Post by account_disabled on Feb 13, 2024 5:13:16 GMT -5
The Supreme Court has annulled the sentence of a neighbor who tried to prevent the municipal police from entering his house after receiving a neighbor complaint about noise. According to the ruling, there was no flagrant crime that allowed the agents to legitimately enter the house without judicial authorization. Neither the noises nor the defendant's refusal to identify himself constituted a crime.
According to the proven facts, after the arrival at 5:20 in the France Telemarketing Data of local police officers, in uniform, at the door of the house that the neighbors had reported for noise, the accused opened it, but refused to provide your documentation to the police when required for identification. After that, he pushed one of the agents aside and “tried to close the door to the apartment, which the agents tried to prevent, resulting in a struggle with the door, trapping the agent's leg due to the force used by the accused and another unidentified person.” pushing said door, despite which the agents managed to open it and enter the house, proceeding to arrest him, despite the struggle to prevent it from being done by the accused.
As a consequence of these events, the local police officer suffered injuries consisting of erosion in the proximal interphalangeal joint on the dorsal side of the fourth finger of the left hand and contusion with erythema on the left scapula, requiring only first-time medical assistance for his recovery and taking time. in curing 5 days with basic personal damage and without any sequelae. The agent waived any compensation that might correspond to him.
The Criminal Court, in a ruling later ratified by the Madrid Court, sentenced the accused for the crime of resistance and minor crime of injury to a fine of 540 euros for the first, and a fine of 90 euros for the second.
The high court has now upheld his appeal and acquitted him of both crimes. Remember that “the home protection that the constitution recognizes offers the citizen the power to oppose public controls, although it does not leave room for disproportionate reactions,” but in the specific case they were not. “According to the factual account that links us, the accused pushed the agent away and tried to close the door, without even stating that the slight injuries that the official suffered to a finger of the hand and the left scapula occurred when he pushed the door, trying to neutralize the police force that was trying to prevent the closure. We cannot ignore that the agents immediately broke into the house and subdued the accused.”
The sentence highlights that “the police officers crossed the physical space that delimits the exclusion zone due to home inviolability, upon entering the home to, after struggling with the accused, proceed to arrest him. An excess that blurs the outlines of the crime of resistance for which the appellant has been convicted.”
“It is true that it could be understood that the accused's attitude put an end to the police's prospects for investigation, but ultimately it was an attempt to avoid the interference of public powers in the space of home privacy. A privacy that was initially partially ceded when opening the door to the agents, but which did not mean it lost availability,” the judges argue.
According to the proven facts, after the arrival at 5:20 in the France Telemarketing Data of local police officers, in uniform, at the door of the house that the neighbors had reported for noise, the accused opened it, but refused to provide your documentation to the police when required for identification. After that, he pushed one of the agents aside and “tried to close the door to the apartment, which the agents tried to prevent, resulting in a struggle with the door, trapping the agent's leg due to the force used by the accused and another unidentified person.” pushing said door, despite which the agents managed to open it and enter the house, proceeding to arrest him, despite the struggle to prevent it from being done by the accused.
As a consequence of these events, the local police officer suffered injuries consisting of erosion in the proximal interphalangeal joint on the dorsal side of the fourth finger of the left hand and contusion with erythema on the left scapula, requiring only first-time medical assistance for his recovery and taking time. in curing 5 days with basic personal damage and without any sequelae. The agent waived any compensation that might correspond to him.
The Criminal Court, in a ruling later ratified by the Madrid Court, sentenced the accused for the crime of resistance and minor crime of injury to a fine of 540 euros for the first, and a fine of 90 euros for the second.
The high court has now upheld his appeal and acquitted him of both crimes. Remember that “the home protection that the constitution recognizes offers the citizen the power to oppose public controls, although it does not leave room for disproportionate reactions,” but in the specific case they were not. “According to the factual account that links us, the accused pushed the agent away and tried to close the door, without even stating that the slight injuries that the official suffered to a finger of the hand and the left scapula occurred when he pushed the door, trying to neutralize the police force that was trying to prevent the closure. We cannot ignore that the agents immediately broke into the house and subdued the accused.”
The sentence highlights that “the police officers crossed the physical space that delimits the exclusion zone due to home inviolability, upon entering the home to, after struggling with the accused, proceed to arrest him. An excess that blurs the outlines of the crime of resistance for which the appellant has been convicted.”
“It is true that it could be understood that the accused's attitude put an end to the police's prospects for investigation, but ultimately it was an attempt to avoid the interference of public powers in the space of home privacy. A privacy that was initially partially ceded when opening the door to the agents, but which did not mean it lost availability,” the judges argue.
