Introduction
The Court of Instruction No. 18 of Seville (Preliminary Proceedings number 1987/2018) issued an order on October 22, 2018, authorizing agents of the Investigation Group of the Triana National Police Station to access and analyze the information contained in the mobile phones seized from P.C.C. Specifically, it authorized the review of the WhatsApp application, the messaging application, and the image gallery of the three devices.
Case Summary
P.C.C. is accused of committing two crimes: robbery with violence and fraud. It is alleged that P.C.C. drugged the victim, M.A.C.H., to subsequently steal money from them.
From the victim’s statements, it is gathered that P.C.C. and a friend of theirs were at the former’s house on the afternoon of September 10, 2018, having some champagne; and that the next thing they remembered was being woken up by the cleaning lady at the speaker’s house, as they were lying on the living room floor.
After this, they were transferred to Virgen del Rocío Hospital, where the appropriate analyses were performed, confirming the presence of toxins in their system (benzodiazepines), as well as minor injuries from having been lying down for a long time.
When the victim returned home, they noticed that more than four thousand euros they had saved in their room had been stolen.
The accused and the victim knew each other, and both admit to having had sporadic relations, so the presence of P.C.C.’s fingerprints in M.A.C.H.’s home would not be unusual.
Following P.C.C.’s arrest, several items and documents were seized to determine if they were relevant to clarifying the facts. From the seized items, there is evidence to suggest the investigated person’s involvement in other criminal acts identical to those in this specific case. The aim is to analyze P.C.C.’s mobile devices to check if they have used the same modus operandi with other individuals.
Right to the Privacy of Communications
The right to secrecy of communications is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 18.3 of the Constitution: “The secrecy of communications, and especially of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, is guaranteed, except by judicial order.”
This right is guaranteed provided that there is no court order indicating the need to access such communications to facilitate the clarification of the facts. However, Article 120.3 of the Spanish Constitution stipulates that judgments must be reasoned:“Judgments shall always be reasoned and shall be rendered in open court.”
However, in the present case, the order from the Seville Court of Instruction does not provide sufficient argumentation to justify the necessity of violating P.C.C.’s right not to have their conversations and other information contained in their mobile device accessed.
Legal reasoning provided in the order
The magistrate issuing the order provides the following argumentation to authorize the agents of the Triana Police Station’s Investigation Group to access and analyze the information contained in the seized phones:
“FIRST.— Article 588, Series A and B, of the Criminal Procedure Act establishes the requirement to obtain a court order to access information stored on electronic devices seized from the person under investigation, whether as a result of a home search or by any other lawful means, and the judicial order must state the grounds justifying such a measure. In the present case, the following items were seized from the suspect, P.C.C., at the time of her arrest: three cell phones that were in her possession and are activated with phone lines contracted by the suspect herself; these devices are at the disposal of this Court and are in the custody of the Triana Police Department’s Investigation Unit. Based on the evidence gathered thus far in this case, there are indications that the suspect may have committed the alleged crimes of ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE and FRAUD against three different individuals, all men, always using the same modus operandi, which consisted of arranging to meet them for sexual contact and administering a substance that impairs their cognitive and volitional abilities; and given that documentation referring to other possible victims has also been seized from her, it is more than reasonable to assume that the seized mobile devices may contain information regarding the actual contacts made with these and even other victims, which could reveal the commission of similar acts; therefore, the requested investigative measure is deemed justified. Furthermore, considering that this is consistent with the guiding principles of specificity, appropriateness, exceptionality, and necessity referred to in Article 588.bis.a., authorization for its implementation is granted, under the terms established in this resolution.”
Violations. Appeal Procedures
As this order affects a fundamental right recognized in Article 18 of the Spanish Constitution, it must be considered sensitive. Consequently, and in accordance with the doctrine of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, it is inferred that judicial action must be adjusted to a greater extent to the principle of legality; otherwise, it would imply the nullity of the proceedings.
IN DIEM Lawyers, as the defense for the accused, considered the following measures null and void:
5.1 NULLITY OF THE MEASURE TO ACCESS TELEPHONE DATA. VIOLATION OF ART. 588. BIS. A LECRM. VIOLATION OF ART. 18 CE.
Reference is made to the principle of specificity, as it requires that decreed measures must refer to a specific crime and not be used to generally and indiscriminately discover criminal acts. This means that if judicial authorization is granted for the investigation of a specific criminal act, it is not permissible to investigate different criminal actions through it.
However, this order refers to undetermined and unnamed individuals; and it contains no mention of the connection between the investigated subjects and the specific criminal acts contained in said resolution.
Furthermore, regarding the principle of suitability, the LECRM requires that the measure be related to the investigation of a specific crime and that technological investigation measures aimed at preventing or discovering crimes or dispelling suspicions without an objective basis cannot be authorized, as is the case here, where the intervention measure has been authorized without any foundation or objective basis.
Regarding proportionality, it is argued that the limitation of a fundamental right is only appropriate if there is no less burdensome alternative through which the same desired outcome can be achieved. In this case, by not establishing a concrete correlation between the subjects, devices, evidence, specific facts, and penalty, the justification of proportionality is not fully met.
Finally, it is established that the adopted measures must comply with the principles of necessity and exceptionality and will only be justified when no other less burdensome measures for the fundamental rights of the investigated person are available to the investigation, and when the discovery of the investigated fact would be seriously hindered without resorting to this measure.
The appeal argues that there are less burdensome measures for P.C.C.’s Fundamental Rights and that the implementation of this measure does not condition the discovery of the investigated fact.
5.2 NULLITY OF THE MEASURE GRANTING ACCESS TO TELEPHONE DATA. INFRINGEMENT OF ART. 588 BIS B OF THE LECRIM. INFRINGEMENT OF ART. 18 OF THE SPANISH CONSTITUTION.
Article 588 bis.b of the LECRM regulates in detail the requirements for the Request for Judicial Authorization of investigative measures affecting the Rights under Article 18 of the Spanish Constitution.
However, the Request for Judicial Authorization by the Judicial Police contravenes the provisions of this article, as it does not contain the legally established content and lacks:
- A detailed description of the investigated act and the identity of the investigated person or any other person affected by the measure, provided such data are known.
- A detailed explanation of the reasons justifying the necessity of the measure, as well as the indications of criminality that have emerged during the preliminary investigation prior to the request for authorization of the intrusive act.
- Identification data of the investigated or accused person and, where applicable, of the communication means used that allow the execution of the measure.
- The manner of execution of the measure
5.3 NULLITY OF THE MEASURE TO ACCESS TELEPHONE DATA. MOTIVATION AND REQUIREMENTS. VIOLATION OF ART. 588. BIS. C LECRM. VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 18 CE.
This article regulates the requirements that the Judicial Authorization Order for investigative measures affecting the Rights under Article 18 of the Spanish Constitution must meet, and it can be seen that the Order dated October 22, 2018, contravenes the provisions of said article, as the following points are missing:
- The punishable act under investigation and its legal classification, with an expression of the rational indications on which the measure is based. The order does not specify the indications on which the measure is based and only refers to the documentation found, which, however, has not been analyzed.
- Extent of the intrusive measure, specifying its scope, as well as the reasoning regarding compliance with the guiding principles established in Article 588 bis a. The order mentions that access should refer to WhatsApp messaging, the messaging application, and the image gallery, but the purpose of the measure is neither reasoned nor specified.
- Form and periodicity with which the applicant will inform the judge about the results of the measure. There is no reference to the maximum time for the form and periodicity of informing the judge of the investigative measure.
- Purpose pursued with the measure. The purpose pursued with this measure is neither defined nor individualized. Furthermore, the order is not based on objective data, but solely on mere conjectures and suspicions that are insufficient to motivate and substantiate the measure.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the measure of accessing telephone data will in no case serve to clarify the alleged criminal acts, as His Honor has not justified the existing connection between the investigated crime and the authorized measure, which was only requested to dispel suspicions.
It is concluded by alleging that the appealed resolution is null and void by operation of law for violating Article 588.BIS.A, B and C of the LECRM, the principle of legality enshrined in Article 9 of the Spanish Constitution, the Rights and Public Freedoms of Article 18 of the Spanish Constitution, as well as the Fundamental Right to defense and effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution.
This appeal was upheld by the Provincial Court of Seville on November 28, 2018, which declared the order of October 22, 2018, null and void, rendering the authorization it contained ineffective. Subsequently, the devices were returned to P.C.C. and the reports generated from the analysis carried out until that moment were destroyed.
Consequently, the case continued only in relation to the facts reported by M.A.C.H.
Author: Sara Domínguez Ramos
Preguntas frecuentes sobre acceso a teléfonos móviles, secreto de las comunicaciones y nulidad de pruebas
¿Puede la policía acceder al contenido de un teléfono móvil intervenido?
La policía no puede acceder libremente al contenido de un teléfono móvil intervenido cuando la medida afecta a derechos fundamentales. Para analizar aplicaciones, mensajes, imágenes u otros datos personales suele ser necesaria una autorización judicial motivada y ajustada a la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal.
¿Qué derechos fundamentales pueden verse afectados?
El acceso a un dispositivo móvil puede afectar al derecho al secreto de las comunicaciones, a la intimidad, a la protección de datos personales y al derecho de defensa. Por ello, la autorización judicial debe ser especialmente rigurosa cuando permite revisar WhatsApp, mensajes, imágenes o información privada del investigado.
¿Qué debe contener una autorización judicial para analizar un teléfono?
La resolución debe identificar el delito investigado, los indicios existentes, los dispositivos afectados, el alcance de la medida, la finalidad perseguida, la forma de ejecución y las razones por las que la medida es necesaria, idónea, excepcional y proporcional.
¿Qué significa el principio de especialidad en una investigación tecnológica?
El principio de especialidad exige que la medida se dirija a investigar un delito concreto y no a realizar una búsqueda general e indiscriminada de posibles delitos. No debe autorizarse el acceso a datos telefónicos para despejar sospechas genéricas o investigar hechos no delimitados.
¿Qué es el principio de proporcionalidad en el acceso a datos móviles?
La proporcionalidad exige valorar si la injerencia en los derechos fundamentales está justificada por la gravedad del delito, la utilidad real de la medida y la inexistencia de alternativas menos invasivas. Si puede obtenerse la información por medios menos gravosos, la autorización puede ser discutible.
¿Puede declararse nulo el acceso a un teléfono móvil?
Sí. Si la autorización judicial no está suficientemente motivada, no concreta el objeto de investigación o vulnera los requisitos legales aplicables, puede solicitarse la nulidad de la medida y de los informes o pruebas obtenidos a partir del análisis del dispositivo.
¿Qué consecuencias tiene la nulidad de una medida de investigación tecnológica?
La nulidad puede dejar sin efecto la autorización judicial, impedir el uso de la información obtenida, ordenar la destrucción de informes derivados del análisis y limitar la causa a los hechos que puedan investigarse con pruebas válidas e independientes.
¿Qué importancia tiene la motivación del auto judicial?
La motivación es esencial porque permite controlar si la medida respeta la legalidad y los derechos fundamentales. No basta con citar artículos legales: el juez debe explicar de forma concreta por qué el acceso al dispositivo resulta necesario en ese caso concreto.
¿Puede recurrirse una autorización judicial de acceso a datos telefónicos?
Sí. La defensa puede impugnar la medida mediante los recursos procedentes si considera que se han vulnerado derechos fundamentales, que faltan indicios suficientes o que la resolución no cumple los requisitos de especialidad, idoneidad, necesidad, excepcionalidad y proporcionalidad.
¿Por qué conviene defensa penal especializada en estos casos?
Porque las medidas de investigación tecnológica pueden condicionar todo el procedimiento penal. Una defensa especializada puede revisar la legalidad de la intervención, detectar defectos de motivación, solicitar la nulidad de pruebas y proteger los derechos fundamentales del investigado desde las primeras fases del proceso.
Lawyers specializing in Breach of the Right to Secrecy of Communications | IN DIEM: Malaga, Seville, Madrid, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Almería, Huelva…
IN DIEM Lawyers has extensive experience and a high degree of specialization in Administrative and Criminal Law, related to the breach of the right to secrecy of communications, offering clients the appropriate procedural strategy and necessary advice at all times.
Abogados IN DIEM has a team with experience in roles such as magistrate, state attorney, prosecutor, and university professor, which will give you peace of mind and confidence, knowing you have the best team—one that is competitive and highly qualified to achieve your goals and meet your needs.
We are at your disposal for whatever you need. You can reach us through the IN DIEM Lawyers Telephone (+34) 901 900 071. In cases of Emergencies you have us at the 24-Hour Emergency Lawyers Telephone IN DIEM: (+34) 610 667 452.
Did you know that Abogados IN DIEM offers online and expedited services?
We offer our clients the option of receiving assistance via video call or videoconference, as well as by phone, depending on their preference, so that the assistance is as personalized as possible, provided immediately, and without the need to travel. This service is complemented by communication via email, which facilitates the review and delivery of documentation.
In addition, for businesses and individuals, IN DIEM Abogados offers urgent services and 24-hour support for matters that require a quick response.
Anything else about IN DIEM Lawyers? Here’s a short presentation video…
You can find us in Seville, Madrid, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Málaga, Huelva, Punta Umbría, Tomares, Coria del Río, Dos Hermanas, Mairena del Alcor, Estepona, Marbella, and Mairena del Aljarafe. We look forward to serving you.
To acknowledge some of you, here’s this link.
