In February 2021, after a traffic stop, PSD Senator Lucian Romașcanu refused to open the trunk of his car at the request of the traffic police. He justified his decision by saying that his privacy would be affected and that Parliament’s opinion would be needed.
Sanctioned by the police, Romașcanu challenged the fine in court, but the judges rejected his complaint. Dissatisfied, the senator filed an appeal, which will be tried at the Bucharest Tribunal, and notified the Constitutional Court. A few days ago, Romascanu became Minister of Culture in the Ciuca Government.
The story of the incident ten months ago appears in the sentence number 6722 of June 30, 2021, by which the District 1 Court rejected the complaint filed by Romașcanu against a report of contravention of February 17, 2021, a document prepared by the Traffic Police Brigade within the General Directorate of the Bucharest City Police. The case was filed by Romașcanu on March 4, and in action he requested the annulment of the report by which he received four penalty points and a fine of 1,160 lei.
At that time, PSD senator, the politician reported that he was sanctioned for not allowing the police to control the goods transported in the trunk of the car.
Romașcanu told the judge that “he legitimately refused the agent’s interference in his privacy as long as the inspection of the trunk is absolutely arbitrary and unjustified, violating the right to privacy granted to any European and the guarantees offered by the provisions of Law no. 96/2006 on the status of deputies and senators.
The agent did not inform the petitioner of the suspicion that would have legitimized the control of the vehicle, nor did he take into account that the parliamentarians could be searched only with the opinion of the chamber to which they belong. “
He added that, in his opinion, the provisions of art. 35 of GEO no. 195/2002 on the basis of which it was sanctioned (“Obligations of road users”) “constitutes a restriction of the right to privacy, which must provide certain guarantees, to be determined by protect the citizen against the arbitrariness or abuse of the police officer (…) ”.
In this sense, during the trial, Romașcanu requested the notification of the Constitutional Court, invoking the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of this article. The judge accepted his request to the Court, and in this court, the case is in the reporting phase.
During the trial at the District 1 Court in which he challenged the sanction, Romașcanu also listed other reasons for the cancellation of the fine: the agent incorrectly indicated the provisions sanctioning the contravention, a sanction was applied to him without this being provided by the sanctioning act. , and the same police officer did not concretely locate the deed, specifying as the place of the contravention the Bucharest-Targoviste Highway, the highway that measures approximately 70 kilometers.
Romașcanu also claimed that the reasons that led the police officer to consider it necessary to inspect the trunk of the vehicle were not mentioned.
In response, the Traffic Police requested the rejection of the complaint as unfounded, also filing the criminal record of the petitioner.
Analyzing the arguments of the two parties, a judge from Sector 1 established that the minutes were legally drawn up. Regarding the reason why the police officer requested the inspection of the trunk, the magistrate argued that “this is not a circumstance of the commission of the act by the petitioner, but may represent the purpose of the control performed by the ascertaining officer.
However, the aim is to check the commission of any contraventions, such as the lack of objects that must be in the car, such as reflective triangles, first aid kit or the transport of prohibited goods “, adding that ”Cannot be assimilated the request to check the trunk of the car with the measure of the search of the vehicle, because it involves only the opening of this compartment, and not the detailed analysis of the entire car and all objects in it. (…) Therefore, the police officer does not need the consent of the parliamentary structure to which the petitioner belongs. “
The argument of violation of privacy was not accepted by the court, because the possibility of checking the trunk “is provided by law, has a legitimate purpose – to prevent and punish possible contraventions related to the transportation of illegal goods or finding non-existence of goods that must be permanently in a car, such as a first aid kit and reflective triangles – and it’s commensurate with the purpose. “
“The court emphasizes that the police officer did not have to fully justify the request to inspect the transported goods, allowing police officers to carry out routine checks in traffic, precisely to prevent the commission of offenses of a contraventional or criminal nature.”
Excerpt from the sentence number 6722 / 30.06.2021 of the District 1 Court
“I don’t think it’s right for a policeman to come 30 years after the Revolution and say, ‘Open the trunk!’ without giving a reason “
Minister Lucian Romașcanu, for G4Media: As a citizen, through this approach I also defend you from an abusive law
The last aspect analyzed by the judge was related to the amount of the fine which was at the maximum level provided by law.
The magistrate decided to keep the sanctions in the minutes, taking into account Romașcanu’s criminal record, which was not the first offense of this nature, “being known with a history of violating traffic rules on public roads, but also the quality the petitioner, as a representative of the Romanian legislature, who must ensure that the rule of law is observed and contribute to increasing the confidence of citizens in the representatives of state institutions (…) ”.
Contacted by G4Media, Lucian Romașcanu reiterated that the policeman had to indicate a reason for which he requested the opening of the trunk:
“As a citizen, this approach also protects you from an abusive law that allows someone to enter your property without stating the reason. It was the duty of the agent to state the reason, but it was not mentioned in the minutes. I do not comment on the court’s decision “, said the minister. Regarding the invocation of the status of parliamentarian and the opinion of the Parliament, he denied this line of defense in the process.
“It has nothing to do with parliamentarism. You do it when you are stopped and you are looking for reasons to defend yourself, but you do not have a lawyer by your side “, said Romașcanu. However, this contradicts the statement in the sentence that in the complaint from the court against the minutes, Romașcanu stated that “The agent (…) did not take into account that the parliamentarians can be searched only with the opinion of the chamber from which they part.” In addition, the analysis of this plea was resumed in the decision of the judge who rejected it.
In the archive of the court portal there is also a complaint of Romașcanu against a contravention fine, in the amount of 1,305 lei, the equivalent of a fine of 9 points, establishing a penalty point of 6 points.
On July 14, 2019, he was caught driving at a speed of 92 km / h on a road section where the maximum legal speed is 50 km / h. Romascanu lost this lawsuit last year.
At the age of 54, Romașcanu was the director of the Cancan newspaper, the executive director of Kanal, and since 2016 he has held the position of PSD senator from Buzău, being close to the current president of the party, Marcel Ciolacu.
In 2017, Romașcanu served as Minister of Culture in the government of Mihai Tudose. Three years later, he was suspended from the position of PSD spokesperson after, at the end of a party meeting, he exclaimed to the journalists who had left the hall: “He will receive an opportunity in everyone.”
Since the end of November 2021, he is, again, Minister of Culture, this time in the Government of Nicolae Ciucă.
Photo source: G4Media.ro/ Ilona Andrei
–
