Student taken away because of AfD “Smurf video”: Court finds police action unlawful

Last March, the principal of a high school in Ribnitz-Damgarten, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania , alerted the police. The reason: A then 16-year-old student was allegedly spreading content on social media that was relevant to state security. In videos submitted to the principal by a whistleblower, the girl allegedly appeared with a German flag and runic symbols.

She is also said to have forwarded an AfD video featuring Smurfs and written that Germany was not just a place on the map for her, but home. In the posts, the student shared statements such as "Multiculturalism is the end of the line," "German youth forward," and "In Germany, German is spoken, nothing yalla yalla." Reason enough for the school to call the police. The girl was subsequently taken away from the classroom by three officers.

Judge: “It wasn’t necessary”

The girl's parents sharply criticized this action and filed a lawsuit against the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and the Ministry of the Interior . After the case made national headlines, particularly because of the "Smurf video," the police announced that such a video was not the deciding factor in the operation. Other content allegedly relevant to state security had led to it.

Nevertheless, the Greifswald Administrative Court has now ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the police operation unlawful. The court stated: "The manner in which the measure was carried out was disproportionate. The police officers' conversation with the victim could have taken place at home or at the police station. It was not necessary to remove her from class in public and thereby create a stigmatizing effect."

The police justified the operation by pointing out that they merely wanted to "protect the girls from potential hostility." Interior Minister Christian Pegel (SPD) subsequently addressed the issue in the state parliament, emphasizing that the police should intervene more often than less often.

The presiding judge disagrees. It would have been possible to take a more lenient approach and have the conversation with the student after class. However, in this case, the officials chose a different approach—"in full view of the school's public."