Seizure for Evidence and Duration: Commentary on Judgment No. 36776 of 2024
Judgment No. 36776 of July 4, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a topic of particular relevance in the context of criminal law: the duration of the seizure for evidence of computer or telematic devices. This measure is crucial for investigations but must comply with certain principles of legality and proportionality, as highlighted by the ruling's maxim.
The Ruling's Maxim
Seizure for evidence of computer or telematic devices - Extraction of data of investigative interest - Reasonable duration of the constraint - Necessity - Assessment - Unavailability of access keys - Impact. In terms of seizure for evidence, the purpose of the removal of the device for its subsequent analysis, instrumental to the identification and extraction of relevant "files" for the investigations, implies that the prolongation of the constraint, in compliance with the principles of proportionality and adequacy, must be limited to the time necessary for the technical operations, but the reasonable duration must be related to the technical difficulties in retrieving the data, which should be considered increased in the event of the suspect's lack of cooperation, who does not provide access keys to the databases contained in the seized devices.
Principles of Proportionality and Necessity
The Court emphasizes that the prolongation of the seizure must be justified by necessity and proportionality. This means that the time of detention of the seized devices must not exceed what is strictly necessary to conduct the technical analyses. If the suspect does not cooperate, for example by not providing the access keys to the data, the situation could become complicated, requiring an extension of the constraint, but always within reasonable limits.
Practical and Regulatory Implications
This ruling fits into a well-defined regulatory context, referencing articles of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, such as Article 247, which governs seizures for evidence. It is essential that law enforcement and the judiciary respect the indicated timelines, avoiding abuses that could compromise the protection of the suspect's rights. Both Italian and European regulations emphasize the protection of fundamental rights, including privacy and the protection of personal data.
- Importance of the suspect's cooperation
- Respecting the principles of proportionality
- Need for timely technical analysis
Conclusions
In conclusion, Judgment No. 36776 of 2024 provides an important reflection on the management of seizures for evidence in the digital realm. It is essential for legal practitioners to understand the implications of such measures and adhere to the principles of proportionality and necessity, thus ensuring a fair balance between investigative needs and the rights of the suspects.
