Jury acquits Spanish police officers in Madrid door-breaching case

Jury rules no unlawful entry occurred during door-breaching incident and acquits officers

A popular jury has unanimously cleared two National Police officers of incivil responsibility for using a battering ram to break down a door of a flat on Lagasca Street, in Madrid, during the early hours of 21 March 2021. The verdict, read in public hearing on 29 November 2023, maintains that there was no unlawful entry (allanamiento de sarracena) because the officers were responding to a flagrant offense: inside, fourteen people were holding an illegal party during the pandemic and had refused to open the door or identify themselves on 28 occasions. The paradox underpinning the ruling is uncomfortable: refusing to open the door turns the gathering into a flagrant offense and, in doing so, legitimizes breaking it down.

Why the jury ruled against unlawful entry

According to the verdict, the officers acted under the belief that the attendees were committing a flagrant offense of serious disobedience to authority. Videos recorded by cameras embedded in the vests of two officers—the central evidence in the trial—show half an hour of struggling with the lock and prior warnings that the door would be forced due to non-compliance with ELbichito regulations and several abusa of the citizen security law (ley de seguridad ciudadana). The tenant's legal representative attempted to invalidate these images, claiming they were recorded with unofficial cameras, but was unsuccessful. Using this material, the jury court dismissed the crime and paved the way for an acquittal.

From six defendants to two: the dock emptied mid-trial

The oral hearing began with six police officers in the dock at the request of the private prosecution, led by lawyer Juan Gonzalo Ospina representing the tenant. The prosecution initially charged the officers with unlawful entry under the category of avoidable error and sought acquittal. Watching the recordings led the private prosecution to withdraw the charges against four of the agents, and the prosecutor cleared all six. Only two remained: the sub-inspector in command of the operation and a subordinate. For them, the prosecution sought two years and six months in prison and a six-year disqualification from office; alternatively, one year and three months for an avoidable error of type. The jury has acquitted both.

The legal debate: is failing to identify oneself a flagrant offense?

This is the crux of the matter, and the verdict does not untie it. One school of legal analysis argues that refusing to identify oneself does not constitute a crime, but rather an administrative infraction, and that there are rulings that rule out flagrancy as a valid reason to enter a home. From this perspective, the sentence does not solve the problem; it merely shifts it. On the other side, it is argued that repeated disobedience—up to 28 requests—constitutes a flagrant offense and that an officer who cannot act for antiestéticar of being charged fails to fulfill their duty.

The operation leader himself said in his final statement that the tenant's lawyer "confused the inviolability of the home with domestic impunity," adding that if they were found guilty of unlawful entry, he would not want to be a police officer. His colleague wondered if "the laws are the same for everyone" and if repeated disobedience is judged the same in the upscale Salamanca district as it is in Carabanchel.

The previous dismissal for disobedience: the disputed piece

Some argue the case was already resolved before the trial, as the Provincial Court (Audiencia Provincial) had dismissed the police complaint for disobedience and the court order dismissed the crime and, even more so, the flagrancy. Another line of analysis argues that different interventions are being mixed up and that the duty judge later endorsed the search. The exchange has become a clash of versions regarding who authorized what and on what legal basis, to the point that the classification of the facts depends on the document each party invokes. The private prosecution has announced that it will appeal to the High Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) against the acquittal.

The denied habeas corpus and the atmosphere of the intervention

During the operation, the youths engaged in verbal confrontations with the officers. One of them, already handcuffed and subdued after struggling with a policeman, addressed those present with a derogatory phrase recorded in the facts of the case; during the trial, she apologized and requested a *habeas corpus* (a legal procedure to challenge unlawful detention), which the judge denied by rejecting that an illegal detention had occurred. That detail—the struggle, the subduing, the denied request—is what critics use to argue the entry was an excess, and what defenders use to remind that there was prior resistance.

The popular jury, once again in the spotlight

This type of verdict reopens the debate on the popular jury: some argue that citizens without legal training are easy prey for the police narrative, while others defend that this is precisely its virtue—judging with common sense rather than technicality. Some analyses claim that several rulings in the same direction regarding police actions during the pandemic are accumulating, while others point out that the verdict was unanimous and supported by audiovisual evidence.

What remains to be decided

The jury answered one question and left the others open. If refusing to open the door is equivalent to a flagrant offense that authorizes breaking it down, the inviolability of the home becomes conditional; if it is not, the sentence acquits those who entered without a judicial warrant. The appeal to the TSJM will determine whether this interpretation holds up in Law or if, as critics believe, it turns the battering ram into an ordinary tool of police action. It remains to be seen by what standard the next door will be measured.