The Fourth Chamber of the Criminal, Juvenile, Contravention and Misdemeanour Court of Appeals and Cassation issued the ruling. The judges ruled in favour of the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
The Chamber IV of the Criminal, Juvenile, Contravention and Misdemeanor Court of Appeals and Cassation of the City of Buenos Aires overturned a ruling that prevented the City Police carry out street searches for knives.
The court ruling was carried out by the judges Gonzalo Viña, Luisa María Escrich and Javier Alejandro Bujanwho voted unanimously.
In this way, the judges ruled in favor of the request made by the Buenos Aires Public Prosecutor’s Office which rejected the verdict of Judge Natalia Ohman. The judge, in turn, was removed from all cases involving crimes of this nature.
“The court resolves: To uphold the appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and, consequently, to revoke in totum the appealed resolution, without costs (conf. art. 106 CCABA; arts. 3 and 79 CPP; arts. 6 and 22 LPC). II- To remove the judge a quo from her intervention in each of the cases set forth in section I of the “results” section of this order (conf. art. 82 CPP; art. 6 LPC) and to inform the Office of Draws and Assignment of Cases of the General Secretariat of this Chamber of the decision so that, when the opportunity requires it, it may establish the new court that should intervene (conf. art. 15 of the Regulations for the Jurisdiction),” says the ruling in its resolution.
What was the ruling that prevented the seizure of knives?
The head of the Criminal, Contraventional and Misdemeanor Court No. 17 issued her initial ruling last July against the seizure of knives in 115 police procedures. He also ordered the annulment of the arrests, considering them irregular and ordering the return of the knives to their respective owners.
As an argument, Ohman argued that “it becomes imperative to declare the precautionary measures deployed null and void” by the City Police.
The judge also criticised certain attitudes of the Buenos Aires security forces such as “suspicious behaviour”, “acts linked to the subsistence economy” or “evasive behaviour”. In addition, she stated that the police “had not given any reason for intercepting the people and searching them”.
The judges’ criticism of the ruling
In the text of the ruling, the judges were critical of “the decision of the judge that is absolutely and irremediably arbitrary, and therefore must be revoked” and “It lacks impartiality, it reflects his personal positionlacks any real motivation for the events and makes dogmatic statements that are not connected to the events of the case.”
And they added: “By ruling in a single act on 115 incidents or episodes that came to its attention, without examining the facts and particular characteristics of each one of them, without hearing the parties directly involved or giving the opportunity to produce evidence, the decision becomes an academic opinion on what is understood to be a widespread practice of the armed branch (police force) of the Executive Branch.”
Source: Ambito
David William is a talented author who has made a name for himself in the world of writing. He is a professional author who writes on a wide range of topics, from general interest to opinion news. David is currently working as a writer at 24 hours worlds where he brings his unique perspective and in-depth research to his articles, making them both informative and engaging.
