# taz.de -- Racial profiling by Federal police officers: This man is not a pickpocket
       
       > Two Federal police officers stopped a man from Leipzig at the train
       > station. Because of his skin colour. He filed a lawsuit and won. The
       > inspection was unlawful.
       
 (IMG) Bild: Film director Kanwal Sethi only wanted to travel to Erfurt
       
       Leipzig taz | It was Monday, 31 March 2014. It was unusually warm for that
       time of year and the sky was light blue. The Leipzig film director Kanwal
       Sethi got up early to make the journey from his home town to Erfurt. This
       journey was to take over his life for approximately three years, infuriate
       him and ultimately take him to court.
       
       Sethi is a German citizen who was born in India. On that morning in March,
       he had to go to Erfurt for business. That same morning, he returned to the
       train station to go back to Leipzig. What happened next is something that
       often happens to Kanwal Sethi. 'This happens more in the East than in the
       West, and all the time in Saxony,’ he says. Two Federal police officers,
       Gerd H. and Thomas S., stopped him and wanted to record his personal data.
       Sethi suspected that the officers were stopping him simply because of the
       colour of his skin.
       
       He says that in all the time he spent on the platform, more than 15
       minutes, neither officer asked any other person for proof of their
       identity. He politely made them aware that racial profiling is a violation
       of the constitutional principle of equality and according to international
       law is an act of discrimination.
       
       Sethi is convinced he behaved discretely, and that there is no reason for
       the inspection. Angrily, he finally shows them his ID card.
       
       However, he would also like to see the police officer’s IDs, because the
       plain clothes officers are on the way. He must be astonished to find out
       that neither of them had one. Sethi got their names and boards his train to
       travel home. Then he complains to the Federal Police. When he himself is
       blamed in the response given to him in taz, Sethi hires a lawyer. On 6
       August 2014, his complaint is being brought before the Administrative Court
       in Dresden.
       
       ## “He acted like a thief“
       
       Today, Sethi’s file is hundreds of pages long, including Sethi’s ticket
       receipts and several requests by the relevant Federal Police Headquarters
       in Pirna to “extend the deadline for comments once again“, because until
       the beginning of 2015 there was only one legal advisor capable of handling
       this.
       
       Anyone who takes action against a Federal Police Headquarters and with it a
       federal authority is also filing a suit against the Federal Republic of
       Germany. Normally the claimant submits a statement of claim, which is
       answered either with an acknowledgement or a statement of defence. In such
       a case, the statement of defence is then written by a legal administrator
       on the basis of reports submitted to them by the officials who have been
       accused.
       
       The first reports from federal policemen revealed by Kanwal Sethi are dated
       1 April 2014, which is already one day after the incident at Erfurt
       station. „They could certainly imagine that there was something coming
       after I got their names“ says Sethi. In their deployment record there is
       indeed mention of an “expected disciplinary complaint“. The policemen write
       short, relatively neutral statements “from which you could at least
       interpret the truth“, says Sven Adam, Sethi’s lawyer.
       
       But the account is quite different in the second statements, which the
       legal advisor for the federal police in Pirna requested from officials and
       were used for the statement of defense. Suddenly, according to the
       statements, Sethi is said to have behaved like someone who the policeman,
       “from [his] many years of experience as an investigating officer in the
       fight against crime“, would identify as a “pick-pocket“. Reportedly, after
       recognising the police Sethi had suddenly veered away and changed his
       “direction of movement“. These statements were first written half a year
       after the incident.
       
       ## Shaking heads in the meeting room
       
       The “Sethi Kanwal administrative-case against the Federal Republic of
       Germany“ is finally coming before the Verwaltungsgericht (administrative
       court) in Dresden. It is Wednesday, 2 November 2016. At the end of the day
       almost all parties have left the meeting room shaking their heads.
       
       The Göttingen lawyer Sven Adam, who is a specialist in racial-profiling
       proceedings, initially poses general questions. „How did you prepare for
       this trial?“ he asks one of the two police officers. Gradually the
       defendant admits to having had prior knowledge his colleague’s statements
       and virtually copying them. The mood in the courtroom deteriorates; reports
       that were agreed in advance can no longer be neutral and serve as evidence.
       
       The presiding judge is furious when the second officer then also admits to
       “preparation of the testimony“ – to have been seen in the town of Pirna,
       near Dresden, together with his colleague. The lawyer, Adam, asks, “and
       what did you talk about?“ Suddenly the officer, whose head office is
       located in Bayreuth, Bavaria, is aware of his error: “Erm, only general
       things,“ he tries to wriggle out of it. Then, the Judge intervenes: “You
       are not telling me that you are summoned from Bayreuth to Pirna on a
       specific case, and then discuss something general?“ “I do not remember the
       subject of the conversation.“ Then he is silent.
       
       Initially, believes Sven Adam, it was not clear to the officer that this
       statement would make the entire trial absurd. “But collusive testimonies
       whereby a legally trained officer just points out what is essential and
       what is not, are no evidence,“ says the judge, and concludes the taking of
       evidence.
       
       ## Proof of identity demanded unlawfully
       
       “In this case we have proven that the Federal Police collude to prepare
       their statements,“ says Sven Adam. “And even though I cannot say for
       certain that it takes place systematically, it looks that way from this
       trial.“
       
       Kanwal Sethi also discussed the outcome: “For me personally, the whole
       thing is over, because we won the trial. But the information that came to
       light in the trial stunned all those who heard it. The repeated racist
       checks are terrible, but preparing statements together as a matter of
       course goes against every form of constitutional conduct and is a scandal.
       If the Federal Police and their legal department collude to prepare witness
       statements and perhaps even devise them in order to discredit a citizen, it
       would have far-reaching consequences.“
       
       The date is Wednesday 1 February 2017. Almost three months after the end of
       the trial, Kanwal Sethi and Sven Adam receive the verdict. The demand to
       see proof of the complainant’s identity in March 2014 at Erfuhrt station
       was unlawful.
       
       Robert Bendner, spokesman for Dresden Administrative Court, explains: “Of
       course, this verdict does not mean that the complainant will no longer be
       subjected to identity checks. Even if he finds himself in exactly the same
       situation again, the verdict will be of little benefit to him, should there
       be any doubt. We can only hope that the police officers have learnt
       something from this.“ The cost of the trial, including Sethi’s legal costs,
       must be paid by the Federal Republic of Germany.
       
       ## Further agreements?
       
       Sethi’s and Adam’s presumptions are confirmed in the ruling too. On pages
       seven and eight it reads as follows: “In view of the fact that the witness
       [Thomas S.] has travelled from Bayreuth to Pirna for this talk as part of a
       business trip, it seems illogical that this conversation would have merely
       been an instruction regarding the procedure of the upcoming negotiations’.
       Instead, it cannot be excluded that the specific facts have played a role
       on this occasion as well. […] Furthermore, the concern that arrangements
       about details have been made is present through the mere fact that this
       meeting has taken place. It is also not necessary to question the
       defendant’s legal advisor, who was present during this conversation, about
       its specific course or content, as such doubts had already arisen based on
       the details of the witness’ statement in the chamber[…].“
       
       The Pirna Federal Police Directorate refused to make a comment on the
       incident before and after the judgment was sought, despite several
       requests. In response to TAZ’s question as to whether it was common
       practice to summon officers to the Police Directorate to 'compile’
       statements their spokesman sent the following message: “The Pirna Federal
       Police Directorate staff are entirely subject to an obligation of
       truthfulness, both before their superiors within the scope of their
       employment and before the responsible court within the scope of oral
       negotiations.“
       
       A clear 'no’ could seemingly not be agreed on in Pirna, even after joint
       consultation.
       
       Original in German/auf Deutsch: [1][“Dieser Mann ist kein Taschendieb“]
       
       7 Feb 2018
       
       ## LINKS
       
 (DIR) [1] /Racial-Profiling-durch-Bundespolizei/!5377879
       
       ## AUTOREN
       
 (DIR) Hanna Voß
       
       ## TAGS
       
 (DIR) taz international
       
       ## ARTIKEL ZUM THEMA