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

Judgment No. 1286 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation marks a significant step forward in the protection of individual rights, particularly concerning the evidentiary seizure of electronic devices. In this case, the Court declared the seizure of a mobile phone illegitimate, emphasizing the need for adequate reasoning by the public prosecutor. This article will explore the implications of the judgment and its relevance in the current legal context.

The Context of the Judgment

The Court addressed the issue of evidence-gathering methods, with specific reference to the comprehensive evidentiary seizure of messages, photographs, and videos stored on an electronic device. The decision was made in response to a seizure order that did not provide sufficient justification regarding the necessity of fully examining the data present on the device for the investigation of the alleged crimes.

Comprehensive evidentiary seizure of messaging, photographs, and videos stored in the memory of an electronic device - Obligation to provide reasoning - Content - Lack thereof - Nullity - Existence - Derivative nullity of the forensic copy - Existence. In the context of evidence-gathering methods, the order for the evidentiary seizure of a mobile phone, by which the public prosecutor acquires all messages, videos, and photographs contained therein, without indicating the reasons why, for the purpose of investigating the alleged crimes, the integral verification of all the aforementioned data is essential and justifies, in compliance with the principle of proportionality, such a profound infringement of the right to the secrecy of correspondence, is illegitimate. (In its reasoning, the Court specified that, in such a hypothesis, the nullity of the seizure extends, pursuant to art. 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the acquisition of the forensic copy of the entire device memory).

Reasoning and the Principle of Proportionality

One of the central issues raised by the Court concerns the obligation to provide reasoning for the seizure order. Italian law, particularly Article 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requires that any measure limiting fundamental rights must be clearly and precisely justified. The Court emphasized that the acquisition of personal data must comply with 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 secrecy of correspondence must be guaranteed.
• Every measure must be accompanied by exhaustive reasoning.

Implications of the Judgment

Judgment No. 1286 of 2024 not only clarifies the importance of reasoning in seizure orders but also the respect for citizens' fundamental rights. This decision is part of a broader context where data protection and privacy are becoming increasingly central in criminal law. With the advent of digital technologies, it is crucial that judicial authorities adhere to principles of legality and proportionality, avoiding abuses of power that could infringe upon individual rights.

Conclusions

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