He was taken to the police station after he had called the police in the Supreme Court: his cell phone was seized and returned to his place of origin.

On the morning of 22 September, Hirano visited Min Lin Chun-feng with information on her husband ' s complaint to the People ' s Visiting and Reception Area of the Beijing Supreme People ' s Court. She was supposed to line up and submit her materials, but the incident was caused by a phone shooting problem with the security guards on the scene. Lin Chun-feng stated that the security guards had robbed her of her cell phone and verbally abused, beaten and strangled her. She then called 110 police, but the civilian police who arrived at the scene did not take the two parties away at the same time, but instead took her to the police station at the Little Red Gate.

After the police report, the reporter became the one who was checked on the phone

The statements of the client disclosed by the rights movement on 25 September indicate that Lin Chun-fin was asked to unlock and undergo a mobile phone check when he arrived at the police station. After she refused, her mobile phone was held in custody for a time. That afternoon, she received a " Notice-Book ". This means that her complaint against the conflict on the ground was not brought into the criminal proceedings, while she herself experienced removal, mobile phone screening and detention of equipment.

The Supreme People ' s Court Network of Officials states that its people ' s visiting reception room is located at the 40th location of the Red Gate village of the Little Red Gate in the Zhongyang district of Beijing city. This is an important window of access to the highest judicial authorities in the country and has been a long-term gathering of people from all over the country. The incident in Lin Chunfin was thus more than just an ordinary dispute: when a complainant called a police report after a conflict between the security forces and the area where he was received by the Supreme Court, how the police dealt with the source and the accused party, directly related to the law enforcement border at the place of the letter.

The expression “to return to Hubei”, to bring back the incident for interception

Lin Chun-fin then went to the Beijing City Public Security Bureau to brief the public and was taken to the East China Road Police Station and left at night. She and her colleagues feared that local officials might intervene and forcibly return her to her 10th. The Movement also referred to another visitor at the scene, stating that security officers had spoken about the police contacting the lake party to bring Lin Chun-Fin back to his place of origin.

The return of people to Kyoto, the interception or restriction of movement by local forces is a long-standing dispute in China ' s mail and communications administration. Wing Chun-Fing has entered this disposal chain this time, and what is visible from the public information is that she was taken away from the police station, that her mobile phone was checked and detained, and that I am concerned about her return. The most valuable of such incidents is not an oral ex post facto interpretation, but rather a record of 110 alarms, a law enforcement recorder, on-site surveillance, a " Notice No Case " and a mobile phone seizure.

Conflict at the door of the Supreme Court, the chain of responsibility cannot be blurred

Lin Chun-feng first complained of violence by security officers in the receiving area under the highest law; The subsequent treatment of the source by the public security authorities. The lines of responsibility are not identical but they occur on the same day in succession. If security personnel are involved in the looting of a mobile phone or violence, it should be returned to law enforcement records and surveillance; If the police check, withhold and remove the phone from the source, they should also be able to respond to specific powers and instruments.

To date, the Supreme People ' s Court and Beijing Police have not responded publicly to the allegations made by Lin Chun-fin regarding the 22 September experience. The incident left a clear timeline: to go to Beijing to submit complaints, to clash with security, to report to the police, to be taken to police stations, to have mobile phones checked and detained, to receive a notification of failure to open a case, and to continue to report to the Beijing City Public Security Bureau. For a citizen who relies on a channel of appeal for relief, the timeline itself indicates a power relationship that deserves to be recorded on a continuous basis between the letter-entry and the security disposal.