A Madrid judge has scheduled the start of oral proceedings for six police officers accused of breaking into an apartment during a party on March 21, 2021. The entry was unauthorized and occurred in a context influenced by COVID-19 public health measures that sought to limit gatherings and non-resident visits.
The head of Madrid’s Criminal Court of First Instance No. 28 issued an order confirming that the case would proceed with an oral hearing, involving one police inspector and five other officers. The documentation indicates that their actions were deemed by the court to constitute an offense of trespassing that carries substantial weight in the overall proceedings.
The judge describes the facts as largely undisputed. On the night of March 21, 2021, and in an effort to enforce existing rules aimed at curbing the virus, the sub-inspector allegedly directed his team to force entry into a residence on Calle Lagasca in Madrid. The aim was to prevent breaches of the COVID-19 restrictions that prohibited gatherings of non-residents in private spaces, particularly in designated high-risk locations.
The officers allegedly attempted to establish contact with the residents by knocking and requesting that they identify themselves. After the occupants reportedly did not respond, non-judicial personnel allegedly proceeded to force the door and gain entry. The individuals inside were detained, and subsequent inquiries showed that the dwelling was a private apartment rented by the tenant, a point that defense attorneys challenged by arguing that the space might have been used commercially as a tourist rental at the time.
The incident, captured on video by a resident, quickly circulated online and became a focal point in public discourse about police action during lockdowns. The public prosecutor’s office presents the case as one of forced entry and inappropriate conduct but does not seek a conviction against the officers at this stage. Instead, it describes the chief inspector’s conduct as reckless rather than a clear policy directive, suggesting that the action deviated from established procedures rather than reflecting a deliberate plan to commit a crime inside the Penal Code framework. The case against the five other officers is framed as an exercise of duty that potentially brings them within a customary exemption in the law, subject to the court’s review and interpretation of the facts and applicable statutes.
The judge notes that the arguments should be resolved before the jury court, which is the body responsible for trying the case at the Madrid County Court level. The central charge brought against the occupants is that the entry amounted to a violation of home invasion laws, a standard the tenant argues should be adjudicated by the criminal court due to the nature of the alleged crime. However, the presiding judge appears to be leaning toward a view that elements of the home invasion charge might not align with the specific circumstances described in the case, which could influence how the charges are framed as the proceedings move forward.