1. Facts of the case: Lin, a female textile worker, held a grudge because of an quarrel with her co-worker Yuan. After returning home, she reported the incident to her deaf-mute husband Xu with gestures and asked her husband to teach Yuan a lesson. Take it out on yourself.

Because her husband did not know Yuan and it was difficult for him to come forward, Lin asked his 13-year-old sister-in-law Xu, who lived with her ***, to go with her to identify Yuan and act as a helper.

The next night, Xu and his sister Xu stopped Yuan who was returning home late and beat and kicked him.

After medical diagnosis, Yuan had multiple injuries on his body and the injuries were minor.

After Yuan reported the case, District A Public Security Bureau assigned police officer Xiao to take charge of the case.

However, Yuan applied for Xiao’s avoidance on the grounds that Xiao was Lin’s classmate and the two had close contacts.

Question: (1) Should Xiao be recused? Why? Who decides whether to avoid it? (2) How should the behavior of Lin, Xu, and Xu be dealt with?

Reference answers: (1) Yuan’s request for Xiao’s recusal complies with the provisions of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law, and Xiao should recuse himself.

Xiao is a classmate of Lin who committed a violation of public security, and the two have a close relationship. If Xiao handles the case, it is likely to affect the fair handling of the case, which falls under the "Public Security Punishment Law" The avoidance situations specified in Item (3) of Paragraph 1 of Article 81.

According to the second paragraph of Article 81 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law", the recusal of the people's police shall be decided by the public security agency to which they belong; the recusal of the person in charge of the public security agency shall be decided by the superior public security organ. The agency decides.

In this case, Xiao is a police officer from the District A Public Security Bureau. Whether he recuses himself or not should be decided by the District A Public Security Bureau.

(2) As an instigator and planner, Lin did not directly carry out the injurious act, but his role was major. According to the provisions of Article 17 of the "Public Security Management Punishment Law", he should be punished The person shall be punished according to the act he instigated, that is, beating others, and shall be punished according to the provisions of Article 43 of the Law.

In addition, according to Article 20 (2) of the Law, those who instigate others to violate public security management shall be severely punished.

Xu is the main perpetrator of this case, and as the temporary guardian of his underage sister Xu, he not only did not stop his wife Lin from instigating Xu, but also led Xu A certain *** colleague committed illegal acts and should have been severely punished for beating others. However, because Xu is a deaf-mute, according to the provisions of Article 14 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law", he can be given a lighter or reduced punishment.

Xu Moumou was under 14 years old at the time of the incident. According to Article 12 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law", persons under 14 years of age who violate public security administration shall not be punished, but shall be ordered to His guardians exercise strict discipline.

Xu should be persuaded and educated and not punished.

2. Facts of the case: Yang, a villager in a certain village, suspected that Zhou, a farmer in the village (the victim), had stolen 30 yuan in cash from his grocery store, so he immediately went to the victim's home to question him, and asked him The victim was dragged to his own shop and threatened in public: "If you don't hand over the money, my skin will be peeled off" and so on.

When the victim denied stealing the money, Yang slapped him in the face, and then took out a rope to tie him up, but was dissuaded by others. He was forced to repay the money at the grocery store and felt ashamed to see others. He committed suicide after returning home and taking pesticide. He was rescued and escaped.

When handling this case, the public security organs determined that Yang’s behavior of beating others was a violation of public security management. According to the provisions of Article 43, paragraph 1, of the "Public Security Management Punishment Law", he was sentenced to administrative detention for ten days. and be fined 200 yuan.

However, Yang continued to refuse to pay the fine. Therefore, with the approval of the county-level public security organ, he was sentenced to five days of administrative detention.

Question: Are the above penalties imposed by the public security organs correct? Please briefly explain your reasons.

Reference answers: (1) The public security agency punished Yang for beating others, which was a wrong characterization.

Yang accused Zhou of being a thief and openly insulted Zhou with violence and words in his grocery store, causing Zhou to commit suicide. This has caused serious consequences. Therefore, Yang’s behavior constituted a public insult. Others shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of Article 42 (2) of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law.

(2) The public security organ made a mistake in detaining Yang for five days because he refused to pay the fine.

Article 36 of the original "Public Security Administration Punishment Regulations" stipulates that "anyone who refuses to pay a fine may be detained for up to fifteen days, and the fine shall still be enforced", which was implemented in the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law" The penalty will no longer be enforced, and those who refuse to pay fines shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Administrative Penalty Law.

3. Facts of the case: One afternoon, a villager named Zhu had a dispute with his neighbors Xie, Gao and Xu over building a fence. During the quarrel, the two sides hit each other with stones and bricks. .

After Zhu was hit on the head, he went home, took a kitchen knife and returned to the scene.

After arriving at the scene, no kitchen knife was used, and both parties still used stones to attack each other.

However, due to the large number of people on the other side, Zhu could not resist and ran away from the scene. The other three people followed closely and beat Zhu with minor injuries with bamboos, wooden sticks and hoes.

Based on the fact that the two parties were fighting and in accordance with the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law", a certain police station made a decision to impose penalties ranging from 500 yuan to Xie Moumou, Gao Moumou, Xu Moumou and Zhu Moumou. .

However, Xie Moumou, Gao Moumou, and Xu Moumou refused to accept the verdict and filed an administrative lawsuit with the court on the grounds that the act of injuring Zhu Moumou was self-defense, requesting that the punishment decision on the three of them be revoked. .

Question: Can the lawsuit claims of Xie Moumou, Gao Moumou and Xu Moumou be supported? Why? Reference answer: According to the provisions of Article 20, Paragraph 1, of the Criminal Law, legitimate defense must be directed at ongoing illegal infringements, which is a prerequisite for the implementation of legitimate defense.

In this case, the three plaintiffs and Zhu Mou beat each other. After Zhu went home and returned to the scene with a kitchen knife, he did not use the knife to hurt the three plaintiffs. Later, Zhu stopped beating and ran away from the scene. The infringement has ended. Under this situation, the three plaintiffs still continued to pursue and beat Zhu. They did not meet the conditions for self-defense and were violations of public security management that infringed on the personal rights of others.

Therefore, the public security organ was correct in determining that the three plaintiffs beat others.

According to Article 43 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law", "Whoever beats others or intentionally injures others shall be detained for not less than five days but not more than ten days, and shall also be fined not less than 200 yuan but not more than 500 yuan." A fine of not more than RMB 500 shall be imposed; if the circumstances are relatively minor, a detention of not more than five days or a fine of not more than RMB 500 shall be imposed.” The decision of the public security organ to impose a fine of not more than RMB 500 on the three plaintiffs is correct. The three plaintiffs’ claims cannot be supported by the court.

4. Facts of the case: The Public Security Bureau of a certain county received a report from the public one night that Wang had opened an underground casino at his home and collected venue fees. Then they went to Wang’s home to conduct an inspection and found that more than 700 gambling money was spent. Yuan, some mahjong, two precious calligraphy and paintings used for winning and losing, some obscene books, periodicals and video tapes.

So the public security organs seized the items on the spot.

Wang asked Li, the policeman present, to issue a list of the seized items. However, Li believed that it was a fact that Wang had violated the law and it was useless to take the list. The items would not be returned anyway, so he refused. accepted Wang’s request.

After investigation, it was found that the precious calligraphy and paintings were stolen by Wang from the home of Liu, a famous collector in the city. The obscene books and videos belonged to Wang's friend Qian, who was not involved in gambling.

Now Liu demands the return of calligraphy and paintings, and Qian demands the return of books, periodicals and video tapes.

Question: (1) How should Wang’s behavior be dealt with? (2) Is it legal for police officer Li to refuse to issue a list? (3) Is Liu and Qian’s request to return the items legal? How should this batch of seized items be handled according to the provisions of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law"? Reference answer: (1) Wang opened an underground casino and charged venue fees, which constituted "providing conditions for gambling for the purpose of profit". According to the provisions of Article 70 of the "Public Security Management Punishment Law", he was detained for not more than five days or A fine of not more than 500 yuan shall be imposed; if the circumstances are serious, the offender shall be detained for not less than 10 days but not more than 15 days, and shall also be fined not less than 500 yuan but not more than 3,000 yuan.

(2) Police officer Li’s refusal to issue a list of seized items is illegal.

According to the provisions of Article 89 of the "Public Security Management Punishment Law", when the public security organs handle public security cases, they shall conduct a clear inventory of the seized items together with the witnesses present and the holders of the seized items. Make a list in duplicate on the spot, signed or stamped by the investigator, witness and holder. One copy will be given to the holder, and the other will be attached to the file for reference.

Police officer Li should not only check the items with Wang and the witnesses present, but also issue a list of seized items to Wang and ask Wang to sign or stamp the list.

(3) According to the provisions of Article 89 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law", if the seized items are verified to be the legal property of others, they shall be returned immediately after registration; Article 11 of the Law It stipulates that property obtained in violation of public security management shall be recovered and returned to the victim.

In this case, after investigation, the two calligraphy and paintings did not belong to Wang, the person who violated public security management, but were stolen by Wang from Liu’s house. Liu is the legal owner. The public security organs should take the calligraphy and painting into account. Returned to Liu, Liu's request to return the items was legal.

According to Article 11 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law", obscene materials seized during public security cases must be confiscated and dealt with in accordance with regulations.

In this case, although Qian did not participate in gambling, obscene books, periodicals and video tapes are contraband, and the public security organs should confiscate them and handle them in accordance with regulations. Qian's request for return is illegal.

5. Facts of the case: Jia, male, 28 years old, farmer.

Pretending to be a logistics manager of a certain army, he went to flour mills, beverage factories, clothing factories and other factories in a certain city, falsely claiming that the army wanted to purchase relevant products in large quantities and that he was inspecting several manufacturers. If the conditions are met, the army will establish a long-term supply relationship with it in the future.

Moreover, Jia promised without hesitation that as long as he was "satisfied", the price of the product could be higher than the market price.

The objective profits offered by Jia Mou deceived the trust of the leaders of these units. The leaders of the units invited him to stay in high-end hotels, sent leading cadres of the sales department to accompany him to banquets, and invited beautiful girls to dance with him in the evening. We also give away famous cigarettes, famous wines, local products and new products produced in the factory.

When Jia arrived in another city and committed fraud according to the law, he was seized by the public security organ.

Question: What is the nature of Jia’s behavior? How should it be handled? Reference answer: Jia’s behavior constitutes impersonating a state agency staff member (military and police personnel) for deception.

To constitute this behavior, three conditions must be met: First, it is subjectively intentional and the purpose is to defraud property or other illegal benefits; second, the perpetrator has impersonated the identity of a state agency staff member or professional title; thirdly, the behavior is minor, the harm is relatively small, it has not constituted a crime, and it is not enough for criminal punishment.

In this case, Jia pretended to be a logistics manager of a certain army, deceived people everywhere, defrauded him of food and drink, and defrauded him of a small amount of property. He should be punished by public security management.

According to Article 51 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law", "Anyone who impersonates a staff member of a state agency or uses other false identities to defraud shall be detained for not less than five days but not more than ten days, and may also be fined five hundred yuan." A fine of not more than five days and a fine of not more than 500 yuan will be imposed if the circumstances are relatively serious.

Anyone who pretends to be a military or police officer shall be severely punished.

"In this case, Jia is a person who pretends to be a police officer." Officers of a certain unit should be severely punished.

6. Facts of the case: At 6 p.m. one night, Liu, a military wife, was suddenly taken back by several police officers from the town police station for greeting an acquaintance on the third floor of a hotel where she was helping, and charged her with prostitution. Conduct cross-examination.

By 9 p.m., without taking notes or finding out any facts, the police handcuffed his hands to a hot radiator, causing minor burns on his hands.

During this period, Liu requested to notify his family many times, but was refused.

It was not until 9 p.m. the next day that the police, without conducting any investigation, verbally announced to Liu that he would be fined 3,000 yuan for his "prostitution" behavior and asked his family members to pay the money before releasing him.

In desperation, Liu swallowed a gold ring weighing 5.5 grams in order to prove his innocence. He was rescued from danger by the hospital.

Question: (1) In this case, which practices of the public security organs did not comply with the provisions of the "Public Security Management Punishment Law"? (2) How should the public security organs and their police officers who break the law be dealt with? Reference answer: (1) In this case, the illegal acts committed by the public security organs include: ① According to Article 82 of the "Public Security Management Punishment Law", if it is necessary to summon the perpetrators of violations of public security management for investigation, with the approval of the person in charge of the case handling department of the public security organ, Summons using a subpoena.

For those who violate public security management found on the scene, the people's police can verbally summon them upon showing their work IDs, but this should be noted in the interview transcript.

The police brought Liu back for questioning, which can be regarded as a summons. They neither produced a summons nor made an inquiry record; ② According to Article 83 of the "Public Security Management Punishment Law", the Anyone who violates public security management shall be promptly questioned and verified after being summoned by the public security organ. The time for questioning and verification shall not exceed eight hours; if the situation is complicated and administrative detention penalties may be applicable in accordance with the provisions of this law, the time for questioning and verification shall not exceed 24 hours.

The public security organs shall promptly notify the family members of the person being summoned of the reason and location of the summons.

In this case, the public security organs summoned Liu from 6 pm that night until 9 pm the next day and still did not release him. The interrogation lasted for 27 hours, which obviously exceeded the statutory interrogation time.

When Liu repeatedly requested to notify his family, the police did not notify him, nor did they provide conditions for Liu to notify himself; ③According to Article 79 of the "Public Security Management Punishment Law" It stipulates that investigations of public security cases by public security organs and their people's police shall be conducted in accordance with the law.

It is strictly prohibited to use torture to extract confessions or use threats, inducements, deception and other illegal means to collect evidence.

Evidence collected through illegal means shall not be used as a basis for punishment.

The public security agency handcuffed Liu’s hands to a hot radiator, causing slight burns to his hands, which violated the above regulations; ④ The public security agency failed to investigate clearly the illegal facts and failed to perform legal notification procedures. No penalty decision was made, but the penalty decision was announced verbally to Liu, which did not comply with the provisions of the "Public Security Administration Penalty Law" on penalty procedures.

⑤ Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law" stipulates that those who engage in prostitution or whoring shall be detained for not less than ten days but not more than fifteen days, and may also be fined not more than five thousand yuan; if the circumstances are serious, If the offense is serious, he shall be detained for not more than five days or fined not more than 500 yuan.

The police announced to Liu that a fine of 3,000 yuan did not comply with the above regulations, and asked his family to pay the money to release him, which was a serious violation of the law.

(2) According to Article 116 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law", the people's police handling public security cases may use torture to extract confessions, corporal punishment, abuse, insult others, or restrict personal freedom beyond the questioning time, etc. Those who violate the law shall be given administrative sanctions in accordance with the law.

7. Case facts: He, male, 28 years old, employee of a drugstore.

Cui, male, 26 years old, unemployed.

Zhao, female, 22 years old, self-employed.

Out of curiosity, He took advantage of his position to steal a small amount of opium from the pharmacy where he worked, secretly smoked it, and "invited" his friend Cui to smoke it together.

Later, He and Cui often went to a hotel owned by Cui's girlfriend Zhao to take heroin together.

According to reports, when the police were about to investigate, He and Cui escaped because Zhao tipped off the information.

However, the two were soon caught by the police while taking drugs elsewhere.

Question: How should the behavior of He, Cui and Zhao be dealt with? Reference answer: In this case, He not only took drugs himself, but also "invited" his friend Cui to take drugs together, which constituted "taking drugs" and "inducing others to take drugs."

According to Article 16 of the "Public Security Management Punishment Law", if there are two or more violations of public security management, they shall be decided separately and executed together.

If administrative detention penalties are combined, the maximum period shall not exceed twenty days.

Therefore, He should be decided separately in accordance with the provisions of Articles 72 and 73 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law" and executed together, but the combined execution of administrative detention shall not exceed 20 days.

If Cui takes drugs, he shall be detained for not less than ten days but not more than fifteen days in accordance with the provisions of Article 72 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law", and may also be fined not more than 2,000 yuan; if the circumstances are minor, , shall be detained for not more than five days or fined not more than 500 yuan.

If He and Cui are addicted to drugs, they should also be forced to detoxify.

Zhao, as a hotel operator, tipped off drug addicts He and Cui when the public security organs were investigating illegal drug abuse activities, causing the two to escape. According to Article 7 of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law According to the provisions of Article 14, Zhao should be detained for not less than ten days but not more than fifteen days.

8. Facts of the case: Shen, male, 40 years old, owner of a pawn shop in a certain city.

One night, when the pawn shop was about to close, a young man came to the shop and asked to pawn some pieces of platinum and diamond jewelry.

The clerk felt that the jewelry provided by the man was very similar to the jewelry stolen in the jewelry store’s grand theft case shown on the recent TV news, so he reported the matter to Shen.

Shen also had suspicions, but because the man offered a low price, Shen, tempted by the high profits, accepted the jewelry without reporting it to the public security organ.

Later, he was seized by the public security organs.

The public security organs intend to detain Shen for five days, fine him less than 1,000 yuan, and revoke Shen’s pawn shop license.

Shen requested a hearing on the grounds that he did not know it was stolen property at the time, but the public security agency believed that with the clerk as a witness, Shen’s illegal facts were conclusive, so it rejected his request for a hearing and issued a penalty decision.

Question: (1) Is the public security organ’s punishment of Shen correct? Is it legal for him to refuse Shen’s request for a hearing? (2) What relief channels can Shen choose if he still refuses to accept the punishment? Reference answer: (1) According to Article 59 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law", pawn industry staff who accept pawned items do not check relevant certificates, fail to perform registration procedures, or knowingly know that they are suspected of illegal crimes or stolen goods, do not report them to the public security If the case is reported to the authorities, a fine of not less than 500 yuan but not more than 1,000 yuan shall be imposed; if the circumstances are serious, the person shall be detained for not less than 5 days but not more than 10 days and shall also be fined not less than 500 yuan but not more than 1,000 yuan.

In addition, according to Paragraph 3 of Article 54 of the "Public Security Management Punishment Law", if an operator who has obtained a license from the public security agency violates relevant national management regulations, and the circumstances are serious, the public security agency may revoke the license. .

In this case, Shen, as the owner of a pawn shop, accepted pawned items that were suspected of being stolen goods. He did not check relevant certificates, did not perform registration procedures, and did not report to the public security organs. His behavior violated the regulations on pawn public security management. According to relevant provisions, the public security organs made correct decisions on punishment in accordance with Articles 54 and 59 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law".

It is illegal for the public security organs to refuse Shen’s request for a hearing.

Article 98 of the "Public Security Management Punishment Law" stipulates that before the public security organ makes a public security management penalty decision of revoking a license and imposing a fine of more than 2,000 yuan, it shall inform the person who violates public security management of the right to demand Hold a hearing; if the person who violates public security management requests a hearing, the public security organ shall hold a hearing in a timely manner and in accordance with the law.

In this case, before the public security organ makes a decision to revoke the license, Shen has the right to request a hearing, which the public security organ cannot refuse.

(2) According to the provisions of Article 102 of the "Public Security Management Punishment Law", if Shen is dissatisfied with the decision on public security management punishment, he may apply for administrative reconsideration or file an administrative lawsuit in accordance with the law.

9. Case details: Zhang, male, 23 years old; Wu, male, 24 years old.

Zhang and Wu are both unemployed young people who spend all day doing nothing and wandering around.

On a Saturday afternoon, after buying shoes nearby, Zhang and Wu came to the entrance of the largest shopping mall in the city center and saw a bustling crowd.

Zhang said to Wu: "Since there are so many people, we should play some tricks and play tricks on these people.

" Wu saw Zhang holding a black dress and shoes in his hand. plastic bag, thought for a while and said: "Let's just say this bag contains a bomb and see how everyone reacts.

" The two hit it off.

So, Zhang walked to the entrance of the mall, threw the plastic bag into the crowd, and then the two of them shouted: "This bag contains a bomb."

"Others Hearing the shouts of the two people

we were at a loss and didn't know whether they were true or false, but they all fled in a panic.

The behavior of Zhang and Wu was seen by the patrol police. After being caught on the spot, due to fear, they immediately confessed that they were not bombs.

After inspection, the bag contained only ordinary leather shoes. After a brief commotion at the entrance of the mall, things quickly returned to normal.

When characterizing the behavior of Zhang and Wu, several people's policemen had differences. Some people believed that their behavior was just a general violation of public security management, while others believed that their behavior constituted a crime. .

Question: How should the behavior of Zhang and Wu be characterized? What kind of treatment should be given?

Reference answer: The behavior of Zhang and Wu should be violations of public security management that disrupt public order. They have not constituted a crime and should be punished according to Article 25 of the "Public Security Management Punishment Law" /p>

The penalties specified in Paragraph (2).

According to Article 25 (2) of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law", the release of false explosive, poisonous, radioactive, corrosive substances or infectious disease pathogens and other dangerous substances to disrupt public safety Those who violate public order shall be detained for not less than five days but not more than ten days, and may also be fined not more than five hundred yuan; if the circumstances are relatively minor, they shall be detained for not more than five days and not more than ten days or fined not more than five hundred yuan.

Article 8 of the "Criminal Law Amendment (III)" promulgated in December 2001 also added a new crime for this type of behavior, namely "the crime of placing false dangerous substances."

The key to distinguishing the crime and non-crime of such behavior lies in whether the degree of disturbing social order is serious and whether it has caused serious consequences.

"Severely disrupting social order" refers to the disruption of social order to a considerable extent, such as causing schools to close, shopping malls to close, the public to have psychological panic, and being unable to work and live normally; "causing serious "Consequences" refers to causing serious personal injuries and property losses, such as placing false dangerous substances in public places where people gather, such as shopping malls and concert sites, causing disorder, crowding and stampeding, causing casualties, or causing Shopping malls and financial sectors were forced to close operations, and products were stopped from production and sale, causing economic losses.

Judging from the facts of this case, although Zhang and Wu dropped a false "bomb" in a public place at the entrance of the shopping mall, their falseness was immediately ascertained, which only caused a small stir. The level of rioting and disrupting social order is not serious, and it is a violation of public security management.