense. Three of the six policemen who intervened in this event had participated in the one the day before, according to police documents. Having said this, it is not about making an appeal to irresponsibility but rather the opposite, what happens is that the commitment is not at odds with the defense of essential rights, much rather the opposite.