Michel Brissard disputes a prosecution for importing weapons

The director and curator of the D-Day Omaha museum in Vierville, Michel Brissard, was to appear one Thursday before the Chartres Criminal Court for illegal importation of weapons. He denied any trafficking and denounced a situation that he considered aberrant. The article announced a request for a fine of thirteen thousand euros, the confiscation of the items and a maximum of ten years in prison; it did not yet report the judgment.

His lawyer, Me Philippe Mullot, traced the facts back to July 7, 2007. Customs officers from Rouen had gone to a museum storage facility, at his client's home in Nogent-le-Rotrou. He described it as a storage facility declared under a lease, comparable to those of other museums. Around ten heavy weapons, including an anti-tank gun and rocket launchers, were reportedly seized. The agents had also come to Vierville to ask for an invoice for a cannon and take equipment.

Michel Brissard argued that the requirement of an invoice for each object entered France was inappropriate for the remains of 1944. He took the example of the tanks exhibited in Vimoutiers and in the Écouves forest. He said he had never engaged in trafficking, suspected a denunciation related to an expansion project and declared himself supported by scandalized relatives.

Me Mullot believed that Article 215 of the Customs Code, allowing to request the origin of dangerous materials, was diverted from its purpose. He feared that the lack of proof would prevent museums from acquiring important pieces, with fines that could, according to his analysis, reach five times the value of the equipment and the loss of objects sometimes entrusted to their curator.

The lawyer denounced a contradiction between customs, prefectural authorization and police register necessary for the entry of a weapon into a museum. He equated the fine requested to the value of the seizures and accused the administration of seeking an easy settlement. He called for a text to be clarified that the prefectural authorization to present weapons and ammunition was proof of origin.

The editorial staff had contacted Rouen customs, who had referred her to their press service in Paris. He had not responded to calls or emails before publication. The legal criticisms and interpretations reported are those of Michel Brissard and his defense.

Reconstructed or uncertain passages:
- This cut presents an ongoing case and the defense's arguments; it does not contain either the judgment or the outcome of the proceedings. The penalties and customs provisions are reported as indicated in the old article, without claiming to describe the current law.

Archive image: https://vierville.cordelle.eu/PhotosDocuments3/Image4.jpg