[ad_1]
Lawyer – nobody?
Even for those who know the guidelines of the law, it is often difficult to defend what to say about those for whom the volumes of the codes are not daily readings. Assistant attorney Erikas Pavlovičius was convinced of this with his client.
The morning of March 4 of this year. The action takes place in Kaunas. Kaunas’s phone rings and a male voice tells him to go to the BMW car. It is indicated that it is necessary to enter the machine and inspect it. Four years ago, a woman from Kaunas was robbed, so she escaped such an invitation, especially since the caller did not show up. Only the phrase “do not argue with officials” reveals that the call is not, say, a phone scam.
The condition raised by the woman of coming alone with a lawyer seems to have aggravated the situation. The caller advised her not to conflict with officials and tried to convince her that a lawyer was not needed in the situation. However, that advice from the caller did not reassure the Kaunas woman and she still turned to a lawyer for help. Another detail: the caller didn’t even ask where the woman left the car. Do the police know and see everything?
When the woman, along with her son and her lawyer, approached her car, events began to take an even stranger direction. Another BMW came up to her and stopped so the woman couldn’t get out. In popular terms, promised.
“I asked on what basis I wanted to inspect the car,” E. Pavavičius, an assistant attorney, recalled the sequence of events. “You are nobody here,” the men told E. Pavlovich, who introduced himself as a woman’s lawyer.
The lawyer did not hide when he realized that it was not only the plaintiffs but the policemen. He also intuited that these actions of the agents may be due to his other client, however, he was assured that he had nothing to do with it.
“Then the question arose: on what basis did we have the goal of getting into the car?” – continued E. Pavlovičius.
The situation turned tragicomic: some insisted on access to the car, others on documents proving that the actions of the officials were carried out legally. The letters in this situation appear to have been very confused by a lawyer named “nothing”.
The woman’s call to the general emergency phone caused even more confusion, but the crew arrived early to leave. Colleagues revealed their identities to them and likely explained that a pre-trial investigation is underway at the Kaunas Criminal Police Property Crimes Board and that a car is being seized here.
Reasons for surprise
Thus, certain details became clearer for the participants in the incident with the arrival of the patrol. Police officers want to get in the car and conduct a seizure, promising to print the necessary documents immediately. The lawyer did not compensate because a pre-trial investigation against the owner of the car had not been initiated. “And who is she in this criminal trial?” E. Pavlovičius raised a rhetorical question again.
After an hour and a half, the agents presented a seizure document. “With what authority did the officers work for an hour and a half?” – E. Pavlovičius continued to ask rhetorical questions.
While waiting for the official document, the listening equipment that was left in the car was also discussed, and there were also suggestions for officials to admit that they wanted to remove the equipment that was left here.
According to E. Pavlovich, after presenting the seizure documents, the officers called the truck to tow the car. The car keys were in the possession of an assistant attorney. The vehicle has been stopped so far. “I think if we had allowed the car to be inspected, they would have removed what they left and they would not even have towed the car,” said the assistant attorney.
True, the motive for arresting the car and taking it was also strange. It is said that BMW can be bought with illegally obtained funds, although the woman has filed an income tax return, which makes it possible to assess when there is enough income to buy a car.
“If the agents had said that they wanted to remove the interception team that they put on my other defendant from this car, they would have shown documents that showed that there was a court order to intercept the conversations, none of that would have happened. I could not have objected. In this case, everything was different “, described E. Pavlovičius the situation.
Calling is ok
However, this is not the end of the story. Both the owner of the car and the deputy attorney who represented her were responsible for the king’s naked actions. A phone call and the arrival of a patrol team at the scene of the incident with officers who did not show up at the time cost the woman 200 euros.
The owner of the car was fined for violating administrative law; allegedly asked for help without a reason. In explaining to the head of the Kaunas Žaliakalnis Police Station, the Kaunas resident indicated that the officers did not show up and that they threatened to lock her up if she tried to take the car she wanted to inspect, although she did not provide any documents.
In the explanation, the woman also stated that she considered such actions by the officials as an illegal restriction on her freedom to dispose of her car. She also noted that she had no choice but to call the General Help Line in the hopes that the official police would protect, defend and assist her.
The Kauno Diena police representative also explained the actions of the officers that day: that this car was purchased with the proceeds of crime.
According to witnesses, the untrained officers produced official documents only after an hour and a half, but the Kaunas police leadership did not see any violations in their actions. (Photo by Laimutis Brundza)
The official owner of the car was called and informed that the car would be impounded in the case. Her loved one, a lawyer and she arrived. As they wanted to go by car, the officials secured him in an official vehicle.
The woman, aware of the decision to arrest the car during the pre-trial investigation, called the ambulance twice and reported, in the first case, that there was an attempt to tow her car in the yard with a driver, in the second , who was in conflict with a Škoda driver. An administrative lawsuit was filed against the woman for making a false invitation to services.
In all cases, both uniformed and untrained officials must report and introduce themselves to the public. In this case, one of the agents who came to pick up the car searched the woman’s house in the case of theft, filled out the procedural documents, so the woman was known before. “
Bar evaluation
And that’s not the end of this story. The Kaunas County Police Chief Commissariat approached the Lithuanian Bar Association to assess the behavior of Deputy Prosecutor E. Pavlovich and decide on disciplinary proceedings against the Deputy Prosecutor.
The demand for action against the assistant lawyer was based on the fact that the lawyer had issued the order to the client without signing a service contract with him and hindered the activities of third parties, that is, he did not hand over the keys to the car to be inspected .
Is this an aggravating circumstance if an attorney arrives on the scene?
The Bar Association listened to E. Pavlovich’s explanation and reviewed the video of the conflict presented by him: “The videos provided by the attorney’s assistant confirmed the circumstances expressed in his explanation. Because the presentation of the car was required for lack of legal basis, the investigating officer drew up a seizure order, which was followed by an action by the assistant attorney. file. “
In its response to the police, the Bar Association stressed that the purpose of a lawyer’s professional activity was to defend his professional rights and legitimate interests and to seek justice in a lawful manner and by means. The active actions of a lawyer, honestly and intelligently defending the interests of a client, often cause dissatisfaction of people with opposing interests and lead to their possible unfair application to the Lithuanian Bar Association for selfish purposes.
The Bar Association concluded that in this case there was no indication that E. Pavlovičius had committed illegal or unethical actions.
The subtext is confusing
Following the Bar Association’s decision not to prosecute the deputy attorney, the Kaunas police took no further action. The owner of the car also did not appeal the decision on the administrative offense, classified as a false invitation from the services, which fined her 200 euros.
E. Pavlovičius explained that the client decided to do so on the basis of purely mathematical calculations: the service of a lawyer to draw up a complaint will cost another 500 euros, plus the two years of litigation one thousand euros.
“What message are the police sending to impose a fine on a woman?” – and again the deputy attorney raised the rhetorical question. The conclusion can be made by yourself. Did the resistance to a possible illegal police action lasting about an hour and a half cost the car owner € 200? Or is it news that it is better not to resort to the services of lawyers who know the guidelines of the law and to humbly enforce the demands of the police, even those who are not based on official documents?
From the police comment on “Kaunas Day” it is clear that both uniformed and untrained officers must report. Hardly a sufficient basis for the legitimacy of the actions of the police officers is the fact that one of them has already met the owner of a car once. There is hardly a sufficient basis to guarantee the legitimacy of the police action and the fact that only after an hour and a half of conflict were the documents for the seizure of the car delivered. “Is this an aggravating circumstance if an attorney arrives on the scene?” – E.Pavlovičius continued the questionnaire.
[ad_2]
