Post by account_disabled on Mar 8, 2024 23:05:06 GMT -5
The constitutional protection of the right proclaimed in section 2 of article 18 of the EC protects, both against the unauthorized intrusion of the intruder into the domestic setting, and with respect to the clandestine observation of what happens inside, if this is necessary. use a technical device for recording or approximating images. The State cannot enter without judicial authorization into the space of exclusion that each citizen draws in relation to third parties (...) and this prohibition is violated when, without judicial authorization and to overcome the obstacles inherent to the inspection task, an optical device is used. "which allows the images to be enlarged and bridge the distance between the observer and what is observed," can be read in the Supreme Court ruling.
In this sense, the magistrates try to reinforce their Fax Lists criteria with the ruling of April 15, 1997 and with that of February 18, 1999. The first already held that observation carried out through a window does not require judicial authorization, unless It is necessary to overcome an “obstacle that has been predisposed to safeguard privacy.” “When, on the contrary, such an obstacle does not exist, as in the case of a window that allows you to see the life that takes place inside a home, a judicial authorization is not necessary to see what the owner of the home does not want. hide from others. Therefore, they consider that police surveillance does not violate the inviolability of the home.
Furthermore, in this case, taking into account that the photographs were not evaluated in the plenary session because they were illegal evidence (article 11 LOPJ), the appeal also invokes the theory of the fruits of the poisoned tree with which the defense intended that The entry and search order and the police surveillance were declared null and void. The court points out that the fact that images revealing criminal acts have been obtained in violation of the fundamental rights of those investigated does not imply that the authorization to enter and search the recorded home must be declared null, as long as it can be affirmed that it is not There has been an illegal connection between the different investigative proceedings or acts. “If the reflexive evidence is legally unrelated to the violation of the right and the prohibition of evaluating it is not required by the essential needs of its protection, it can be understood that its effective evaluation is constitutionally legitimate.”
In this sense, the magistrates try to reinforce their Fax Lists criteria with the ruling of April 15, 1997 and with that of February 18, 1999. The first already held that observation carried out through a window does not require judicial authorization, unless It is necessary to overcome an “obstacle that has been predisposed to safeguard privacy.” “When, on the contrary, such an obstacle does not exist, as in the case of a window that allows you to see the life that takes place inside a home, a judicial authorization is not necessary to see what the owner of the home does not want. hide from others. Therefore, they consider that police surveillance does not violate the inviolability of the home.
Furthermore, in this case, taking into account that the photographs were not evaluated in the plenary session because they were illegal evidence (article 11 LOPJ), the appeal also invokes the theory of the fruits of the poisoned tree with which the defense intended that The entry and search order and the police surveillance were declared null and void. The court points out that the fact that images revealing criminal acts have been obtained in violation of the fundamental rights of those investigated does not imply that the authorization to enter and search the recorded home must be declared null, as long as it can be affirmed that it is not There has been an illegal connection between the different investigative proceedings or acts. “If the reflexive evidence is legally unrelated to the violation of the right and the prohibition of evaluating it is not required by the essential needs of its protection, it can be understood that its effective evaluation is constitutionally legitimate.”