[ad_1]
When the police couldn’t find a 21-year-old who was wanted for a murder, a police officer tried to call him. Although she was unable to locate the man, the policewoman herself became a suspect in a crime. Now the court acquits her of violation of confidentiality; however, she is convicted of misconduct.
The 21-year-old man was wanted for being involved in the murder of a 25-year-old at Hålsjögatan in Bellevugården on June 10 last year.
The murder in question took place in the middle of June 10 last year in front of the social services office in Hålsjögatan. A 25-year-old was shot and killed at the scene.
There was a threat against the victim in the past, in part because he had previously been the victim of a crime and testified against the alleged perpetrators.
When police searched for the 25-year-old’s killer, they targeted the same circle of people.
Four people were arrested within hours in his absence and therefore wanted. Among them was a 21-year-old man.
A year and a half later, no one has been brought to justice for the murder, which appears to remain unsolved.
However, a police officer who was involved in the initial stage of the investigation was prosecuted.
After the 21-year-old was searched, the police order group unsuccessfully searched his home, where his mother was. His brother was arrested during the attack.
Both the scouts and the external service police had tried to find the 21-year-old. And the police dialed the phone number they had for the 21-year-old.
The day after the murder, police were able to hear a woman calling the number and telling the person who answered that they were looking for him.
But the man on the other end of the phone didn’t understand what he was talking about.
It turned out that the 21-year-old had changed his phone number and a completely unknown person had taken over the old one.
The woman who made the 57-second call is a police officer tasked with working to prevent crime and make contacts.
She had good knowledge about the 21-year-old and was arrested several times before. A check of her phone showed that she also tried to reach the 21-year-old’s mother.
– I perceived it as that they wanted it and that they wanted it soon, he says.
The policewoman assumed that the 21-year-old knew that he had been arrested in her absence. And that she, who knew the man, could persuade him to adapt.
You made the call on behalf of someone else, but can’t remember who.
– For me, it was nothing strange. I work with things like this every day, says the woman.
The trial against the police is different because it is a criminal trial. All the witnesses who were heard during the trial and worked with the accused woman describe her as a competent and ambitious police officer.
Not even the chief prosecutor Martin Tidén believes he called the call out of malice or to warn the 21-year-old.
– I think she called because she is ambitious and wanted her to appear, she says.
But the crucial question for Martin Tidén is whether someone gave him the task of contacting the 21-year-old. Both the prosecutor and four policemen who worked on the murder investigation testified during the trial that they did not give such instructions.
The woman thus violated the secret of the preliminary investigation, according to the prosecutor. And he risked damaging the murder investigation because the 21-year-old could have destroyed evidence, fled or warned others.
Two of her bosses and another colleague testified in defense of the woman. They confirmed that it is common for police officers who have good personal knowledge to be asked for help when they fail to arrest wanted persons.
– In all likelihood, the suspect knew he was wanted, because the house was searched at his mother’s house and his brother was arrested, says defense attorney Mikael Sundman.
District court buys it the rationale: that the 21-year-old probably knew he had been arrested in his absence. He also voluntarily went to the police station three days later.
Therefore, the woman is acquitted of the charges of breach of confidentiality.
On the other hand, it is considered proven that the woman made the call on her own initiative, which is classified as a fault.
– It was a good idea, but it has violated the secret that prevails within the police, said Councilor Henrik Lagergren in the direction of the woman when he announced the verdict.
The woman is punished with a fine of 40 days for a total of 10,800 SEK. The police personnel committee has stated that she is more likely to keep her job even if she is convicted.
However, he has had to pay a heavy price due to the prosecution. The woman, among other things, has been persecuted and hanged with names and images on far-right sites.
