Suspected of cocaine: Prosecutors disagree with Fischer
DThe Frankfurt public prosecutor’s office has the allegations of the lawyers of the Eintracht President Peter Fisher in connection with the preliminary investigation into the suspicion of acquiring and possessing cocaine and was “surprised” by the contents of the lawyers’ letter sent on Thursday.
The schoolmate of Fischer’s son and his mother, who started the investigation, were questioned twice and there is no doubt that the boy is telling the truth. Contrary to the information disseminated by the defense attorneys, there are no gross contradictions in the statements. In view of the letter, one wonders why Fischer himself did not offer to give a hair sample.
According to the lawyers’ statement, Fischer did not sleep in the bedroom where, according to the public prosecutor’s office, a drug sniffer dog had struck and with a subsequent test residual stocks of cocaine were identified on a bedside table, a spokeswoman for the authority countered: Fischer came out of this room at 7.25 a.m. “sleepy” on the morning of the search. The fact that the rapid test was positive is an “important indication” that must be taken into account.
Four “Crushers” found in the apartment
In addition, it is not correct that no consumer items were found during the search. A total of four so-called crushers were found, which were mostly used for crushing marijuana: one in a toilet bag in a display case in the dining room together with a small amount of marijuana, two in a wine rack in the dining room and one in a sports bag in the children’s room, which the belonged to a housekeeper who had since been dismissed by Fischer. According to the spokeswoman, the suspicious substance mentioned by the lawyers, which was found in “the smallest amount” in the housekeeper’s bed, is currently being checked.
According to her, it is also incorrect that the negative urine sample from her schoolmate was not made known to the Institute for Forensic Medicine. The Institute was provided with the complete file from which the negative sample resulted. The schoolmate’s hair sample had been submitted for examination, and the result was only expected in several weeks.
For reasons of proportionality, the public prosecutor’s office did not request that a hair sample be taken from Fischer’s 13-year-old son. According to the information, he only used cocaine once and not like his schoolmate, who is said to have taken cocaine home with him, over a period of about a week.
“Nothing to Hide”
The public prosecutor’s office will not discontinue the proceedings because the investigations have not been completed. They would continue to be conducted solely on suspicion of acquiring and possessing cocaine. There is no suspicion that it was given to minors because there is no evidence that it was deliberately handed over. The mobile phones of Fischer, the 13-year-old son and his mother are currently being evaluated. Fischer’s lawyers had stressed that their client “openly” issued the unlock codes for all mobile phones, “since he has nothing to hide”.
In the meantime, the district court in Frankfurt, which had issued the search warrant, declined to comment on the allegation of unlawfulness by Fischer’s defense attorneys. A spokesman added that the investigation was ongoing and that the public prosecutor’s office was in charge.
A sufficient or urgent suspicion of a crime is not required for search warrants; an initial suspicion is sufficient. This is already the case if, according to the investigation results available at that point in time, there is a possibility that a criminal offense has been committed.
Complaints by criminal defense lawyers against court decisions are part of everyday judicial procedures and are part of the rights of every suspect who defends himself against suspicion in the preliminary proceedings. They go to the court that issued the order. In the case of a search warrant, this is the district court. First, the public prosecutor who applied for the search warrant is given the opportunity to comment. The court then decides whether it considers the complaint to be well-founded and remedy it, otherwise it submits the file to the district court for a decision.