Andorran Officers Deny Illegal Detention in Snowy Vehicle Seizure Case

Two Andorran police officers from the citizen security unit testified Tuesday at the Tribunal de Corts in Andorra la Vella, denying charges of illegal detention and degrading treatment stemming from a December 10, 2020, vehicle impoundment on Carrer Callaueta during heavy snow. They insisted the woman, who was in pyjamas, slippers and a jacket, voluntarily accompanied them to the station to process a minor contravention for light disobedience after she called them "maleducats" amid disputes over parking access and vehicle ownership.

The officers, relatively new to the force at the time, had arrived with a maintenance technician to execute a Saig-ordered seizure in a private lot rented by building owners. The woman and her husband challenged their entry, claiming the space was private and questioning the car's status. After finding the battery dead and preparing to leave, the remark escalated tensions, which the officers described as stemming from repeated interference, arrogant conduct and false claims by the couple. The woman maintained it was a private comment to her husband, covered by free speech.

She requested to change clothes, but the officers refused, citing security protocols that required supervision once a check began. They said she entered the patrol car without force, handcuffs or rights recitation, spending 15-30 minutes in administrative offices where no fingerprints, photos or criminal record were made. Both denied knowing of her nightwear under the jacket, any physical contact, body camera use or treating her as a detainee—equating detention with crimes needing handcuffs and Miranda warnings. One explicitly noted she "did not commit any crime," justifying only a ticket.

The woman called the incident a "horror movie," feeling handled like "one of Andorra's worst criminals," short of handcuffs. She alleged rough arm-grabbing caused a shoulder luxation diagnosed the next day, treated with a sling and anti-inflammatories, plus ongoing distress from denied clothing change, neighbour exposure and threats. She denied obstruction or pre-entry touching, saying officers ignored her tears. Her husband, a parking owner, accused them of "pride, malice, humiliation and violence," claiming he saw arm-grabbing. The presiding magistrate reprimanded him for alleging police observers in court pressured proceedings, hinting at one officer's promotion as reward and suppressed bodycam footage—requested but unavailable, though the couple insisted one officer wore it.

The parking manager saw a 10-minute event with no visible force, having alerted owners and noting officers reproaching her before leaving. Witnesses described the couple as uncooperative, including her telling the technician to "shut up." A superior nearly ticketed the husband for "arrogant" station behaviour.

Senior officials, including former director Jordi Moreno and current director Bruno Lasne, testified Wednesday with 11 witnesses, calling the transfer the force's "system of acting." They said 90% of officers, including Moreno, handled minor contraventions this way, with no prior warnings, complaints or disciplinary action. Training followed a 2005 circular—unchallenged for 15 years by Batllia, prosecutors or lawyers—recommending station visits for efficient paperwork amid handwriting issues. Officers had initial training but no later legal refreshers; one admitted limited ongoing juridical updates.

On Thursday, prosecutors withdrew their accusation. The fiscal adjunt recognised objective elements of illegal detention but found no intent ("no hi ha dol"), as actions matched force-wide practice, not individual excess. Transporting her in pyjamas alone did not constitute degrading treatment. Private prosecution persists, seeking 22.5 months suspended prison and 10.5 years' disqualification per officer; earlier prosecutor requests varied between 18-20 months suspended and one-year bans. Conviction would likely mean dismissal.

A 2023 protocol now requires on-site notices for residents' minor contraventions, with judicial summons later—differing slightly for foreigners—prompted by this case. The trial, probing past practices against updated norms, awaits final arguments and verdict.