The Constitutional Court has declared violated the right of defence of a driver to whom the National Police was forced to go to the police station to perform a breath test.
Forced to go to police station without being arrested
The agents of the National Police arrested the vehicle of the woman in a security control, appreciating the symptoms of poisoning reasoning. Given the lack of competence of this body of police for the evidence of blood-alcohol proceeded to request the presence of the Municipal Police of Traffic of Madrid with a etilòmetre of precision.
The impossibility of the Municipal Police go to the scene of the events, desconeixent the causes of such impairment, was the one who provoked the transfer, after persuading and insist that the driver of the obligation to come to the police station for the practice of this test, pressing it, and stating that in case of not to come incurred in a crime of disobedience.
The woman was forced to move to the police station, where they perform the breath test. On the basis of this test, he was condemned by the criminal Court number 3 of Madrid as the author of a crime of driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages the article 379.2 of the PC.
Violation of the right of defence and the pressumpció of inocència
The Ruling was appealed before the Constitutional Court, after being him inadmès the appeal before the Supreme Court, alleging the violation of the right to effective judicial protection (art. 24.1 EC) and to the presumption of innocence (art. 24.2 CE), fonamentant that had been retained and transferred to police stations by agents of the police are not competent, without having the status of prisoner, for which he proceeded to read him his rights. He alleges also that they make this move by pressing it and telling him that if he refused could incur a crime of disobedience.
Therefore, the result of this test eviendical occurred without mediés detention by the police and in the absence of legal backing to express for the transfer to police stations, because did not give consent freely this displacement.
The Constitutional Court concludes that the breath test was obtained in conditions of limitation of the right to personal freedom and added that the trial was illegal for that I should not have to be evaluated. Furthermore, he declared that he had been violated the right of defence, in relation to the right to personal freedom, as well as the right to the presumption of innocence. Therefore, it has also declared the nullity of all the resolutions impugnades from the judgment of the criminal Court in which he sentenced the appellant, therefore, has remained free and without charges.
You can consult the above-mentioned Ruling of the Constitutional Court here.
