Seizure of Evidence of Digital Data: Commentary on Judgment No. 17312 of 2024

The recent Judgment No. 17312 of February 15, 2024, filed on April 24, 2024, provides an important occasion for reflection on the topic of seizure of evidence of data contained in electronic or telematic devices. This ruling, issued by the Court of Cassation, establishes fundamental requirements for the validity of a seizure, emphasizing the importance of proportionality and the obligation of motivation by the public prosecutor.

The Principles of Proportionality and Motivation

According to the principle stated in the ruling, the seizure order must clearly detail the reasons why such an incisive intervention is necessary. It is essential that the public prosecutor outlines:

  • The reasons for the extensive and comprehensive seizure;
  • The specific information being sought;
  • The criteria for selecting the electronic material;
  • The justification for the temporal limitation of the data of interest;
  • The timeframe within which the selection and return of irrelevant data will occur.

These requirements not only guarantee the rights of the accused but also allow for a more accurate assessment of the necessity of the precautionary measure.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

The decision of the Court of Cassation has significant consequences for judicial practice. In particular, judicial authorities will need to pay greater attention when drafting seizure orders, avoiding generic requests that may violate individuals' right to privacy. The Court emphasized that an inadequately justified seizure is not only ineffective but also potentially illegitimate.

Seizure of evidence of data contained in electronic or telematic devices - Proportionality of the measure - Necessity - Obligation of motivation - Content. Regarding the seizure of evidence of data contained in electronic or telematic devices, the public prosecutor's order, in order to allow for an adequate assessment of the proportionality of the measure both in the genetic phase and in the executive phase, must illustrate the reasons for which it is necessary to order an extensive and comprehensive seizure or, alternatively, the specific information being sought, the criteria for selecting the electronic material stored in the device, the justification for any temporal limitation of the data of interest in significantly different terms from the temporal boundaries of the provisional charge, and the timeframe within which such selection will be made, resulting in the return of a digital copy of the irrelevant data.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 17312 of 2024 represents an important step in the protection of individuals' fundamental rights in an era where digital data are increasingly at the center of criminal investigations. The obligation of motivation and the assessment of the proportionality of the seizure are principles that, if applied correctly, can ensure a fair balance between investigative needs and respect for privacy. It is therefore essential that legal professionals adhere to these guidelines to avoid abuses and ensure a fair trial.

Bianucci Law Firm