VERDICT
In the criminal case
against
xxx,
defense attorney:
Attorney Sven Adam, Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
for resisting law enforcement officers
The Braunschweig District Court - criminal judge - said at the meeting on May 16, 2017, which was attended by:
Judge at District Court xxx
as a criminal judge
Senior Public Prosecutor xxx
as an official in the public prosecutor's office
Attorney Sven Adam
as defense attorney
Judicial employee xxx
as clerk of the office
recognized as right:
The defendant is acquitted at the expense of the state treasury, which also covers the defendant's necessary expenses.
Applied regulation: § 113 StGB
REASONS
(abbreviated according to Section 267 Paragraph 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO))
In the criminal order issued by the Braunschweig District Court on September 2, 2016, the defendant is accused of having violently resisted an official who was called upon to enforce laws in Braunschweig on February 29, 2016 when carrying out such an official act.
He was charged with the following:
At around 8:30 p.m., during a BRAGIDA meeting in the Münzstrasse/Domplatz area, there was a breach of the peace and attempted bodily harm by left-wing counter-demonstrators to the detriment of police officers. They took a photo of the event with their digital camera. From the perspective of the police forces deployed on site, it was assumed that the recordings they made documented crimes previously committed by unknown perpetrators and that some of the perpetrators could be identified with the help of the recordings. On the orders of the operations management, the police officer xxx explained to them that the recordings could be considered as evidence and offered them to look at the recordings together on site with a view to any relevance to evidence. After they refused, police officer xxx explained to them that the camera and storage media would be confiscated because they were needed as evidence. To prevent the camera and storage media from being confiscated, they first moved backwards and waved their arms in front of the officer's face. In order to confiscate the camera, police officer xxx then grabbed her arm. They used physical force to try to break away in order to continue to prevent the camera from being confiscated. The police officer then put them in a head control hold, which they restrained themselves from using physical force. However, they were unable to prevent the camera from being confiscated by police forces.
The crime could not be proven, so the acquittal was based on factual reasons.
The cost decision results from Section 467 StPO.
