“I was able to detain 70 people a year in connection with drug-related offenses. That’s as much as an entire police headquarters or station. The disciplinary spokesman repeatedly went to the commander and insisted on getting rid of me, because my effectiveness was creating extra work for other officers. They looked for something on me for a long time, until they finally framed me in disciplinary proceedings,” says Sgt. Michał Czabrowski in an interview with Niezależna.pl. He now faces trial and possible dismissal from the police force. His attorney, Bartosz Lewandowski, stresses that the case into which his client has been drawn “is causing and will continue to cause a chilling effect within the police.” “This is some kind of misunderstanding,” the lawyer assessed.
Trapped in Procedures
In September 2024, while detaining an aggressive Ukrainian national suspected of child abduction who was refusing to comply with orders, Sgt. Michał Czabrowski of the Municipal Police Headquarters in Sopot used pepper spray. That is when his problems began. His superiors initiated disciplinary proceedings against him and simultaneously notified the prosecutor’s office of a suspected crime.
The provincial police commander, relying on opinions from experienced officers, ultimately concluded that no regulations had been violated and that Sgt. Czabrowski had not exceeded his authority. Nevertheless, the prosecutor’s office decided to file an indictment against the officer in court.
What is more, regardless of future court rulings, the sergeant faces dismissal from the service.
In his interview with Niezależna.pl, Sgt. Czabrowski admitted that during his five years of service, he had never imagined such a situation could occur, because—he emphasized—he knows the law and the procedures governing him, including what he is permitted to do when using direct coercive measures.
He Tried Too Hard
Asked about the difference in assessment between the prosecutor’s office and the provincial police commander—who found no misconduct in his actions—Sgt. Czabrowski pointed to a conflict between himself and his direct superiors at the Municipal Police Headquarters in Sopot, “who know the prosecutor very well, as they have worked with her for many years.”
“They filed a notification of a suspected crime. That’s how it works: when disciplinary proceedings are initiated, superiors—if they believe there may have been an abuse of authority—submit such a notification. That is the procedure. But they can also conclude that no abuse occurred. In this case, my direct superior, the Municipal Police Commander in Sopot, submitted such a notification at the beginning of the proceedings,” he added.
When asked why he believes this decision was made, the officer pointed to his record in “detaining perpetrators of drug offenses.”
“While on patrol, I detained a great many such individuals (which was also reported in the media), and I was rewarded multiple times for it. My superiors didn’t like that. They repeatedly told me that because of this I was earning more than they were, that I was creating extra work for the entire headquarters, and that I should stop,” he explained.
“For example, one night I seized 10 kilograms of various substances. Reward motions were filed, but several departments had to deal with it for weeks. When I enter an apartment and conduct what is known as a hot search, I uncover drugs and detain people. My work ends when I place them in a cell and later go to court. But at night, a forensic technician, a police dog, duty officers—criminal investigators, detectives—must be dispatched. After on-site procedures, the case continues. An expert must be paid. Officers must carry out numerous actions: question people, secure materials,” Sgt. Czabrowski listed.
He emphasized that such detentions occurred very frequently in his case, and “the disciplinary spokesman didn’t like it because he got along well with officers who didn’t want to do that kind of work.”
“I was able to detain 70 people a year for drug offenses. That’s as much as an entire headquarters or station. The spokesman repeatedly went to the commander and insisted on getting rid of me, because my effectiveness was creating extra work for others. They searched for something on me for a long time, until finally I was framed in disciplinary proceedings and punished at the municipal level,” he said.
Disciplinary Case Overturned, But… Not the End
“When I appealed, the provincial headquarters stated there was no evidence that I had done anything wrong. They found that I had exercised all due caution and used coercive measures in accordance with the law, and I was cleared. But before I was cleared, a notification of suspected crime had already been filed,” he recalled.
According to Sgt. Czabrowski, similar situations “unfortunately occur at every level” in the police, which he believes has “a huge impact on morale.”
“I am now suspended and cannot return to service. The prosecutor brought charges against me on Police Day. She suspended me after about nine months of investigation, when all evidence had already been collected—witness statements, expert opinions, monitoring footage—everything that needed to be done. So the suspension makes no sense, especially since it is to last for the entire duration of the proceedings, which is unprecedented in our service,” he assessed.
“Recently, officers in Sopot were charged with colluding with criminals, planting drugs, etc. They were not suspended by the prosecutor, and I was suspended for escorting a man out without shoes or for using pepper spray,” he added.
The Prosecutor’s Determination
The discrepancies between the prosecutor’s assessment and that of the provincial police headquarters, as well as what appears to be an unjustified suspension, are not the only issues in the ongoing proceedings. There may also have been unjustified—or even deliberate—delays that could ultimately result in the officer’s dismissal.
“An experienced prosecutor sends the case files concerning my appeal against preventive measures to the wrong court, where they sit for five months and no one takes an interest. Only after I filed a complaint about the excessive length of proceedings did she withdraw the files in one day from the wrong court and send them to the correct one,” the officer said.
“She knows that after a year of suspension I will be dismissed, and that could happen as early as July 24. They can do it, though they don’t have to. In practice, however, anyone suspended for a year is dismissed. If I don’t return to work even for one day, I am 99 percent certain to be expelled from the service,” he added.
He emphasized that police trade unions are trying to help him. “They are fighting for me all the time. Thanks to them, the Ombudsman has become involved in the case, because the situations for which I was charged—such as escorting a man out who refused to put on shoes—happen to officers almost daily,” he explained.
Describing the incident under investigation, the officer recalled that during the arrest he used pepper spray against a man who “first made breakfast, then placed knives in the sink, and then stood by them and refused to move away.”
“These were not small paring knives, but large 30-centimeter kitchen knives. At every training we are told: do not approach, step back, issue commands. In the Taser recording you can hear my commands, which the man ignored. He insulted us and finally stood by the knives. So I used spray, another officer arrived, and we subdued him,” he said.
Sgt. Czabrowski stressed that after the prosecutorial proceedings were initiated and he was suspended, “officers responding to incidents became afraid to detain or take intoxicated individuals to sobering-up facilities if they refused to put on shoes or gloves.”
“They are afraid to use coercive measures because they fear the consequences I have faced. This has already affected their behavior, and if I am convicted, it will affect it even more,” he assessed.
“In the police community, everyone believes the court will acquit me—perhaps the indictment will not even be read out. It is simply about wearing me down mentally and dragging out the suspension to a year so that I can be expelled from the service,” Sgt. Michał Czabrowski concluded.
Police Officers Must Not Be Afraid
Sgt. Czabrowski’s attorney, Bartosz Lewandowski, emphasized in his comment to Niezależna.pl that the case “is causing and will continue to cause a chilling effect within the police.”
“It essentially concerns the possibility of using direct coercive measures. We are not talking about violence or beating a detainee. Nor are we talking about the use of unlawful measures. We are talking about a police officer in a highly dynamic situation, where the detained person refused to cooperate—was aggressive, insulted officers, refused to follow commands, and would not move away from knives, meaning officers could not approach him—using an adequate coercive measure in the form of a single spray of pepper spray in order to subdue him,” the lawyer explained.
He stressed that despite these circumstances, and despite “the detailed and extensive justification of the provincial police commander’s decision in the disciplinary case, in which experienced officers clearly stated that no regulations were violated,” the prosecutor disregarded this and maintained the preventive measure of suspension while filing an indictment with the court.
“As a result, Sgt. Czabrowski faces the prospect of dismissal from the service, even though he has not been convicted by a final court judgment, and disciplinary proceedings concluded that everything was in proper order and that coercive measures were applied appropriately. Police officers cannot be afraid of consequences or wonder whether using spray or a baton will lead to criminal charges. This is some kind of misunderstanding,” the lawyer concluded.