A Moscow city court upheld the arrest of American citizen Joseph Tater, ruling that no violations of his legal rights occurred during his detention.
No Violations
Tater, who was taken into custody on August 12, faces charges related to a disturbance and an alleged assault on a police officer, according to court documents obtained by Russian news agency TASS.
The court documents state that “no violations of the criminal procedure laws of the Russian Federation or of rights granted by the Russian Constitution have been found” in Tater’s case.
As such, the court ruled out any grounds for reducing his detention measures, maintaining that his alleged actions represent a “medium-gravity” offense under Russian law.
According to the court, the evidence provided in the case materials supports Tater’s involvement in the incident, making him ineligible for a lighter pretrial measure.
Denied Check In
The incident reportedly began at the Radisson Hotel in Moscow, where Tater attempted to check in but was denied. Hotel staff requested prior residency information in Moscow, which Tater provided.
However, due to an unsatisfactory report from his previous accommodations, the hotel declined his stay. Following the refusal, Tater allegedly became verbally abusive and acted aggressively, leading to police intervention.
He was subsequently taken to the Meschansky District police department, where, according to police reports, Tater assaulted a female officer.
This led to both an administrative and a criminal case. Initially, authorities charged Tater with disorderly conduct under an administrative violation, sentencing him to 15 days in detention.
However, following his alleged assault on the police officer, Moscow's Investigative Committee launched a criminal case under Article 318, Part 1, of the Russian Criminal Code, which involves the use of violence against an official and carries a possible prison sentence of up to five years.
Tater’s legal team filed an appeal, challenging the conditions of his detention. However, the court dismissed these arguments, concluding that his detention followed proper procedure and that no constitutional rights had been infringed.
