An clearly admitted on the spot that he had a relationship with Xiong XX, an outsider, and the transaction was 100 yuan once, and he was punished according to this, and in the end, how could he be confirmed to be illegal?
Case**: Wuhan Intermediate People's Court (2020) E 01 Xing Zhong No. 114).
At about 11:08 on March 4, 2019, An walked to Wuhan Economic and Technological Development Zone** all the way into an unnamed leisure store, and then left the leisure store at 11:16. An thought that his behavior was known by God, he knew, Xiong XX knew, but he didn't expect that his behavior had already been noticed by **, and the police inspected **all the way** that day.
The police of the police station then took An under control nearby and took him back to the leisure store he had been to at 11:24. After arriving at the store, An admitted on the spot that he had a relationship with Xiong XX, an outsider, and the ** transaction was 100 yuan at a time.
The police also found a used *** in the trash can of the leisure store, and then carried out evidence preservation, ** also took pictures at the scene, and also took full photography of the whole process of questioning An and Xiong XX, who was not involved in the case, and made the "Evidence Preservation List" and "List of Recovered Items" to recover 100 yuan from Xiong XX.
The Jingkai Public Security Bureau also prepared and served the "Evidence Preservation Decision" to An and Xiong XX, who was not involved in the case, informing them that the items in the evidence preservation list would be seized for 30 days (from March 4, 2019 to April 4, 2019) in accordance with the provisions of Article 89, Paragraph 1 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law", and informed them of the right to sue, and An did not raise any objections to the "Evidence Preservation Decision".
An and Xiong XX, who was not involved in the case, signed and confirmed on the ***scene**, the list of recovered items, and the "Evidence Preservation List".
Subsequently, the Zhuanyang Police Station of the Kaikai Public Security Bureau summoned An and Xiong XX, who was not involved in the case, to the office for questioning and investigation, and served An with the "Notice of Rights and Obligations in Administrative Cases" and "Notice of Summoned Family", but An refused to provide the details of the family
After separate questioning, An and Xiong XX, who was not involved in the case, both admitted the illegal facts of *** on that day, and both stated that they used *** to have a relationship on that day, and An paid 100 yuan to Xiong XX, who was not involved in the case. An and Xiong XX, who was not involved in the case, separately identified the other party, and both signed and confirmed the interrogation record and identification record.
* It was determined that An X had committed ** acts, and on the same day, an administrative punishment of 10 days of administrative detention was imposed on An X.
Although An himself admitted ** and the evidence was conclusive, An was still dissatisfied with the punishment of the public security organ and filed an administrative reconsideration, but the administrative reconsideration upheld the original administrative punishment. An was still dissatisfied and filed a lawsuit with the court, and his claim was rejected in the first instance, and An was dissatisfied and appealed.
But I didn't expect that the second instance really allowed An to overturn the case, which was unexpected, why did the second instance change the verdict?
The court of second instance held that the auxiliary police have basic law enforcement powers to maintain public safety, but unlike the people's police, they do not have independent law enforcement powers. In addition to documentary evidence, the parties to this case also submitted audio-visual materials such as urban surveillance** and video and screenshots during the interrogation. In the process of arresting the appellant An, the content of the urban surveillance** was different from the police or inspectors indicated in the two "seizure records" and "on-site records" submitted by the appellee, and the "interrogators" indicated on the appellee's "interrogation records" were also inconsistent with the content of the video, violating the provisions of laws and regulations that "there shall be no less than two people's police" etc. The Appellee does not comply with the requirements of administrative procedural norms when carrying out investigation and evidence collection work such as seizures, interrogations, inspections, and other administrative compulsory measures.
The appellee's reconsideration decision and the original trial court's failure to conduct a strict review of the appellee's procedures for imposing public security administrative penalties by the Jingkai Public Security Bureau erred in applying the law. The first-instance judgment was revoked in accordance with the law, and it was confirmed that the administrative punishment made by the public security organ and the reconsideration decision of the municipal people** were illegal.
It can be seen from this that the second-instance trial committee's judgment was due to minor procedural flaws in the public security organs' law enforcement, and according to the provisions of the Administrative Punishment Law, if the administrative act procedure is slightly illegal, but does not have an actual impact on the plaintiff's rights, the people's court shall make a judgment confirming the illegality, but not revoking the administrative act.
In this case, the public security was found to have procedural flaws in the absence of the requirements of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law", the "Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China", and the "Provisions on the Procedures for Handling Administrative Cases by Public Security Organs", when the public security organs conducted investigations and evidence collection work such as questioning, identification, inspection, and inquest, and carried out administrative compulsory measures, and they must not have fewer than two people's police, and they must indicate their status as law enforcement.
Legal gas station