Police knock, Mangwan bail, mobile location: the case turned back to the Public Prosecution Service after Zhang Fang Sook reported

$10,000, a locator software, a phrase “is not illegal in police uniform”

• three details left by Hebei Koichi Zhang Sook, a police entry operation and subsequent complaints.

On 8 September 2026, at around 9 a.m., the Director of the North Station Security Police Station, the High-tech Development Division of the Public Security Directorate of the City of Water, Soswey, arrived at Zhang Fong Sook's residence. According to reports by the Hebei correspondent on 15 October, the police had the property crew knock first, opened the door and searched it, taking Falun Gong books and the relevant portraits. Reports indicate that police officers failed to present police officers ' certificates, search warrants or legal documents and damaged the vases in the house. The legality of the search procedures involved here cannot be determined by the uniform itself, but the question is whether there is a corresponding legal authority and a verifiable instrument.

Subsequently, Zhang Fang Sook was taken to the North Station Security Police Station. She was reportedly refused to cooperate with the interrogation and was handcuffed by the police and taken to another location where she was forced to collect human information; Several people held her arms and strangled her neck, causing her to faint. The report also documented that she was pressured to continue questioning and sign after she regained consciousness. These serious physical coercions are disclosed through victim channels and there are currently no public independent investigation reports or complete law enforcement videos; However, the question of whether law enforcement officials use violence beyond the necessary limits should be investigated and accountable.

First file to be made public: the basis of the search

The case began with a knock by property personnel. The identity of property in the neighbourhood means daily service, but the protection of home rights is even more in need of clear legal procedures if the police are to open the door to private homes by means of property. Ming Hui Network identified Soyuz as a participant in the operation and reported that there were also persons who claimed to belong to “610”. The report cannot be used as a basis for law enforcement agencies, as the full range of police officers ' functions and legal authorization materials are not made public.

On 23 September, Ming Hui Network Continental News provided a brief disclosure of Zhang Fang Sook's removal, delivery and mobile phone positioning software. New reports on 15 October further described the forced collection of information, the rejection of complaints and the admission of cases to the prosecution service. Two open points of time allowed for the event to develop retroactively, not just an isolated complaint.

Second file to be made public: what is 10,000 dollars?

On the same day, Zhang Fang Sook returned home after the family had delivered $10,000, and the police allegedly took “back-to-trial” measures and installed locator software on her mobile phone, asking her not to leave the water account, to open the door all day and to be brought there. The power of attorney to grant bail pending trial is not an arbitrary restriction of movement. The existence of formal decisions, bond receipts, written requirements to restrict travel, and the legal basis for the location of mobile phones all relate to the legality of coercive measures.

The report used the term “forced payment of $10,000”, but no receipt of the money was provided, and therefore it is not possible to directly determine the legal nature of the money at this time. The prosecution authorities have the responsibility to review the legality of investigative activities and the acquisition of evidence, rather than receiving only material transferred by the police.

Third record to be made public: 12389 on how to handle complaints

On returning home, Zhang Fang Sook complained about the Sou Wei ' s break-in through the reporting channel of the Public Security organs,

1. Ming Hui stated that more than a month later, the Platform ' s agents had told her that the matter could not be handled and warned her not to continue to make calls. The report repeats a very representative phrase: “They are not illegal to come to your house in police uniforms. The blogger adds:

If this response is correct, the question is not just that the complaint has no results, but that the identity of law enforcement officials is used as evidence of the legality of the act. Police uniforms represent State authorization and also imply stricter procedural constraints; It cannot automatically make illegal searches or excessive force lawful.

On 15 October, Ming Hui reported that the case had been brought before the Peach City District Public Prosecutor ' s Office in Water Succum. The disclosure of the transfer documents, the review of the status of the indictment, specific allegations and the involvement of counsel has not yet been made. The Public Prosecutor ' s Office of the city of Peach has highlighted the quality of legal supervision and the handling of cases in official reports, and the case of Zhang Fang Sook is providing a specific test of whether the police can be investigated, collected information, coercive measures and complaints dealt with, rather than considering the beliefs of the persons concerned as grounds for punishment.

From the door of the house on 8 September to the prosecution service in October, Zhang Fang Sook is still facing the same set of State powers. What she needed most was not an abstract “legal” commitment, but three things that could be put to public scrutiny: the basis for the search, the instrument of coercive measures, the conclusions of the investigation into the complaint.