Dear Sirs / Madams
In the case
1. Mr. ANGER,
SSI, Postfach 2122, 8031 Zürich,
2. Mr. SOULLESS,
SSI, Postfach 2122, 8031 Zürich,
concerning Abuse of Authority according to Art. 312 StGB, etc
concerning the incident at Klosbachstreet on 5th September 2000
1. The two persons instituting legal proceedings authorize the signatory
(See power of attorney of 17th October 2000).
2. Mr. Soulless and Mr. Anger live at Klosbachstreet in Zurich in
one of the demolition houses giving way to the construction project
at the Kreuzplatz since November 1997. Date of demolition and start
of construction is still not definite.
3. The doorbell of my clients unexpectedly rings short after 8 a.m.
on 25th August 2000. Two survey engineers ask for entry to mark
a spot on the roof for a construction pole to be erected. The two
engineers could easily do their job, but they were asked to announce
their visit written or by phone in the future because time scheduling
will guarantee someone being in the house.
The tenant of the shop in the ground floor was on holiday in that
time. My client referred to this fact and emphasized the importance
of an appointment.
4. My clients did not hear anything until being torn out of sleep
by noise on 5th September 2000. The front door was obviously broke
open and they heared voices in the entrance demanding: "Open
up, Police, or we will kick in the [2nd, Apartment] door."
The door instantly broke open. Several police officers in uniform
and undercover-agents forced entry to my client's apartment. My
clients were put up to the wall - in underpants. On their request
for a search warrant they got the reply: "We do not need one."
My clients were forced to stay guarded in the
livingroom while the officers faned out in the house. Only on repeated
request an officer standing around admitted having instructions
to guarantee access for the construction workers to the roof.
5. The construction workers could easily reach the roof to erect
the pole through entrance and stairwell.
Meanwhile the police officers hunted through my client's apartment
in first and second floor and in the attic room packing in goods
everywhere. My clients watched one officer taking
photos in the livingroom and in the adjoining workroom, where else
they were not able to watch.
My clients had to show their IDs. Mr. Anger gave his Press-ID, Mr.
Soulless his passport. The police officers took both IDs.
Mr. B allowed my clients to get dressed after about one hour. All
officers left the house soon after that.
6. About two hours later three police officers return to Klosbachstreet
not only to bring back my client's IDs but to force entry again
with the remark: "To take some more pictures." My clients
were forced to stay guarded in the first floor while an officer
took photos in the house.
Thereupon one of my clients took photos himself. The film was instantly
confiscated on production of a receipt.
7. Corporal H. together with three police officers returned to Klosbachstreet
on Sunday evening 10th September 2000. They brought back the confiscated
film meanwhile developed by the police and a confiscated videotape
as well. My clients got back these items on production of a receipt.
The other goods were forwarded to Mr. Zuend, head of task force
"Blaze and Attempts".
My clients could get back two further items at the police station
on 27th September 2000. The rest of the confiscated goods stored
in corporal H.'s office is disposed by the cleaning team. My clients
received three photos of the wall-collage taken by the police in
their living room in the first floor as well. Mr. Zuend claimed
not more photos being taken inside the house.
8. During the police action on 5th September 2000 corporal H., officer
S., W., M. and M.
and undercover-agent Mr. B. as well announced
their names. At least six other officers (two females among them)
refused to announce their names.
9. My clients got to know the reason of the police action being
the home-owner's assertion of refusal of acces for the construction
workers. Apart from the fact that two survey engineers could easily
enter the house on 25th August 2000, the further visit of workers
at a certain point of time was never announced to my clients. Apart
from that the police action on 5th September 2000 was improper and
It would have been appropriate to ring the doorbell, to wait a moment
until my clients open the door, then to get directly to the roof
through the stairwell. The law does not cover in no case any other
So the officers hunted through my client's apartment without search
warrant. Some urgency can not be provided afterwards because the
instruction for the police was totally different.
My clients watched police officers packing in several goods without
drawing up a protocol (a.o. a newspaper edited by my clients, more
printed matter, a video tape dummy, film-props, videotapes, etc).
Now law covers the demand for IDs to take them away. Nobody has
to show ID in his own home. There was no reason for that.
By handing over the press-ID a police officer must be aware to have
a person in front of him against whom no legal sanctions (house-search,
confiscation) are allowed to implement (see Art 27bis StGB).
The confiscation of several items and the photographing of my client's
private rooms exceeded the entitled authority of the police much
10. All police officers act as civil servants. They misused their
entitled authority by the state. They snooped around in my client's
private property. Because of the already unnecessary instruction
to guarantee access to the roof, the action of the police officers
served an explicit unproperly purpose finding its expression in
the confiscation of goods and the taking away / developing of films
The action of the police officers was also unproportionate. If the
home-owner gave such a statement not being screened by the police,
then two police officers would have been sufficient to drop in on
Klosbachstreet, and not that flying squad. The police officers must
have been aware of their not dutiful acting.
Serious disadvantage stroke my clients by the behaviour and the
action of the police officers. They were hold guarded nearly naked
in a room for quite some time and deprived of their personal freedom
without legal basis. Their private property was confiscated, viewed
(development of the films) and partly destroyed. Two doors were
damaged and windows broken. The legal protection of Mr. Anger according
to Art. 27bis StGB was disregarded. My clients could not take part
in the house-search.
There must be intervention against such behaviour and action of
the police. Police can not be tolerated misusing their entitled
authority by the state in such a way. Mr. Zuend of Criminal Investigation
Department and responsible for the police action was required to
give his comment on the raid at Klosbachstreet in my letter of 19th
October 2000. The command of city police Zurich received a copy.
There was no reaction until now. Such abuse should not be allowed
to "sit out".
With plea and petition for a criminal investigation.
Lawyer B. Hug
Power of attorney