When the Munich police chief Kevin L. (Name changed) was proposed by his employer for the senior civil service career, he realized that this probably did not go together with his “addictive behavior”. So he sought help from a therapist. But he couldn’t prevent the policeman from ending up in the dock and having to answer for his actions there.
For years Kevin L. collected porn on the Internet – including child porn – and sometimes sent the files to chat partners. He didn’t tell his therapist about this for a long time. It was only when officials searched his apartment on January 19, 2017 and, among other things, seized 420 data carriers with child pornographic image files and a forbidden weapon – a throwing star – that Kevin L. confided in his therapist. Previously, all attempts to “slow down” and “regulate down” in this regard had failed, admitted Kevin L. on Tuesday with tears and a halting voice in front of the disciplinary chamber at the Administrative Court in Munich.
At the center of the negotiation was the question of whether the “hypersexual disorder” diagnosed by an expert has a so-called disease value. An expert opinion commissioned by the disciplinary authority of the Free State of Bavaria had come to the conclusion that there were “insufficient indications” for the 42-year-old’s reduced culpability.
The lawyer for the police chief referred to the administrative court, however, that another appraiser had stated that Kevin L. had only downloaded the images for mailing, but that he himself had no “inclination” to look at the child pornographic files. The report suggests that there is a “reason for moderation” and that Kevin L. does not necessarily have to be removed from the civil service. Has confidence in the officer really been “completely lost”? Asked the lawyer.
Kevin L. was suspended from duty after the house was searched. In November 2017, the Munich District Court first sentenced him to a fine of 10,800 euros (180 daily rates of 60 euros) in criminal proceedings for distributing as well as for acquiring and possessing child pornography.
For the representative of the Free State, the case was clear. She pointed out that the defendant not only “purposefully” searched the Internet for child pornographic images, but was also in “a lively exchange with chat partners”. According to the plaintiff’s representative, there could be no question of a “momentary failure” by the police chief when downloading the files from the Internet. After all, the defendant collected the images over a longer period of time. The “relationship of trust” between the Free State and the official was “destroyed,” said the representative of the disciplinary authority. “We cannot imagine the defendant coming back to the service.” She therefore demanded the imposition of the “maximum measure”, the removal from the civil service. L’s lawyer argued against it for a “milder measure”.
For the judges of the Disciplinary Chamber, however, there was no reason to do so. Child pornography possession is heavy, said the presiding judge. After all, it is about 420 image files. And what can be seen on it, according to the judge, is “violent material” – children between the ages of one and four years. To make matters worse, the court judged that Kevin L. not only owned the photos, but had also sent them from his PC.