Seizure of Evidence and Privacy: Commentary on Judgment No. 37409 of 2024

The judgment No. 37409 of September 10, 2024, filed on October 10, 2024, provides an important clarification regarding the seizure of evidence from electronic devices and the subsequent management of the personal data contained within them. The case in question involves the defendant S. V. and addresses the issue of the proportionality of the means of evidence collection in relation to the protection of personal data that is not relevant to the investigations.

Legal Context and Regulatory Provisions

The issue of seizure of evidence is governed by the New Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Articles 253 and 254, which regulate the execution of the seizure and the protection of the rights of the individuals involved. In this case, the Court established that if the electronic devices have been returned to the rightful owner after the extraction of a forensic copy, it is possible to request a review to verify the proportionality of the constraint. This principle is crucial to ensure that individuals' privacy is respected even in the context of criminal investigations.

The Maxim of the Judgment

Seizure of evidence of electronic devices - Return to the rightful owner prior to forensic copy extraction - Interest in appeal for the purpose of verifying the proportionality of the constraint regarding personal data - Configurability - Conditions. In the context of the seizure of evidence, where the constraint concerns electronic devices containing computer data, already returned to the rightful owner following the extraction of a "forensic copy," the request for review aimed at verifying the proportionality of the means of evidence collection concerning personal data that is not relevant for investigative purposes is admissible only if it is demonstrated that there is a concrete and current interest in the exclusive availability of the data contained in the extracted copy.

This maxim highlights that the right to privacy cannot be overlooked even during the investigation phase, and that to request a review, it is necessary to demonstrate a concrete interest in the availability of the data. This means that the mere existence of personal data within a device does not automatically justify invasive intervention; a legitimate and current interest must be present.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

Judgment No. 37409 of 2024 has several practical implications:

• Acknowledging the right to privacy: The decision emphasizes the importance of protecting personal data during criminal investigations.
• Clarity in the review procedure: It provides clear criteria for requesting a review, establishing that a concrete interest must be demonstrated.
• Consequences for future investigations: It requires investigators to consider the proportionality of the measures adopted in relation to individual rights.

These aspects make the judgment an important reference point for lawyers and legal professionals, as it establishes a precedent that could influence future cases of seizure of evidence.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 37409 of 2024 represents a significant step towards greater protection of individual rights in the context of criminal investigations. The Court has managed to balance the needs of justice with the necessity of protecting personal data, ensuring that the seizure of evidence does not become a pretext for violating privacy. Lawyers will need to consider these new guidelines when representing their clients, both during the investigation and trial phases.