Two inmates from Central Prisons were communicating through SMS messages. with one of them having interactions, as alleged by the police, from his cell with an individual arrested for drug-related charges.
Furthermore, it has come to light that this inmate had on his mobile phone the affidavit of the police officer who requested the detention order for two suspects involved in drug offenses.
This information came to the surface following a decision by the Supreme Court after a request from two lawyers and their firm.
The firm was investigated based on a judicial order by the police for a conspiracy case aimed at undermining the course of justice.
According to the decision by Judge Charis Malachtos, a witness testified in a lower court that on September 19, 2023, a man and a woman were arrested for drug-related offenses.
Examining the evidence led to reasonable suspicions that the arrestees were collaborating with an inmate.
During a search in the inmate’s cell, two mobile phones were found, leading to an order to access the recorded content of private communication.
It was discovered that there was communication, in the form of messages, between this inmate and another convict, along with a photograph of the affidavit presented by the police during the detention process of the two drug suspects.
The first inmate, under interrogation, reportedly disclosed that the second inmate had communicated with one of the lawyers, and the latter had informed him about the progress of the case, sending him the “affidavits” of the detention of the two drug suspects.
The inmate further claimed that the reason the other convict’s mobile phone was not found during the search of his cell was that he had hidden it following information received from one of the lawyers.
During the interrogation of the drug suspect, represented by the lawyer who was present, questions were posed related to the inmate (who did not have a mobile phone in his possession).
The two lawyers and their firm sought permission from the court to request a seriatim order, seeking the annulment of the search warrant at their office.
While the court dismissed the claims that there was no testimony justifying the issuance of the warrant, it found that it was not demonstrated that the sought-after items were located or stored in the lawyer’s office, thus not justifying the issuance of a search warrant for that space.
