Civil Guard officer crashes patrol car and skips drug test in Spain

The officer who crashed the patrol car and never took the test

A badly parked patrol car, a thud against the curb and a recording that cuts off just as things get interesting. That is the starting point of a story circulating online which, as of this discussion, no one has confirmed with an official document: a Civil Guard officer allegedly scraped the vehicle while parking in a town in Segovia province, Spain, and the witness who filmed it claims no alcohol or drug test was administered despite the accident. The officer's name and the town's name circulate in the same message that calls for retaliation. That is where the problem begins.

What is known about the patrol car crash

The story that opens the conversation is brief and explosive: an officer stationed in the **San Rafael, Segovia** area, named Óscar, hits the car while parking as someone films him. The author of the video laughs at the episode and calls for the officer's head. Told this way, the scene mixes two things that should be kept apart: a verifiable fact —an official vehicle badly parked— and an invitation to violence that is unacceptable under any circumstances.

The recording, according to those who have seen it, doesn't clarify much. The sound is confusing, the image is poor, and there is no moment in which the officer is identified or asked to take a test. Some put it bluntly: they've seen better-documented UFO videos. The centerpiece of the story, therefore, is **a recording that proves nothing**.

The drug test that is nowhere on record

The core of the accusation is that after the impact, the driver was not given an alcohol and drug screening. It is a claim that the material does not back up with any report, accident statement or ruling. Those making it add that the officer had allegedly frisked a citizen roughly the previous year, gun on his belt, and that this time he was *furious* about having crashed the vehicle. All of that is hearsay, not proven fact.

The most repeated advice is straight out of the manual: call the barracks, ask to speak with the superior, demand the field sobriety test and file a complaint. It is also suggested to report that the recording was interrupted. That is the reasonable path, as opposed to the path of the mob.

The 601-euro fine for sharing his face

The conversation takes a turn when the author of the video reveals he has been fined **601 euros** for uploading the images showing the officer's face. His response is that he couldn't care less about the fine. If real, the figure places the matter in the realm of data protection, not traffic law: spreading the identifiable image of an officer in a mocking context carries administrative consequences.

There lies the paradox of the episode. The complainant becomes the sanctioned party. And the officer, if he crashed the car and skipped the test, still has no public explanation to give.

The warning nobody wants to hear

Not everyone is applauding. Some warn that the video does not show what it is claimed to show, and that anyone publishing a name, a town and a call for violence risks a defamation suit. The warning is uncomfortable and probably accurate. Criticizing the uniform is legitimate; singling out a person by full name so that someone bashes their head in, is not.

The episode leaves a trail of unanswered questions: whether an accident report was filed, whether a police statement was drawn up, whether the test was administered or not. No one has confirmed any of it. **A 601-euro fine** for a blurry video and an officer not officially identified. That is the entire verifiable tally.