E-10-A｜Police Notice of Arrest and Forced Psychiatric Admission

Formal Copenhagen Police notice stating that Beizi Li had been registered for arrest and psychiatric admission.
This was not a routine administrative message, but a state enforcement document initiating coercive action.

I. Document Summary

This document is an official written notice issued by Københavns Politi (Copenhagen Police), Eftersøgningssektion 2 on 05 June 2023, under case number 0100-83169-01139-23. It clearly states that because Beizi Li did not appear as requested at Psykiatrisk Center Amager, the police had been requested to arrest her for psychiatric admission.

This was not an ordinary administrative notice. It was a state enforcement document initiating coercive action. It proves that the psychiatric intervention against Beizi Li in the summer of 2023 was not merely a medical recommendation, but a coordinated coercive action involving both the police and the psychiatric system. When read together with the later on-site events, the execution was not a routine visit or verbal persuasion, but was carried out through forced entry into the residence and physical removal, demonstrating the high level of coercion involved.

II. Basic Information

III. Key Extract

The most critical sentence in the document is:

politiet er blevet anmodet om, at anholde Dem til indlæggelse

The meaning in English is: The police have been requested to arrest you for admission.

The document further states that Beizi Li had already been registered as a person sought by the police and could be arrested at any time and in any place, including:

• at her residence
• at her workplace
• at other places where she might stay
• upon entering or leaving Denmark

IV. Evidentiary Significance

1. It proves that the police directly participated in the subsequent chain of forced psychiatric admission.
2. It proves that the admission was not a matter of “voluntary treatment” or an ordinary medical recommendation, but was based on police arrest and enforcement.
3. It proves that the measures taken against Beizi Li in the summer of 2023 had already escalated into coordinated control of personal liberty by both the police and the psychiatric system.
4. When read together with the on-site events and audio evidence, the execution corresponding to this document was not a normal administrative contact, but a highly coercive police action carried out through forced entry into the residence.
5. It serves as the initiating document for the later chain of forced injection, degrading treatment, and psychiatric confinement.

V. Procedural Dispute｜Whether Effective Service Occurred Before Arrest

Although this document is dated 05 June 2023, Beizi Li raises serious concerns regarding its procedural validity. The central issue is not merely whether the document existed, but whether it was lawfully and effectively served before the police actually carried out the arrest, so that she had real notice of it.

Beizi Li states that before being taken away by the police, she had not actually seen or become aware of this document through e-Boks or any other accessible channel. In other words, even if the document existed in the system, that fact alone does not prove that it had been effectively served before the enforcement action.

More seriously, during the execution the police did not arrive merely to notify or persuade. They carried out the removal through forced entry into the residence. At the scene, Beizi Li explicitly requested that the police show the written legal basis for the arrest and psychiatric admission, but the police did not present this document or any other clear and verifiable legal authorization.

On this point, Beizi Li retains on-site audio recordings that may demonstrate that she requested the legal basis and documentation, and that the police did not fulfill this procedural obligation.

Therefore, this document should not be treated simply as an ordinary notice letter. Its procedural effectiveness in the actual execution must be examined. If it had not been effectively served before the arrest, and if the police also failed to present legal authorization while carrying out forced entry and forced removal, then the mere existence of the document cannot automatically establish that the deprivation of liberty was lawfully completed.

VI. Related Audio Evidence

VII. Download

VIII. Contact and Supplementary Materials

For supplementary leads, media inquiries, or case-related materials, please contact:

connectbeizili@proton.me