Evidentiary Seizure of Computer Data: Commentary on Judgment No. 17312 of 2024

The recent Judgment No. 17312 of February 15, 2024, filed on April 24, 2024, offers an important opportunity for reflection on the subject of evidentiary seizure of data contained in computer 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 enunciated in the judgment, the seizure order must clearly detail the reasons why such an incisive intervention is necessary. It is essential that the public prosecutor sets forth:

• The reasons for the extended and all-encompassing seizure;
• The specific information sought;
• The criteria for selecting the computer material;
• The justification for the temporal perimeter 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 defendant but also allow for a more accurate assessment of the necessity of the precautionary measure.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

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 could violate individuals' right to privacy. The Court has emphasized that an inadequately motivated seizure is not only ineffective but also potentially unlawful.

Evidentiary seizure of data contained in computer or telematic devices - Proportionality of the measure - Necessity - Obligation of motivation - Content. Regarding the evidentiary seizure of data contained in computer or telematic devices, the public prosecutor's order, in order to allow an adequate assessment of the proportionality of the measure both in the genetic and executive phases, must illustrate the reasons why it is necessary to order an extended and all-encompassing seizure or, alternatively, the specific information sought, the criteria for selecting the computer material stored on the device, the justification for any temporal perimeter of the data of interest in terms significantly different from the temporal boundaries of the provisional charge, and the timeframe within which such selection will be carried out, with the consequent return of the digital copy of irrelevant data.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 17312 of 2024 represents an important step in the protection of fundamental individual rights in an era where digital data is 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 practitioners adhere to these guidelines to avoid abuses and ensure a fair trial.