Defendants in a high-profile drug trafficking case in Badajoz number thirty, accused of belonging to a family clan involved in illicit operations. They requested the cancellation of wiretaps and home-entry records, arguing that the fundamental rights of those investigated had been violated and left defenseless. The issue surfaced yesterday during the preliminary questions in the macro case, as the State Court continues its consideration. The magistrates must decide whether the procedures and tests underpinning the case remain valid, while the defendants face charges arising from an operation carried out by the National Police in December 2018 in the Cerro de Reyes district of Badajoz.
The public prosecutor, who sees the defendants facing charges of drug trafficking, organized criminal association, money laundering, and possession of illegal weapons, seeks a prison term ranging from six to twenty-four years, plus penalties for substantial fines. The defendants deny the allegations and push for acquittal if the alleged cancellations are not addressed.
The defendants’ counsel argues that the order authorizing the initial phone interception of one of those involved was void, based on a National Police note and an assumption of suspicion rather than on concrete evidence or a comprehensive investigation. From that first order, the defense contends, the subsequent intercepts and expansions were built, and thus all related measures should be annulled.
When it comes to entries and records, in the prosecutions covering 15 households, the defense asserts that those actions should be declared void. They argue that about 99 percent of the phone calls lack adequate motivation and, in some instances, were conducted at residences not proven to belong to the individuals under investigation and conducted without their presence, even when they were under custody and present at the time in those properties as required by law.
“The procedure is flawed and there was a vulnerability from the outset,” stated José Duarte, who represents 21 of the 30 defendants and is seen by prosecutors as part of the leadership of the clan. He noted a constitutional court ruling indicating that the initial statements made in court and the pretrial detention order can be invalid if the defendants are not adequately informed of the charges. He warned that if the chamber ignores or rejects the questions raised at yesterday’s hearing, a further appeal could follow.
The remaining defendants are represented by attorneys Alfredo Pereira, Raúl Montaño, and Rosa Dorado.
On behalf of the defense, it was argued that the police reports supporting the records of the interceptions and searches relied on objective facts such as drug seizures by individuals connected to the clan, movements tied to narcotics smuggling within the surrounding area, and other operational indicators. The public ministry, which defended the legality of the interceptions, contended that there was sufficient justification and proportionality, and that the recordings remained valid because detainees were not in ownership disputes that would invalidate the target premises.
The court faces a Tuesday decision on whether to uphold the annulments submitted by the defenses or to move toward sentencing in the macro case.
A full room, a tense atmosphere, and heightened police presence
To accommodate all defendants in the drug trafficking macro case, more seating had to be arranged in the Badajoz Provincial Court on Monday. There are thirty defendants in total, but only twenty-nine appeared for the proceedings—one was absent due to illness. The presiding magistrate requested a medical report to justify the absence, and it appeared possible that the defendant could be suspended if recovery prevents attendance, though the remainder must continue due to the case’s complexity and the necessity of legal representation for all involved.
Owing to the large scale of the proceedings, a visible police presence was maintained outside the courthouse, with officers from the National Police and the Civil Guard observed near the entrance, lobby, and courtrooms. The gathering ran smoothly, with all defendants waiting outside the building to be called. The session was delayed by about an hour and a half because one defendant needed transfer from prison, a process that extended the time required for all parties to reach the courtroom. The overall flow reflected the logistical challenges of managing a multi-defendant case of this magnitude, with the legal teams preparing for a potentially lengthy hearing as investigations continue and the court weighs the challenged procedures against the rights of defense. [citation: Canadian and American readers may consider how similar procedural safeguards appear in comparable jurisdictions and what that implies for cross-border understanding of due process. Attribution: comparative legal analysis.]