Last Wednesday, the Secretary of State for Security, under the Ministry that directs Fernando Grande-Marlaskathe Instruction 7/2025 whereby, from now on, state security forces and bodies They will not be able to sanction to those people who consume drugs in a parked vehicle. A rule that has generated a wave of criticism between the agents themselves and that is not exempt from controversy.
So much so that from the Civil Guard, the Jucil Association has already announced that it will “imminently” present an appeal against this rule and request the precautionary suspension of its application. They argue that there is a “serious legal error” and security policy, since “guarantees the Impunity in the consumption and possession of illegal substances Inside parked private vehicles, provided they are not intended for traffic. “
From the Ministry of Interior it is considered that the possession or consumption of drugs, narcotics or psychotropic substances within a car parked and used as a means of transportation “Does not part of any administrative infraction typified in current legislation. “Moreover, asks the police and civil guards who do not intervene In these cases. But this “permissiveness”, in the opinion of the agents, could be used by small traffickers or organized groups, which foster the Punctual consumption in public spaces and drug traffickingeither.
“Total impunity” for criminals
However, this interpretation of the concept of address seems “extraordinarily extensive”, according to this association, since does not conform to the legal framework or the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court. In practice, they denounce, what this measure allows is The consumption and possession of drugs in full public roads, Even in areas frequented by minors, people in rehabilitation, or vulnerable groups. AND They will do it “with total impunity”provided that it is done inside a parked car, in view of the whole world, minors included.
An argument shared by the Social Justice Police Union (Jupol), which qualifies the decision of Grande-Marlaska as a new attack on the police authority, the jurisprudence and at the beginning of legality. Thus, he denounces that this rule relies on an interpretation “torticra, manipulated and partial of several sentences of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. “Because, with this decision, the Ministry of Interior” not only despises the work of police forces “, but dares to” falsify the sense of firm judicial resolutions to legitimize an ideologized and dangerous instruction. “
The “premeditated” omissions of the government
But in case there is any questions, from this union analyze the sentences one by one. In the first one, the Supreme Court Judgment STS 1317/1999, of September 21, explain that Interior “has intentionally ignored” an essential foundation of right in which The intervention of agents in private vehicles is supportedeven if that implies a certain affectation to privacy, provided that action is provided, adequate and justified For the sake of citizen security. Therefore, they emphasize that “the ministry extracts what interests and omit, with premeditación, which reaffirms the legitimacy of police action. “
In the second sentence, STS 569/2013, of June 26, interior directly omitted that The supposed interference in intimacy was not carried out by agents of the authoritybut by an individual, which completely invals its use as a legal basis to limit or condition the police action. “It is a gross and unacceptable manipulation,” they stand out from Jupol.
And in the third sentence, the 170/2013, of October 7, of the Constitutional Court, the Ministry incurs, in its opinion, in a “Even more serious misrepresentation”since the prosecuted facts have nothing to do with vehicles or drug use in them. The sentence refers to Surveillance through private security camerasso it is not applicable in any way to the casuistry that aims to regulate this instruction.
“Morally reprehensible” behavior
In short, they consider that instruction 7/2025 is not only legally defective, but also “morally reproachablewhen relying on falsehoods, half truths and deliberate concealments. “They insist on what the Executive and its Grande-Marlaska Minister should do is”modify the law, harden it and clearly establish the behaviors that must be persecuted and penalized. “Because everything else is nothing more than an exercise of “Institutional cowardice and discharge of functions”.
In this sense, this union rejects that internal circular are used for issues that must be established by law. “This not only unauthorizes police forces, but benefits those who commit crimes and puts the state on the side of the offenders,” they conclude. And for all this, Jupol demands the immediate withdrawal of this instruction, as well as a public rectification of the issued content and an exhaustive review of its legal foundations by independent instances.