Illegitimacy of Total Evidence Seizure: Analysis of Judgment No. 1286 of 2024

The judgment No. 1286 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation marks an important step forward in the protection of individual rights, particularly regarding the seizure of electronic devices for evidence. In this case, the Court declared the seizure of a mobile phone illegitimate, highlighting the need for adequate justification from the public prosecutor. This article will explore the implications of the ruling and its relevance in the current legal context.

The Context of the Judgment

The Court addressed the issue of means of evidence collection, specifically concerning the comprehensive seizure of messages, photographs, and videos stored on an electronic device. The decision was made in response to a seizure decree that failed to provide sufficient justifications regarding the necessity of examining all data on the device for the verification of the alleged crimes.

Comprehensive evidence seizure of messaging, photographs, and videos stored in the memory of an electronic device - Obligation of justification - Content - Lack - Nullity - Existence - Derivative nullity of the forensic copy - Existence. In terms of means of evidence collection, the decree for the evidence seizure of a mobile phone through which the public prosecutor acquires all messages, videos, and photographs contained therein, without indicating the reasons why, for the purposes of ascertaining the alleged crimes, a comprehensive verification of all the aforementioned data is indispensable and justifies, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, such an intrusive sacrifice of the right to the confidentiality of correspondence. (In the reasoning, the Court specified that, in this case, the nullity of the seizure extends, ex art. 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the acquisition of the forensic copy of the entire memory of the device).

The Justification and the Principle of Proportionality

One of the central issues raised by the Court concerns the obligation to justify the seizure measure. Italian law, particularly Article 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requires that any measure limiting fundamental rights must be justified clearly and precisely. The Court emphasized that the acquisition of personal data must respect the principle of proportionality, which implies that interference with privacy rights must be justified by concrete and documented investigative needs.

  • The seizure must be limited to data relevant to the investigation.
  • The confidentiality of correspondence must be guaranteed.
  • Each measure must be accompanied by comprehensive justification.

Implications of the Judgment

The judgment No. 1286 of 2024 not only clarifies the importance of justification in seizure decrees but also the respect for the fundamental rights of citizens. This decision fits into a broader context, where the protection of data and privacy is becoming increasingly central in criminal law. With the advent of digital technologies, it is essential that judicial authorities adhere to principles of legality and proportionality, avoiding abuses of power that may infringe individual rights.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the judgment No. 1286 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation represents an important legal reference for the regulation of evidence seizure. It reaffirms the principle that any limitation on fundamental rights must be justified and motivated, particularly when it comes to personal data stored on electronic devices. This case lays the groundwork for a future in which the respect for privacy and individual rights will be increasingly protected in the context of criminal investigations.

Bianucci Law Firm