Before being detained for childbearing age, he did not ask if he was pregnant without a pregnancy check and was detained.

Administrative Case of Laizhou People’s Court

(2016) Lu 0683 Line No. 34

The plaintiff Chai Mou, female, born on March 9, 1980, Han nationality, rural residents, Cangshan County, Shandong Province, living in Laizhou City.

Entrusted agent Zhang Xubo, a lawyer of Shandong Tianjin Law Firm.

Defendant Laizhou Public Security Bureau.Residence: No. 1600, Guangzhou West Street, Laizhou.

Legal representative Zhao Xubo, political commissar.

Entrusting the agent Luan Dongming, the police of the Legal Brigade of the Laizhou Public Security Bureau.

Entrusting the agent Jia Zhangguang, the police of the Sanshan Island Border Police Station of the Public Security Bureau of Laizhou City.

The plaintiff Chai Mou asked the defendant Laizhou Public Security Bureau to violate the law on December 31, 2015, and filed an administrative lawsuit with the court on August 1, 2016.After the case was established on August 8 of the same day, the court sent a copy of the prosecution and notice of response to the defendant.The court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law. The case was opened on October 20, 2016 and November 25, 2016.The plaintiff Chai Mou and the agent Zhang Xubo, the defendants entrusted the agent Luan Dongming and Jia Zhangguang to the court to participate in the lawsuit.The main person in charge of the defendant did not arrive in court due to official duties.This case has been tried.

The defendant Laizhou Public Security Bureau performed administrative detention on the plaintiff Chai on December 31, 2015 (December 31, 2015 to January 10, 2016).The plaintiff Chai Mou claimed that the defendant Laizhou Public Security Bureau made a decision on the plaintiff (three sides) on December 31, 2015 [three sides).According to Article 21 (4) of the "People’s Republic of China Public Security Management Punishment Law" (hereinafter referred to as the Penalty Management Punishment Law), "violating the following situations in violation of public security management actors shall be given administrative detention and punishment in accordance with this lawIn order to perform administrative detention penalties: (4) Pregnancy or breastfeeding is not full of one -year -old baby. "The plaintiff was pregnant at the time of the incident. The defendant sent the plaintiff to the Laizhou Detention Center for ten days of administrative detention to violate the above laws.The request confirmed that the defendant was illegal to the plaintiff’s ten -day behavior of the executive detention of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff provided the following evidence: 1. Laigong (three sides) punishment decisions [2015] 00040 administrative penalty decision, which proves that the defendant’s fact that the plaintiff had administrative detention on the ten -day administrative detention.2. Lift the detention certificate to prove the fact that the defendant’s ten -day administrative detention was performed for the plaintiff.3. One of the ultrasonic medical imaging reports and diagnostic certificates of the Western Center Health Center of Sanshan Island Street, Laizhou City; a copy of the oral drug and rawlinks; 4. A certificate of the West Central Health Center of Sanshan Island Street, Laizhou City; 5.The plaintiff issued by the village committee where the plaintiff’s household registration is located and the local police station used to use a certificate of "Chai Mou 1"; 6. The plaintiff’s daughter’s birth medical certificate.Evidence 3-6 proves that on February 4, 2016, the plaintiff was pregnant for more than 50 days after inspection by the West Center Health Center of Sanshan Island Street, Laizhou City;"The plaintiff was the plaintiff; the plaintiff was pregnant for 20 days when the plaintiff implemented administrative detention.7. The "Health Inspection" and 2-04 "No detention" formulated in the "Rules for the Law Enforcement in the Detention Center" issued by the Supervision Bureau of the Ministry of Public Security.

The defendant Laizhou City Public Security Bureau argued that 1. The fact that the fact that the plaintiff claimed was not established, and the evidence provided could not confirm its pregnancy.1. The resident ID card is the certificate of the citizen’s identity and the name registered on the resident ID card is the name of the citizen. Citizens should show the name of the resident ID card and use the name registered on the resident ID card.The names provided by the plaintiff in this case are "Chai Mou 1" (or "Chen Mou 2"). When they accept inquiries in the public security organs, they have not said that they have used their names or small names Chai Mou 1, and the actual age of the plaintiff’s actual age.It is 35 years old and is obviously inconsistent with the 32 -year -old on the ultrasonic checklist.Li Hongmei, a physician who was surveyed as an ultrasonic medical imaging examination, did not impress the inspection object and could not confirm who accepted the ultrasonic medical imaging examination, indicating that the plaintiff’s ultrasonic medical imaging inspection report was not related to this case and could not be used as evidence.When the plaintiff went to the Laizhou People’s Hospital on January 11, 2016 to conduct a damage examination, the registered name was "Chai Mou" and the age was 35 years old. The inspection did not confirm the plaintiff’s pregnancy.Chai Mou’s 1 nickname, or use Chai Mou 1 "to be established.2. Physician Chen Mouyun proves that "Chai Mou 1" and Chai Mou’s identity card are the same person as a subjective inference and invalid proof; 3. Chen Mouyun confirmed that "Chai Mou 1" was pregnant.A certain 2 "ultrasonic medical image report, Chen Mouyun could not confirm whether it was" Chai Mou 1 "herself received an ultrasonic medical image test.Therefore, the "Chai Mou 1" early pregnancy certificate issued by Chen Mouyun lacks authenticity and cannot be used as evidence.4. Because "Chai Mou 1" did not take aborted drugs in the hospital, the oral drug and lifting record card did not confirm the authenticity of their pregnancy.2. Even if the facts advocated by the plaintiff are established, the consequences of unfavorable consequences of the plaintiff shall be borne by the plaintiff.Public security organs strictly handle the case according to procedures, actively ask the plaintiff’s personal situation, inform them of the rights and obligations such as facts and evidence that are conducive to their own facts and evidence, and to legally guarantee the legal legalness through the procedure.From a legal point of view, the most significant characteristics of legal behavior and legal facts are specific and clear; from the predictive role of the law, administrative agencies should predict the consequences of behavior.The fact that the plaintiff deliberately concealed or could not know. It was neither clear. The administrative organs could not predict that the plaintiff was pregnant. The plaintiff should have unfavorable consequences, and the administrative agency and third party should be borne.Article 103 of the Public Security Management Punishment Law, Article 10 of the Regulations of the Detention Council, and Article 16 of the Implementation Measures for the Regulations on the Regulations of the Detention Council are related to the implementation of the public security organs to be implemented by those who have been decided to be punished by administrative detention.Program regulations.The defendant strictly in accordance with the above procedures for the plaintiff’s execution of administrative detention, the plaintiff read the "Notice of Rights and Observation of the Rights of the Detention Person of the Laizhou City Detention Center", and clearly notified the plaintiff to inform his health, report the illness in a timely manner, and state a truthful statement when he entered the institute.Condition, actively cooperate with doctors treatment.The plaintiff signed the seal on the notification, but did not take the initiative to tell himself that he was pregnant.When he entered, the doctor conducted a health check on the plaintiff. The plaintiff stated in the self -reported symptoms "normal", and the plaintiff still did not state that he was pregnant.In summary, the plaintiff advocates that the facts of pregnancy are not established, and the request of illegal execution of administrative detention should not be supported. The public security organs send the plaintiff to the detention center to execute administrative detention.Essence

The defendant Laizhou City Public Security Bureau submitted the following evidence and basis to the court: 1. The "Information of the Information" on December 31, 2015, proves that the defendant was fulfilled in accordance with Article 31 of the People’s Republic of China.The informing procedure; 2. Chai Mou asked the transcript on December 31, 2015 to prove that he had asked Chai Mou’s personal situation twice, whether it is necessary to protect a reasonable rest diet, etc., what requirements, and whether you need to replenish instructions; 3. Administrative casesRights and obligations notify the letter to inform Chai to inform the rights and obligations and inform Chai Mou’s right to investigate the facts and evidence that is conducive to his own; 4. On December 31, 2015Obligations; 5. On December 31, 2015, the health checklist of the Laizhou Detention Center proved that Chai Mou entered the health checkup; 6. On January 11, 2016, the injury inspection record of the Laizhou People’s Hospital proved that Chai was at the Laizhou People’s Hospital that dayFor physical examination, no pregnancy was found in physical examination and diagnostic conclusions; 7. On July 25, 2016, Chen Mouyun’s inquiry transcript proved that Chen Mouyun saw Chai Mou 1 medicine on the spot;In a copy, it proves that Li Hongmei has no impression of the illness number who is going to do the examination. On the report form, "Chen Mou 2" changed to "Chai Mou 1" is not a report from Li Hongmei who issued a report;The police talked about Chai Mou for three consecutive consecutive times, and they did not state pregnancy; 10. Legal basis: (1) Article 91 and Article 103 of Public Security Management Punishment Law; Article 10 of the Regulations of the Detention CenterArticle 16 of the "Implementation Measures for the Regulations of the Detention Council"; Article 1, 3, and 14 of the "Law of the People’s Republic of China".On November 23, 2016, the hospital went to the West Central Health Center of Sanshan Island Street, Laizhou City to investigate Chen Mouyun and Li Hongmei. Chen Mouyun provided a record of outpatient patient logs and oral drugs, saying that he could confirm 2016Chai Mou 1, who went to the doctor on February 4th, was really pregnant. "Chen Mou 2" changed to "Chai Mou 1".Signed.After passing the trial evidence, the plaintiff had no objection to the authenticity of the defendant’s evidence.However, I believe that the inquiry of the right to obligations and inquiries about the physical condition of the plaintiff in the written record cannot prove that the defendant has been to investigate whether the plaintiff’s pregnancy is pregnant. It is the procedure that the defendant should inform and inquire about any illegal suspect. There is no legal regulations that can be appointed.The defendant is free.Evidence 5 just proves that the defendant did not ask the plaintiff’s pregnancy in accordance with the regulations of the Ministry of Public Security.The defendant asked Chen Mouyun to use criminal rights and obligations to inform the book to put pressure on the spiritual spirit of the witness, and the authenticity of the witness testimony was doubtful.Chen Mouyun’s inquiry can prove that the image report, hospital diagnostic certificate, oral drug abortion card, and cross -West Central Health Center certification provided by the plaintiff is true.The fact that the plaintiff’s pregnancy is not necessarily related to whether taking the drug is not necessarily related to whether it is pregnant. Chen Mouyun said, "Can’t fully determine whether Chai Mou 1 and Chai are the same person" is normal and reasonable, because even if the patient is doctor in the morning, let the doctor confirm in the morning to confirm the morning in the morningThe doctor did not dare to confirm whether the patient he was on himself.Combined with the evidence provided by the plaintiff, it can prove that the plaintiff is "Chai Mou 1".Even if the plaintiff was registered with his ID card and name at that time, the doctor Chen Mouyun did not dare to confirm the same person who was 100 %.For the legal basis submitted by the defendant, the plaintiff proposed an objection that the defendant did not perform administrative detention on the plaintiff in accordance with Article 21 of the Penalties of Public Security Management Punishment.Pregnancy examination.The defendant argued that Chen Mouyun was indirectly known that "Chai Mou 1" was pregnant, and he could not fully confirm that Chai Mou 1 and Chai Mou were the same person, but also issued evidence of the same person. It is an individual’s subjective inference and is invalid.Article 8 of the "Regulations on the Prohibition of Fetal Gender Appraisal and Selective Gender Periodic Termination of Gender" stipulates that the staff who undertake the implementation of pregnancy should be checked before surgery and registered the subject card of the subject.This provision is not credible.The evidence provided by the defendant can confirm that the defendant is detained by the plaintiff in accordance with the procedure.The execution of detention shall be implemented in accordance with the "Regulations on the Detention Center" and the "Implementation Measures for the Detention Center".The "Implementation Measures for the Regulations of the Detention Council" stipulates that before the execution of the detention, the detention person should conduct a health inspection, but there is no requirement to check whether the detainees are pregnant.The Detailed Rules of the Detention Center is the internal provisions of the public security organs, not the basis for foreign law enforcement.The evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the princess believes that the name of the ultrasonic medical image report is "Chen Mou 2", and then changed to "Chai Mou 1", age 32;1 "person, the authenticity and legality of the two evidences are objections, and have nothing to do with this case.There was no objection to the authenticity issued by the Western Center Health Center, but he believed that the health center had no right to identify the identity.The content of the oral drug record card provided by the plaintiff is not clear, and the plaintiff’s abortion proposition cannot be confirmed.The plaintiff argued that the plaintiff’s signs and units stamped by the doctor’s evidence were real, not forgery, and the official seal of it was the seal used by the hospital.As a diagnosis of a doctor, it is familiar with the patient. The plaintiff took the original ID card to let the doctor check the identity, which is true and legal.Economic evidence, both parties have no objection to the authenticity of the evidence from this court.

The plaintiff believes that the evidence from the hospital can prove the fact that the plaintiff’s more than 50 days of pregnancy on February 4, 2016 and went to the West Center Health Center for diagnosis and treatment.The defendant believes that there is any objection to the legality of the plaintiff’s pregnancy in Chen Mouyun’s testimony. One is that Chen Mouyun did not directly see the plaintiff’s medication and could not directly prove that the plaintiff’s pregnancy was directly proved.The record card unit is the "Laizhou Family Planning Service Center Maternal and Child Health Hospital", which is not consistent with the "Western Central Health Center" of the actual hospital, incomplete record card record content, and violation of the relevant regulations of medical termination of pregnancy.The defendant claimed that these evidence could not confirm the plaintiff’s pregnancy. If used as a witness testimony, doctors Chen Mouyun mostly made by impression that could not be used as evidence; if used as an appraisal opinion, in principleThe appraisal opinions are prevailing.The plaintiff argued that Chen Mouyun, a doctor of the Western Central Health Center, had some violations of diagnosis and treatment regulations during the clinic, but did not affect the fact that the plaintiff was pregnant and the doctor on February 4, 2016.

The court’s certification of the above -mentioned evidence is as follows: The plaintiff has no objection to the authenticity of the defendant’s evidence, and the court confirms the authenticity of the defendant’s evidence.Although the defendant’s objection to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, Chen Mouyun, a doctor of the West Center Health Center, was investigated by this hospital.When you are pregnant, the "Chai Mou 1" on the oral drug and logistics birth record card is signed by himself; combined with the outpatient patient log, oral drug and domestic delivery record card, and the medical image report form held in the plaintiffThe person in the doctor was the plaintiff. The doctor Chen Mouyun’s statement was objective. The hospital confirmed the validity of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and confirmed that the plaintiff went to the West Center Health Center for the West Center Health Center in Sanshan Island Street, Laizhou City on February 4, 2016 and was diagnosed with diagnosis.The facts of early pregnancy are established.

It was found out that at 12 o’clock on December 31, 2015, plaintiff Chai Mou and Shi Mou and Li Moujun were in front of the door of Yixuanli Store on the east side of the parking lot in Sanshan Island Village, Sanshan Island Street, Laizhou City.The dispute occurred, and then beaten and torn with each other. Chai Mou stabbed Li Moujun’s head with scissors, his skin was wounded, and Chai Mou’s right face was caught.On the same day, the defendant made an administrative penalty decision with administrative detention for ten days, a fine of 200 yuan, and collected scissors and enforced it.Before the detention, the plaintiff conducted a medical examination, everything was normal, and the plaintiff signed the "Entering Health Inspection Form" to confirm.The defendant’s Laizhou Detention Center told the plaintiff that the relevant rights and obligations were signed on the "Notice of the Rights and Oponests of the Detention".The defendant also conducted an educational education for the plaintiff, and the plaintiff signed the transcript; on January 3, 2016, the defendant also conducted an internal talk education on the plaintiff.Before the detention was lifted, the defendant gave a conversation education for the plaintiff, and the plaintiff signed the transcript.On January 11, 2016, the plaintiff went to Laizhou People’s Hospital for injury inspection and diagnosed as "face -faced skin scratch." The plaintiff found that he was pregnant and went to Laizhou City on February 4, 2016 as "Chai Mou 1".Sanshan Island Street crossing the West Center Health Center for treatment.Chen Mouyun, director of the obstetrics and gynecology department of the hospital, diagnosed it and determined that his pregnancy was determined by the color Doppler ultrasound. The plaintiff requested oral abortion. Chen Mouyun recorded on the outpatient patient’s logs and oral drugs.During the trial, the plaintiff described the defendant who was not sure when he was administrative detention.

The court believes that in accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Regulations on the Detention Center" and the "Implementation Measures for the Detention Center", the defendant Laizhou Public Security Bureau as the public security organ at the local people’s government at or above the county level, in charge of the management of detention centers in the administrative area,Public security organs give detention to those who have detention administrative penalties in accordance with the law.The focus of the controversy in this case is: whether the plaintiff’s pregnancy is clear, and whether the defendant’s detention of the plaintiff is legal.Article 21 of the Penalty Management Punishment Law stipulates that "if the person who violates the law and order management has one of the following circumstances, if the administrative detention and punishment shall be given in accordance with this law, the administrative detention shall not be performed: (4) pregnancy or breastfeeding."" ".Article 16 of the "Implementation Measures for the Regulations of the Detention Center" stipulates that "detention centers detention should be subject to a health check and fill in the health checklist by the doctor.The detention decision organs shall issue a relevant situation instructions, register the injury or abnormal situation in detail in the detention center, and sign the detention person and the detention person to confirm. "Women of childbearing age should be carried out for pregnancy. "Therefore, before the public security organs perform their detention, they should ask if they have legal detention and should be tried to check for women of childbearing age.The plaintiff in this case was a childcare woman. The defendant did not ask if he was pregnant before his execution detention, nor did he perform a pregnancy inspection and executed detention. The behavior violated the above laws.The plaintiff asked to confirm that the defendant was illegal to the detention of himself. The facts were clear.Although the Detailed Rules of the Detention Center is the internal documents of the public security organs, the defendant’s superior administrative organs formulate the issuance and do not violate the upper law.There is no proper claim, and the court will not accept it.After discussing the decision of the trial committee of the court, in accordance with the provisions of Article 74 (1) of Article 74 (1) of the Administrative Procedural Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows: Confirm that the defendant Laizhou Public Security Bureau was paid on December 31, 2015.The plaintiff Chai Mou’s act of ten days of execution of administrative detention was illegal.The case acceptance fee was 50 yuan, which was borne by the defendant, and the defendant was limited to the court within 10 days after this judgment took effect.If you do not accept this verdict, you can submit an appeal to the court within 15 days from the date of the judgment and submit a copy according to the number of the other party’s parties, and appeal to the Intermediate People’s Court of Yantai City, Shandong Province.

Judge Wang Haili

Judge Zhou Xuhua

People’s Jury Wang Xicun

December 14, 2016

Bookstore Ren Chunyan

Pregnancy Test Midstream 5-Tests


Posted

in

by

Tags: