House searches in Bavaria repeatedly cause criticism and legal disputes. The Federal Constitutional Court has now strengthened the rights of people against whom there was no suspicion of a crime in two cases.

In 2024, the Nuremberg public prosecutor's office investigated a person who was said to have posted illegal graffiti. The authorities attribute the case to the “left-wing scene”. In his pursuit, house searches were carried out. Including roommates of a suspected person. The person then lodged a complaint against the procedure.

The Nuremberg regional court initially rejected his complaint. Before theFederal Constitutional Court(BVerfG) two years later the man was finally proven right - the police's behavior was unconstitutional. Simply living with an accused person is not a sufficient basis for searching your own, exclusively used rooms. According to Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, higher requirements apply to searches of non-suspect persons.

Constitutional Court overturns decision

On September 17thThis year, the Federal Constitutional Court published a total of two decisions on constitutional complaints against criminal searches of non-suspect persons. In both cases, the court considered the fundamental right to inviolability of the home under Article 13 paragraph 1 of the Basic Law violated.

What is crucial is that the mere fact of living with an accused person is not enough. There must be concrete, fact-based evidence that the item being sought is actually in the unsuspected person's premises. The mere possibility that a roommate has access to a room does not fundamentally justify such suspicion.

At the same time, the Federal Constitutional Court made it clear that this does not prevent effective criminal prosecution. If investigators find concrete evidence during a lawfully ordered search that evidence is in the premises of a non-suspect person, a separate court order can be obtained. The court does not consider it necessary to issue a precautionary search warrant against all roommates. In doing so, the Federal Constitutional Court expressly corrected the previous decisions of the Nuremberg judiciary.

22 searches due to anti-fascist protests

On March 11, 2026, the police searched the apartments of people who were accused, among other things, of breach of the peace in connection with the anti-fascist counter-protest against the right-wing day of action “Together for Germany” in April 2025.

At that time, around 100 counter-demonstrators are said to have broken through a police line. Activists were confronted with horses. One person was kicked by the animal, one of the toes was crushed, one of the fingers was broken.

According to the investigating authorities, the house searches included data storage devices and items of clothing. The measures focused on Nuremberg and the surrounding area. Individual searches also took place in Leipzig and Hesse.

While the investigative authorities largely justify the house searches with the search for evidence and to clarify identities, those affected see this as an increase in attempts at intimidation by the state.

“Known over by a police horse” – Injured during demonstration and blockade in Nuremberg

Try to intimidate people

The time lag is also striking: there was almost a year between the protest and the searches. The police justified the long period of time with the scope of the investigation. According to Bayerischer Rundfunk, there were initially between 150 and 200 suspects in connection with the events.

Those affected and their supporters criticized the searches as an attempt to intimidate anti-fascist protests; rallies in solidarity took place on the same day.

There was also criticism at the time through anonymous reports from individual police officers. Individual police officers confirmed thisBRconfidentially that the searches were intended to intimidate and weaken the scene. They are intended to intimidate the “scene” in order to reduce the weekly police effort. However, a court decision on the legal assessment of the house searches has not yet been made.

Lawyer Yunus Ziyal, who represents a data subject,expressed doubtson the legality and expediency of the search. In particular, the question arises as to why house searches were necessary to secure evidence almost a year after the incident.

22 house searches due to anti-fascist counter-protest in Nuremberg

Illegal searches also occurred in Augsburg

Not just in Nuremberg, also inAugsburg are house searchesmost recently challenged in court. In connection with the controversial raid on the “City Club”, the apartment and vehicle of an employee of the nightclub were searched in July 2026.

In the aftermath of the raids, the police measures were met with sharp criticism from numerous visitors, among others. The allegations made by several women are particularly serious: they all reported that they were forced to bare their genitals during the searches.

The Augsburg regional court declared the specific measure unlawful at the beginning of September. In the court's opinion, there was no sufficient initial suspicion against the employee. The background was an earlier raid on the club in which narcotics were found in an adjoining room. The investigators had made a possible connection with people who worked behind the bar.

However, this connection was not sufficient for the court. Other people would also have had access to the room and could have deposited items there. In the court's opinion, the activities of the employees in the club alone did not give rise to sufficient suspicion. The Augsburg district court had previously objected to another measure surrounding the raid. The search of the rooms of the adjacent theater club “theter” was also declared unlawful.

Police demonstration of force during raid on Augsburg club: “None of this must become normal”

“Bavarian toughness”

This approach by the Bavarian authorities is not an isolated case, but for many critics it is part of a systematic wave of criminalization. Left-wing activists and revolutionary groups are regularly targeted by the judiciary through, among other things, house searches. Not infrequently because of supposedly minor crimes.

The Bavarian harshness was already evident in a series of searches in Augsburg in 2024: The investigators arrived at the Open Antifa Meeting (OAT) because an Instagram post had been shared that contained sensitive data from an AfD politician. At the district organization Solidarity Network in Augsburg, laminated notices expressing solidarity with the Palestinian liberation struggle were enough to justify apartment searches.

There are an increasing number of cases in which courts have not considered the legal requirements for specific search measures to have been met.

The postTwo years later: house search in Nuremberg classified as unconstitutionalappeared firstperspective.