Swiss court rules Zurich police mistreated woman during pandemic arrest

Switzerland’s Federal Supreme Court has ruled that Zurich city police treated a woman in a degrading and unlawful manner during an arrest in 2020, SRF reported.

On May 1, shortly after the first coronavirus lockdown ended, five women put up posters near Goldbrunnenplatz in Zurich to publicise support services for victims of domestic violence. Because the women were standing close together, which was prohibited under pandemic rules at the time, five police vehicles arrived. Fifteen officers got out and arrested them.

One of the women later challenged the police in court. She said she had been restrained with cable ties at the police station and watched by a dog. She was also made to sit on the cold floor of a garage for two hours. When she went to the toilet, a police officer left the door slightly open.

According to the woman, the officer responded to her request to close the door fully by saying: “You women activists aren’t usually so prudish.” When the woman asked the officer to enter the toilet cubicle and close the door with her so that people passing by could not see her, the officer replied: “I’m not doing that. I’ve seen more interesting things.”

The Federal Supreme Court described the comments as inappropriate and clearly disrespectful. The officer had trivialised and ridiculed the woman’s legitimate need for privacy, it said.

The court also found that the restraints, making the woman sit on the floor and leaving the toilet door open were unnecessary. She had peacefully put up posters with four friends and posed no danger; she had not committed a violent offence.

The police had followed a standardised procedure without considering the circumstances or the person involved, the court said. The woman was not a criminal but someone who had breached the pandemic rule limiting gatherings to five people. The police must adapt their conduct to the specific circumstances, even during an emergency with particularly strict rules, the court ruled.

The ruling did not address whether the officer’s comments would lead to internal consequences.