The Public Prosecution Service demands prison sentences of up to 18 months against four former officers of the Horst/Peel and Maas police team (North Limburg). The three men (36, 52, 47) and one woman (48) are suspected of abuse of authority, such as unlawful entry, falsifying reports, and computer crime.
Because there are indications of misconduct by several officers of the Horst team, the Security, Integrity and Complaints department (VIK) of the police started a disciplinary investigation in 2019. This revealed suspicions of serious abuse of powers, such as self-reporting to Meld Misdaad Anoniem, having authorizations signed based on incorrect or incomplete information, and creative language use (for example, exaggerating a suspicion) to enable prosecutorial measures.
Separate Trajectories
After consulting with the Public Prosecution Service, the National Criminal Investigation Service conducts a fact-finding investigation that leads to a criminal investigation and ultimately to the prosecution of four suspects. The disciplinary investigation of the VIK is separate from the criminal case. They are two separate trajectories, one investigating norm-violating behavior and misconduct, and the other investigating criminal acts.
During the substantive handling of the case, for which the court in Breda has allocated three days this week, the central question is when norm-violating behavior becomes criminal behavior. “When does it transition from an employment conflict due to misconduct to a criminal norm that must be enforced? The simple answer to that question is that this only happens when there is – according to the prosecutors conviction – legally and convincingly available evidence that criminal offenses are being committed,” said the prosecutor in her closing remarks.
Overwhelming
Research has shown that the suspects did not take the rules of criminal procedure seriously. They systematically overwhelmed – often non-Dutch speaking residents – with a visit, searched their homes, and did not record their findings or informed (assistant) officers incompletely so that they still proceeded to issue an authorization. This abuse of authority is attributed to all four suspects.
Three (47, 52, 36) of the four former officers are being prosecuted for intentionally incorrectly drafting reports. In one case, such an official and falsely drafted report even led to a conviction. “A very serious criminal offense,” said the prosecutor about manipulating the reports. “This goes far beyond misconduct and affects the entire criminal justice chain.”
For the 36-year-old and 47-year-old suspects, the Public Prosecution Service claims they unlawfully entered a house in Grubbenvorst. Based on a dubious MMA report, they received permission to enter the residence and failed to follow procedures on site.
The 36-year-old suspect is – as the only one of the four – accused of committing computer crime. During that period, he repeatedly requested information from individuals in the police systems he had access to as an officer while he was not authorized to do so.
Trust in Integrity
The Public Prosecution Service concludes that all alleged facts can be legally and convincingly proven and believes that the suspects should be punished for this. The prosecutor: “It would be unacceptable to society if police officers who commit criminal offenses are not severely punished. Trust in the integrity of the police and police actions is crucial for a well-functioning rule of law. Once that trust is violated, the foundation of the criminal justice chain collapses.”
In determining the sentences, the Public Prosecution Service took into account that all four suspects have since been dismissed due to their behavior and that it has taken a long time since the investigation began (in 2019) before the case could be brought to court. The Public Prosecution Service realizes that the case has led to significant media attention, which has had an impact on the suspects.
Deliberate Action
Aggravating is the fact that the suspects acted criminally over a long period (of nearly two years) and systematically violated the rights of citizens. It also plays a role that the suspects acted deliberately, as confirmed in the app conversations they had among themselves. Colleague officers were excluded, and shifts were arranged so that the suspects could plan actions together.
The Public Prosecution Service takes it very seriously that the suspects made a habit of their methods and that this escalated further. A concrete example is an address in Horst where the suspects entered the same residence repeatedly, without authorization, and searched the premises. The suspects made mistakes during a period when they were fulfilling a training role for new officers whom they took along during their shifts.
Sentencing Demands
Against the 36-year-old suspect, the prosecutor demanded 18 months in prison, of which 6 are conditional. The 47-year-old and 52-year-old suspects heard demands of 16 months in prison (of which 6 are conditional) and 12 months in prison (of which 6 are conditional), respectively.
If it is up to the Public Prosecution Service, the 48-year-old suspect will receive 8 months in prison, of which 4 are conditional. In all cases, the Public Prosecution Service demands a probation period of 2 years.