Leire Díez, a central figure in the ongoing “cloacas del PSOE” investigation, has challenged the Guardia Civil’s Central Operative Unit (UCO) seizure of her personal devices and documents during police raids. Filed with Madrid’s Central Court of Instruction No. 5, the motion disputes the legitimacy of evidence gathered in one of Spain’s most closely scrutinized political cases. The wider investigation, led by Audiencia Nacional investigating judge Santiago Pedraz, concerns alleged efforts to interfere with police and judicial proceedings affecting the PSOE and the Spanish Government.
Díez’s defense argues that her arrest on December 10, 2025, in Madrid’s Paseo de la Castellana, was excessive and lacked sufficient justification. Her lawyer, Eva María Bejarano, says the detention was disproportionate and violated Díez’s constitutional right to liberty under Article 17. The defense also questions why she was not summoned voluntarily: the investigation had been open for a year, and she had not previously been detained.
The arrest led to searches at Díez’s residences in Madrid, Vizcaya and Cantabria. UCO agents seized mobile phones, computers, notebooks and agendas. The defense says they took the materials indiscriminately, without controls or safeguards to protect personal or family information. Her legal team maintains that agents acted without a judicial warrant and without any flagrant criminal activity, a condition it says Spanish law requires for such intrusive measures.
Investigators are examining whether Díez, former PSOE organization secretary Santos Cerdán and businessman Javier Pérez Dolset sought compromising information about judges, prosecutors, investigators and witnesses to discredit them or weaken sensitive cases. Reported areas of interest include the “caso Koldo” and the hydrocarbons investigation, as well as inquiries involving the prime minister’s brother and wife and matters connected to public-sector entities linked to SEPI. These allegations provide the broader investigative context; Díez’s filing specifically contests the lawfulness and scope of the searches and seizures.
In her filing, Díez argues that the lack of judicial authorization left no clear definition of which items agents could seize or why entering her homes was necessary for the investigation. She says the broad confiscation of personal and professional data affecting her and her family was arbitrary and unjustified. The defense also contends that, because the detention itself was invalid, all subsequent actions and evidence derived from it should be considered void.
The defense argues that any interference with private communications or data requires explicit judicial approval. It describes the UCO’s access to the full contents of Díez’s devices and documents as disproportionate and unrelated to the stated aims of uncovering criminal activity or securing evidence. The defense says the absence of a judicial mandate undermines the legitimacy of the entire operation. A related dispute involves Cerdán, whose defense has objected to transferring material from his home to the judge handling the “caso Koldo.” It argues that the proceedings have different objects and that evidence sharing must be limited to material shown to be relevant.
The inquiry has also turned to party contracts and payments. Judge Pedraz requested information from the PSOE about contracts with lawyers and consultants after party manager Ana María Fuentes was questioned as an investigated party. The order reportedly preserved professional secrecy and the party’s right to withhold information that could incriminate it. PSOE secretary of Organization Rebeca Torró said the party “no tiene constancia de ello” when asked whether payments to lawyers had ended up in Díez’s hands. She described responding during an electoral campaign as “complicada.”
Investigators have also examined handwritten agendas and other documents linked to Díez and Cerdán. Reports on the seized material describe references to judges, prosecutors, ministers and Guardia Civil personnel, including prosecutors connected to the Fiscalía de la Audiencia Nacional. Investigators are assessing the agendas for signs of efforts to gather information about the early stages of the hydrocarbons investigation and the “caso Koldo.” Their presence among the seized materials makes the dispute over access, relevance and safeguards basic to the legal challenge.
The challenge comes as privacy and procedural safeguards in Spanish investigations face heightened scrutiny. Similar concerns have surfaced in other high-profile cases, including the controversy over the leak of confidential data belonging to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, which reignited debate about the protection of personal information in Spain. For more context on the broader legal and privacy implications, see this analysis of recent privacy breaches involving political figures.
The court’s ruling on Díez’s challenge could determine whether the seized devices and documents, or evidence derived from them, can be used in the proceedings. It could also clarify how investigators must define the scope of digital searches and protect information unrelated to the alleged offenses. The court will assess the circumstances of the searches, the authorization relied upon and the safeguards applied to the material. Its decision will affect the balance between investigative powers and individual rights in this politically sensitive case.
