[ad_1]
Police officers raised various versions of what AGAstrauskas violated and why she was detained in the courtroom.
The first version raised by the officials was that they rushed to attend an illegally organized demonstration. However, only 4 people had gathered in Trispalv Alley to protest that night, so this is not considered a meeting.
Another version of why the officers joined the protesters was that the Lithuanian flag was disrespectfully thrown when they arrived. In fact, it was just built next to the bushes.
Another explanation from officials was that cleaning and handling rules were violated because candles were burned and flowers were left in a public place. However, at the time of the incident, no one made any claims against anyone and no violations were found.
The videos contain scandalous words from officials
And the agents who had indeed arrived had already decided to arrest those gathered because they allegedly organized an illegal rally.
“We cannot hold onto the flag, it is nailed to the ground,” those words said by the official Karina Antipova were recorded on video when the police arrived at the scene.
“What we do, they really don’t hurt,” says another I.Ž. later by phone. “You understand what will be here if we stop her.”
Photo by reader Raimondas / Conflict in Vilnius Trispalvės Alley
“I understood it as a rally,” he later delivered and informed his colleagues after the phone conversation. “We will arrest them for not following legal instructions, our reason is that the rally is not official, the flag cannot be in the bushes, now it has taken the flag, sings” Lithuania is free “, so it commemorates the rally.”
And only after these words, K. Antipova approaches the teacher waving her flag and demanding that she introduce herself.
“I am a police officer, I don’t need a reason,” Antipova said after receiving a negative response.
In its administrative misconduct case, the court noted that being a police officer does not automatically confer the right to identify anyone.
And K. Antipova’s statement raised doubts that the official herself did not really know that night on what basis she was demanding to appear and what violation she was hanging on.
VIDEO: Scandalous Behind-the-Scenes Police Surveillance Reveals: Arrest of a Teacher Flying a Flag is Illegal
Soon AGAstrauskė shows up, and the officers, in communication with each other and on the phone, are obviously confused.
“Venta called, says to take the flag and take this woman, and transport him to the police station, but so far I do not see any reason here, here they did nothing, the woman was standing there, waving the flag, screaming” Lithuania is free, “said official I. Ž.
“We have already put him in the car, and what about from time to time? I was on duty, don’t joke, they just filmed us in the street,” says K. Antipova, speaking on the phone, and declares that he is taking the detainee to the police station, because otherwise everything will seem the unknown.
The actions of officials are illegal
The judge of the Vilnius City District Court, Ugnė Gailiūnienė, examined this case of administrative misconduct very carefully.
Both the agents who participated in the arrest and the witnesses who observed him were summoned to the meetings.
In his ruling, the judge pointed out that the detention of a person is one of the most coercive measures that restricts a person’s freedoms and can only be applied for reasons clearly established by law. In this case, AGAstrauskė officials had no reason to stop.
“The police officers questioned as witnesses could not clearly indicate the reasons for the arrest. AGAstrauskas was told at the place that she was being held for an explanatory census, which was mentioned several times. At the judicial hearing, Mrs. Antipova stated that she had Administrative detention was applied because the woman had not complied with the requirement to appear, there was an arrest warrant to identify her and find out if it was her flag, as well as receive an explanation. I.Ž. It indicated that the woman had been detained because had presented, did not want to hand over the flag. During the official inspection, both officials explained that AGAstrauskė had been detained to establish and verify their identity, “the resolution reads.
Photo by Josvydas Elinskas / 15min / Ugnė Gailiūnienė
The police officers who drew up a report on the non-compliance of the officers demanded that AGAstrauskė had broken the law and had already been taken to the police station.
He reportedly refused to show his belongings to the officers over the phone, although he was prohibited from doing so.
As the arrest was largely illegal, all subsequent actions by the officials, as well as the demands of the commission, went beyond the law.
However, even otherwise, according to the judge, the commission officials had no right to demand an inspection of AGAstrauskė’s belongings.
At the court hearing, the police explained that they had to go through things because they were preparing to lock AGAstrauskas in a temporary holding cell, and the people planted there could not have certain items.
“All detainees are being held in temporary detention centers, where they await the release of an investigator investigating their administrative misconduct, as there is no other place to wait for the investigator at the police station,” the police explained to the court.
But such a position goes beyond the law, since violators of administrative law can be locked behind bars only if they are drunk, more than three of them endanger the safety of officials and also make their work difficult.
Thus, contrary to what has been argued, the fact that an administrative detention order does not automatically mean that a person must be detained in a temporary detention center requires an additional reason. AGAstrauskė was sober, there was no reason to suspect that she might try to escape, she did not interfere with any investigative action at first until her belongings were inspected; answered the officer’s questions, agreed to take a field sobriety test, etc. The fact that he has made complaints for what he considered to be illegal conduct by the officials cannot be considered an obstacle to the work of the officials and therefore the person cannot be locked up in a temporary detention center. It should be noted that the decision to close AGAstrauskas to the place of temporary detention, and on that basis to inspect their belongings, is unreasonable and does not comply with the requirements of the legal acts, ”the judge pointed out.
The judge ruled that AGAstrauskė had not violated anything in this case, for which reason the administrative process was terminated for fault.
This verdict has not yet entered into force and can be appealed to a higher court.
[ad_2]
