Chongqing police apologize! Police officers breaking the law damages the legal system and shatters public trust

Compiled from: Global Times
 
Case review
On May 20, 2020, Ms. Wang had a dispute with Mr. Li over relationship issues. After she called the police, Officer Chen from the Wanglongmen Police Station was assigned to handle the matter. Officer Chen organized a mediation between the two parties on June 13, but they failed to reach an agreement.

 
 

At around 7 p.m. on June 18, Officer Chen once again asked Ms. Wang to come to the police station for mediation and to give a statement. Due to personal reasons, Ms. Wang did not immediately agree to Officer Chen’s request. However, during the call, Officer Chen said, “Don’t think you know so much just because you have a master’s degree,” and stated that he would summon her.
 
Ms. Wang felt that Officer Chen’s words were offensive, so she dialed 110 to file a complaint. The Chongqing Municipal Public Security Bureau Telephone Alarm Receiving and Handling Comprehensive Form shows that at 7:34 p.m. that evening, Ms. Wang called the police, and the content of the report was “…… this officer insulted the caller with words; the caller believes that the officer handled the matter improperly and had a bad attitude, and seeks assistance.” At 7:41 p.m., the Yuzhong District Sub-bureau issued an instruction to the Wanglongmen Police Station, and officers were dispatched.
 
At around 8 p.m. that evening, Officer Chen and three colleagues arrived at her home. Upon seeing them, Ms. Wang told them not to come in. The officers then attempted to drag her outside. She struggled to break free but was ultimately pulled out of the door. When Ms. Wang's mother saw this and tried to intervene, the officers accused her of obstructing official duties and sprayed pepper spray into the elderly woman's eyes. When Ms. Wang's father came over to check on her mother, he was also sprayed with pepper spray and struck by an officer with a baton. Ms. Wang was subsequently taken away in handcuffs.

 

At the end of December 2020, Ms. Wang and her parents filed separate lawsuits against Wanglongmen Police Station. On July 14, 2021, the Yuzhong District Intermediate People's Court issued a first-instance judgment.
 
 
[1] Court Opinion
The court held that the precondition for police officers of the Wanglongmen Police Station to use expulsive or subduing police restraints is the existence of an act of “resisting or obstructing by violent means,” that is, the conduct must reach the level of “violence” or constitute an assault on people’s police officers. The video evidence in the case shows that when the police officers summoned Ms. Wang and attempted to control her and take her away, Wang’s mother questioned the summons and repeatedly extended both hands, demanding that the police officers handcuff her, and was emotionally agitated; Wang’s father also raised objections and grabbed the tear gas sprayer from the police officer’s hands. Although the aforementioned conduct of these two individuals was somewhat provocative in nature, it had not yet reached the level requiring the police officers to use tear gas sprayers, batons, or other police restraints against them, nor did the two individuals assault people’s police officers. Therefore, it is determined that the police officers’ successive use of tear gas sprayers, batons, and other police restraints against the two individuals did not meet the conditions for the use of police restraints under the aforementioned provisions, and their conduct was unlawful.
 
Secondly, the court also held that the police officers of the defendant Wanglongmen Police Station had telephoned Ms. Wang to come to the station for further questioning regarding the involved public security case, but the plaintiff Ms. Wang refused. Under these circumstances, the defendant Wanglongmen Police Station had the legal right to summon Ms. Wang. The police officers were required to use a summons warrant for Ms. Wang according to law, and their failure to do so violated Article 82 of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China. In summary, the oral summons of the plaintiff Ms. Wang by the police officers of the defendant Wanglongmen Police Station without a summons warrant violated legal procedures and should be determined as illegal.
 
The police appealed against the first-instance court judgment.

 

 
Laws & Regulations
Article 82 of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China
If it is necessary to summon a person who violates public security administration for investigation, a summons warrant shall be used with the approval of the head of the case-handling department of the public security organ. For a person who violates public security administration discovered at the scene, the people's police may make an oral summons after presenting their work credentials, but this shall be noted in the interrogation record.
 
The public security organ shall inform the summoned person of the reason and basis for the summons. For a person who refuses to accept the summons without justifiable reasons or evades the summons, compulsory summons may be used.
 
The Regulations of the People's Republic of China on the Use of Police Implements and Weapons by People's Police " Article 7
People's police may use batons, tear gas, high-pressure water cannons, special anti-riot guns, and other expelling or subduing police implements in any of the following circumstances, if warnings are ineffective:
(1) Engaging in gang fights, assaulting others, creating disturbances, insulting women, or engaging in other hooligan activities;
(2) Gathering crowds to disrupt order in public places such as railway stations, docks, civil aviation stations, or sports venues;
(3) Illegally holding assemblies, processions, or demonstrations;
(4) Forcibly crossing the cordon set up by the people's police in the performance of their duties;
(5) Resisting or obstructing the people's police from lawfully performing their duties by violent means;
(6) Assaulting the people's police;
(7) Other acts that endanger public safety, social order, or the personal safety of citizens and require immediate intervention;
(8) Other circumstances prescribed by laws or administrative regulations where police equipment may be used.
When using police equipment in accordance with the preceding paragraph, the people's police shall limit such use to stopping illegal or criminal acts; once the illegal or criminal acts have been stopped, they shall immediately cease use.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
On September 12, the Yuzhong District Public Security Sub-bureau of the Chongqing Municipal Public Security Bureau reported that the verbal summons issued by the responding police officers to Ms. Wang violated statutory procedures, and the use of police restraints against Ms. Wang’s parents did not comply with relevant regulations. It was decided that the responding police officers, including Fu and Chen, be suspended from duty and subject to investigation and handling by the disciplinary inspection and supervision departments. The police station was ordered to withdraw its appeal.

 
 

In this case, the police officers from the local station actually made two mistakes. First, when Ms. Wang refused to be questioned again, the officers did not present a summons warrant but directly handcuffed her and took her away. Second, although Ms. Wang’s parents did behave disruptively, their conduct did not reach the level that would justify the officers’ use of police restraints, yet the officers not only sprayed pepper spray but also used a baton. Undoubtedly, based on the body camera footage, both enforcement actions violated relevant regulations. In this regard, the author believes that the first-instance court’s judgment was lawful and reasonable. Of course, appeal is the right of both parties to the litigation, but after the police station appealed, it was ordered by the Yuzhong Branch to withdraw the appeal, which was somewhat “a slap in the face.” Fortunately, however, the police were able to promptly correct the mistake, preventing the farce from continuing.
 
Overall, this seems like an embarrassing farce but is actually a lamentable tragedy. Since childhood, we have been taught to turn to the police when in trouble, which not only means they are physically stronger than ordinary citizens but also because they hold greater power to punish wrongdoers. But imagine how terrifying it would be if such power were arbitrarily imposed on innocent people. For this reason, police must be very cautious in law enforcement and must never knowingly break the law. The people grant police power in the hope that when they are trapped in darkness, there will be a light to illuminate their world and a force to break through the gloom—not to strike them down.